Funding at Risk: Trump Administration’s Crackdown on DEI in K-12 Schools
The Trump administration, through the U.S. Department of Education, threatens K-12 federal funding if schools do not comply with removing their DEI programs, prompting legal battles and state resistance
BRIANNA PAULINO
DEI Representation and Inclusion, Vitalii Vodolazsky for iShutterstock 2023
Since the start of President Trump’s second term in January 2025, local politicians, educators, and students have been monitoring the turbulent shifts in education. A prime example of a change in education is the Trump administration’s push to remove diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives from universities and K-12 schools. For example, the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter, written and sent by the U.S. Department of Education in February 2025, required schools to remove DEI programs under Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1965 or risk losing federal funding. This came as alarming news for schools across the nation, especially those that depend on Title I funding, as these schools often have high percentages of low-income and minority students. The recent crackdown on K-12 DEI programs by the administration represents a significant political and legal shift in education, jeopardizing funding for vulnerable students and raising concerns about federal overreach and equitable education.
What is Title I, and what is its importance?
To understand the context of recent administrative actions and the reactions from states and courts, we must first define Title I and its vital role in supporting low-income schools. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act’s Title I offers extra financial aid to school districts with high percentages of low-income students.Title I funding is for K-12 schools in which at least 40% of students come from low-income households. Title I helps ensure students receive the resources they need to succeed academically, such as counseling resources, after-school programs, and additional instructional materials for classes. As a result, Title I ranks among the Education Department’s largest federal grants. For example, this fiscal year, the federal government has allocated over $18.38 billion to Title I school programs, benefiting numerous public schools across the country. Despite constituting just 10% of total education funding, federal assistance plays a crucial role in supporting under-resourced schools, sometimes surpassing local funding in low-income districts.
To highlight the importance of Title I federal funding to schools, one example can be found in Newark, New Jersey, a large public school district serving around 42,000 students. New Jersey, in total, earns around $460 million in Title I funding, with Newark setting aside $23.9 million. A Chalkbeat article reveals that 40% or more of Newark school children are from low-income homes. This statistic highlights the significant effect of overall federal funding on students in low-income communities across the nation. The potential loss of funding under the new administration is a serious concern for educators, especially for those serving rural and low-income communities that depend on federal funding to achieve their educational goals.
The Federal Directive: A New Interpretation of Civil Rights Law Regarding The Education Environment
As previously mentioned, schools nationwide received a letter from the U.S. Education Department on February 14, infamously known from news sources as the ‘Dear Colleague’ letter. The letter’s central and controversial point was a call to suspend DEI programs in schools immediately, alleging that these programs wrongly teach students about systemic racism in the US. Following this, on April 3rd, the Education Department issued a second letter, warning schools that failure to terminate DEI policies could result in the loss of federal funding. The letter demands that schools and state officials sign and return a compliance certification within 10 days, demonstrating adherence to the administration’s interpretation of Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, the demands also include adherence to the 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, a case that certifies that utilizing affirmative action in admissions to colleges/universities is unconstitutional, leading to disruption of ethnic makeup in higher education.
States’ Responses Regarding Administration’s Demands
Several Democratic-leaning states have defied the administration’s order, citing ethical concerns over its demands. These states insist they have consistently complied with the Civil Rights Act of 1964. To guarantee fair education for all students, these states acted to prevent the Trump administration’s interference through legal challenges and public statements.
One example of a state willing to take a stance against the administration is New Jersey. Despite reviewing the demands, the NJ Department of Education prioritized determining the next steps, reaffirming their commitment to equitable, high-quality education for all students, as stated by a spokesperson. Additionally, New Jersey Attorney General Matthew Platkin vowed to fight any attempt that threatens to take away critical funding. By actively fighting for educational equity, New Jersey demonstrates to other states that compliance is not the only path to equity. The firm stance taken by New Jersey and other states may encourage further state-level pushback on federal overreach that can negatively affect students.
States like New Jersey are opposing the administration and carefully examining the letter. New York publicly rejected the order, and Chicago warned of legal challenges should school funding be reduced. California argues that they are already in compliance with the civil rights laws, as they question the validity of the demands’ interpretation of these particular laws. Massachusetts’ education department contacted the Trump administration, asserting its continued commitment to school DEI programs, claiming compliance with the 1964 Civil Rights Act.In a letter to the U.S. Department of Education, Massachusetts Education Secretary Patrick Tutwiller emphasized the state’s ongoing dedication to school diversity, highlighting its benefits for students and acknowledging the significant work ahead. The states’ actions and responses both uphold their legal standing and publicly reinforce their educational principles. By insisting they meet existing civil rights laws, they reframe the educational discussion, suggesting the core issueis ideological, not legal. Such resistance may shape public views, affect future legal cases, and encourage other states to reassess the ramifications of complying with federal pressures.
However, not all states are taking a stance against the Trump Administration’s educational demands. To avoid losing federal funding, several states, including Georgia, dropped their DEI school programs in response to the U.S. Department of Education mandates. A key reason for Georgia’s compliance was the concern that vital funding for their students would be cut from their public schools, especially considering that these funds go directly towards operational programs and activities for students’ improvement in education. For context, Georgia’s current fiscal year saw over $1 billion in federal grants; these funds specifically aided students with disabilities and those experiencing homelessness.
The fear of losing essential federal funding is highlighted by these separate examples of state actions. One could either oppose or fully accept these demands.
The Legal Battle
In late April 2025, three federal judges blocked the Trump administration’s order to end DEI programs in schools. This ruling was favorable for those opposing the Trump Administration’s policies as it prevents the Department of Education from withholding federal funding from non-compliant school districts. These three cases share similar concerns about the Trump administration’s interpretation of the 1965 Civil Rights Act regarding DEI programs. Maryland’s U.S. District Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher cited the “Dear Colleague” letter as broad, unsupported claims of “harmful discriminatory teaching, lacking factual citations or supporting evidence”.
Teacher unions and civil rights organizations are the ones who have challenged the Trump administration’s demands in court. With a few collaborating, they are able to achieve the goal of having the orders blocked by federal judges. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) is one of the teachers’ unions that have sued the Trump administration. The president of the AFT, Randi Weingarten, criticized the Trump administration, alleging that the President is bullying schools to align with his political ideology, despite advocating for local decision-making in education. In addition, the National Education Association (NEA) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) argued in their New Hampshire case that the Trump administration’s directives contravene congressional statutes by interfering with local curriculum and instruction. Thankfully, the court cases against the current administration led to a sign of hope in protecting K-12 schools nationwide. The legal action by AFT, NEA, and ACLU is vital in the broader fight for educational equity; it shows educators and civil rights groups actively defending schools’ ability to equitably serve all students against political overreach. These legal battles underscore that education needs to prioritize student needs and constitutional rights over shifting political agendas.
Conclusion
The discussion about DEI policies relates to the future of fair schooling and the federal government’s involvement. Even though three courts in late April temporarily stopped the administration from withholding federal funds, given the rapid national changes, it is crucial to watch out for any more changes that could disproportionately affect students’ access to fair education.
