Trump administration cancels $1 billion in grants for student mental health
Advertisement
The department did not specify a civil rights law or provide the grant recipients with any evidence of violations, according to the notice reviewed by The New York Times.
Get Starting Point
A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday.
Enter Email
Sign Up
An Education Department spokesperson confirmed that the grants had been discontinued because of a particular focus on increasing the diversity of psychologists, counselors, and other mental health workers.
'Under the deeply flawed priorities of the Biden administration, grant recipients used the funding to implement race-based actions like recruiting quotas in ways that have nothing to do with mental health and could hurt the very students the grants are supposed to help,' said Madi Biedermann, the department's deputy assistant secretary for communications. 'We owe it to American families to ensure that taxpayer dollars are supporting evidence-based practices that are truly focused on improving students' mental health.'
Advertisement
Biedermann declined to provide applications that the department viewed as discriminatory, citing privacy laws. Instead, she offered examples of specific provisions pulled from lengthy applications.
A provision in one application set a 'diversity goal' of hiring eight nonwhite counselors out of a total of 24. A line in an additional application included training for mental health professionals that included helping counselors 'recognize and challenge systemic injustices, antiracism and the pervasiveness of white supremacy to ethically support diverse communities.'
Another highlighted the importance of handling 'racial stress and trauma' of students. One applicant's training included understanding 'the influences of racism and white privilege in education practice.'
The grant cancellations were reported earlier by The Associated Press.
Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn, who helped negotiate the legislation, said it was illegal for any president to halt funding approved by Congress and called on Republican supporters to stand up for the law. Three Republican senators, John Cornyn of Texas, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina, who wrote a column in support of the law three years ago did not return calls seeking comment.
'I'm raw about this because I sat in the room for a long time negotiating a really delicate compromise on a really tough issue,' Murphy said in an interview. 'What's the point of being in Congress and writing laws if the president can just ignore them? So, I'm angry that my Republican partners are not out there raising objections to what the president is doing.'
Christopher Rufo, a conservative activist who has spearheaded the assault on critical race theory and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, posted screenshots on social media this week of some grant applications, which he said were proof that the program was 'being used to advance left-wing racialism and discrimination.'
Advertisement
'No more slush fund for activists under the guise of mental health,' Rufo wrote.
But Mary Wall, a former deputy assistant secretary for education involved in setting up the process to solicit bids for the program under the Biden administration, said it was a 'gross overstep' to equate mental health services with the radicalization of children.
The application process favored programs that reflected the communities they served, she said. Programs aimed at training mental health professionals for predominantly minority communities, for example, received extra consideration if they could show how the training would be aimed at professionals with similar backgrounds. Wall said this was 'a common-sense practice' with proven results.
'One of the first questions after every single school shooting is whether the student had access to mental health support and services,' Wall said. 'It is no stretch to say that taking away this support introduces the risk of harm to school communities and students.'
This article originally appeared in
.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Atlantic
26 minutes ago
- Atlantic
The White House Is Delighted With Events in Los Angeles
The last time President Donald Trump tried to send military forces into American streets to put down civil unrest, in June 2020, Pete Hegseth was positioned outside the White House with a Kevlar helmet and riot shield. Major Hegseth's mobilization as part of a District of Columbia National Guard unit summoned to restore order in the nation's capital, where protests had erupted following the police murder of George Floyd, occurred as Pentagon leaders scrambled to avert what they feared could be a confrontation between active-duty U.S. forces and their fellow Americans. Today, Hegseth is second only to the president in directing the administration's use of the National Guard and active-duty Marines to respond to unrest over immigration raids in Los Angeles. And this time, the military's civilian leadership isn't acting as a brake on Trump's impulse to escalate the confrontation. The Hegseth-led Pentagon is an accelerant. The administration's decision to federalize 4,000 California National Guard forces, contrary to Governor Gavin Newsom's wishes, and to dispatch 700 active-duty Marines to the Los Angeles area, marks a break with decades of tradition under which presidents have limited their use of the military on American soil. If there are any internal misgivings about busting through yet another democratic norm, they haven't surfaced publicly. Indeed, officials at the White House told us they are satisfied with the way the L.A. confrontation has unfolded. They believe that it highlights their focus on immigration and law and order, and places Democrats on the wrong side of both. One widely circulated photo—showing a masked protester standing in front of a burning car, waving a Mexican flag—has been embraced by Trump supporters as a distillation of the conflict: a president unafraid to use force to defend an American city from those he deems foreign invaders. 'We couldn't have scripted this better,' said a senior White House aide granted anonymity to discuss internal conversations. 'It's like the 2024 election never ended: Trump is strong while Democrats are weak and defending the indefensible.' Democrats, of course, take a different view, and say the administration's actions have only risked triggering further violence. Retired officers who study how the armed forces have been used in democracies told us they share those concerns. They point to the damage that Trump's orders could do to the military's relationship with the citizens it serves. 'We should be very careful, cautious, and even reluctant to use the military inside our country,' Bradley Bowman, a former Army officer who heads the defense program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, told us. Conor Friedersdorf: Averting a worst-case scenario in Los Angeles State and local authorities typically use law-enforcement personnel as a first response to civil disturbances or riots, followed by National Guard forces if needed. Retired Major General Randy Manner, who served as acting vice chief of the National Guard Bureau during the Obama administration, said the federalizing of California Guard forces—putting them under presidential rather than state control, a move allowed with certain limits—pulls those service members away from their civilian jobs and makes it harder to complete planned training or exercises. 'Basically, the risk does not justify the investment of these forces, and it will negatively impact on readiness,' Manner told us. Retired officers we spoke with also drew a distinction between the involvement of National Guard and active-duty forces. Whereas National Guard troops assist citizens after natural disasters and have the advantage of knowing the communities they serve, active-duty forces are primarily trained to 'see the enemy and neutralize the enemy,' said Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel now at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'When you're dealing with U.S. citizens, no matter what they're doing, that's not the right mindset.' 'This is not Fallujah,' Bowman added. 'This is Los Angeles.' Juliette Kayyem: Trump's gross misuse of the National Guard This morning, Hegseth made his first congressional appearance since his bruising confirmation process, appearing before a House committee. His tone with Democrats was at times combative. When Representative Betty McCollum, a Minnesota Democrat, asked the defense secretary what the cost of the California deployment would be, he declined to provide a figure and instead pivoted to criticism of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for the state's response to the violence that followed Floyd's killing in 2020. (Military officials said later they expected the Los Angeles deployment, as envisioned, to cost roughly $134 million.) 'If you've got millions of illegals, you don't know where they're coming from, they're waving flags from foreign countries and assaulting police officers, that's a problem,' Hegseth told lawmakers. Trump, for his part, told reporters that anyone who tries to protest at the Saturday parade celebrating the 250th birthday of the U.S. Army will 'be met with very big force.' He also said that he wouldn't hesitate to invoke the Insurrection Act, which would permit him to employ the military for law enforcement or to suppress a rebellion, if he believed that circumstances required. Speaking to troops at Fort Bragg in North Carolina later in the day, the president promised to stop the 'anarchy' in California. ' We will liberate Los Angeles and make it free, clean, and safe again,' he said. 'We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy.' Some Republicans have privately expressed worry that Trump may overplay a winning hand. Even in the West Wing, two people we spoke with tried to downplay the incendiary rhetoric from Trump and Hegseth. They stressed that, to this point, National Guard forces have been in a defensive posture, protecting federal buildings. Although they believe that Trump has the political advantage at the moment, they acknowledged there would be real risks if U.S. troops got involved in violence. 'We don't know who would get blamed but no one wins if that happens,' one senior aide told us. 'No one wants to see that.' Hegseth's support for using active-duty troops in Los Angeles stands in contrast to what his predecessor did in 2020. At that time, Defense Secretary Mark Esper, along with Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Mark Milley, scrambled to block Trump's desire to employ active-duty forces against the demonstrators protesting racial violence. The president had mused about shooting protesters in the legs, Esper wrote later. To satisfy his boss while also avoiding a dangerous confrontation, the defense chief called active-duty forces from Fort Bragg to Northern Virginia but sought to keep them out of the fray. Tom Nichols: Trump is using the National Guard as bait In his 2024 book The War on Warrior s, Hegseth described how his experience as a D.C. Guardsman in 2020 crystallized his views about the divide between military personnel and what he saw as the degenerate protesters who were lobbing bricks and bottles of urine at the citizen soldiers. When the D.C. Guard was again summoned seven months later, to help secure the 2021 inauguration following the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol, Hegseth was told to stand down because fellow Guardsmen suspected that one of his tattoos was a sign of extremism. (Hegseth has maintained it is part of his Christian faith.) Hegseth was angered by his exclusion and resigned from the Guard. That experience remains with him as he attempts to reshape the military, and its role in society, in line with Trump's worldview. As he has written: 'My trust for this Army is irrevocably broken.'
New York Post
27 minutes ago
- New York Post
Biden admin evacuated 55 Afghans on terror watchlist to US during botched withdrawal: DOJ watchdog
US officials encountered 55 Afghan evacuees on the terrorist watchlist after the Biden administration's chaotic 2021 withdrawal from the Middle Eastern country, according to a Justice Department inspector general report. The report, released Tuesday, confirmed longstanding suspicions from Republican lawmakers that the Biden administration failed to properly vet US-bound refugees as the Taliban retook control of Afghanistan. 'I've sounded the alarm about the need to thoroughly vet Afghan evacuee applicants since August 2021,' Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) said in a statement, reacting to the DOJ IG report. 'The Biden-Harris administration, my Democrat colleagues in Congress and many in the media were quick to dismiss glaring red flags that a nonpartisan national security analysis now confirms.' 3 Grassley charged that the Biden administration endangered the lives of Americans by allowing improperly vetted Afghan refugees into the US. AP The FBI's Terrorist Screening Center (TSC) identified 55 Afghans that were either already on the terrorist watchlist and made it to a US port of entry or were added to the database during the evacuation and resettlement process, the report found. Of those, at least 21 were added to the terror list after they had already entered the US. After investigations, the FBI eventually removed 46 evacuees from the watchlist, determining that they posed no threat to the homeland. However, nine remained in the terror database as of July 2024 and eight were in the US. 'As if it wasn't already obvious, the Biden-Harris administration endangered American lives by allowing suspected terrorists to enter the United States and roam free for years,' Grassley argued, noting that his 'oversight of this matter will continue.' Roughly 90,000 Afghans were allowed entry into the US and became eligible for Special immigrant Visas under the Biden administration's Operation Allies Refuge (OAR) and Operation Allies Welcome (OAW) programs, which provided the foreign nationals immigration processing and resettlement support. 'According to the FBI, the need to immediately evacuate Afghans overtook the normal processes required to determine whether individuals attempting to enter the United States pose a threat to national security, which increased the risk that bad actors could try to exploit the expedited evacuation,' the DOJ IG report stated. Despite the 55 individuals flagged, the DOJ inspector general determined that overall 'each of the responsible elements of the FBI effectively communicated and addressed any potential national security risks identified.' 3 The Biden administration hastily evacuated tens of thousands of Afghans as the country fell to the Taliban in 2021. AFP via Getty Images 3 As of July 2024, eight Afghans on the FBI's terror watchlist were still in the United States. AP Last October, the DOJ charged an Afghan national brought into the US during the chaotic withdrawal with plotting an ISIS-inspired Election Day terror attack. Nasir Ahmad Tawhedi, 27, was living in Oklahoma City on a Special Immigrant Visa as he took steps to stockpile AK-47 rifles and ammunition to carry out an attack on US soil 'in the name of ISIS,' according to the Justice Department. Tawhedi entered the US on Sept. 9, 2021, just weeks after the Taliban regained control of Afghanistan and the last US troops departed from the war-torn nation. Tawhedi was charged with conspiring and attempting to provide material support to ISIS and is currently awaiting trial.
San Francisco Chronicle
41 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Arizona governor vetoes bill banning teaching antisemitism, calls it an attack on educators
PHOENIX (AP) — Arizona Gov. Katie Hobbs has vetoed a proposal that would have banned teaching antisemitism at the state's public K-12 schools, universities and colleges and exposed educators who violate the new rules to discipline and lawsuits. The proposal would have prohibited teachers and administrators from teaching or promoting antisemitism or antisemitic actions that create a hostile environment, calling for the genocide of any group or requiring students to advocate for an antisemitic point of view. It also would have barred public schools from using public money to support the teaching of antisemitism. Hobbs, a Democrat, said Tuesday that the bill was not about antisemitism but rather about attacking teachers. 'It puts an unacceptable level of personal liability in place for our public school, community college, and university educators and staff, opening them up to threats of personally costly lawsuits," she said in a statement. "Additionally, it sets a dangerous precedent that unfairly targets public school teachers while shielding private school staff." Hobbs described antisemitism as a very troubling issue in the U.S., but said students and parents can go through the state's Board of Education to report antisemitism. The measure cleared the Legislature last week on a 33-20 vote by the House, including a few Democrats who crossed party lines to support it. It's one of a few proposals to combat antisemitism across the country. Democrats tried but failed to remove the lawsuit provision and swap out references to antisemitism within the bill with 'unlawful discrimination' to reflect other discrimination. The bill's chief sponsor, Republican Rep. Michael Way, of Queen Creek, has said his proposal would create accountability when educators fail to protect students from the rise in antisemitism since the start of the Israel-Hamas war. Opponents said the bill aimed to silence people who want to speak out on the oppression of Palestinians and opened up educators to personal legal liability in lawsuits students could file. Students over the age of 18 and the parents of younger pupils would have been able to file lawsuits over violations that create a hostile education environment, leaving teachers responsible for paying any damages that may be awarded, denying them immunity and prohibiting the state from paying any judgments arising from any such lawsuits. Last week, Lori Shepherd, executive director of Tucson Jewish Museum & Holocaust Center, wrote in a letter to Hobbs that if the bill were approved it would threaten teachers' ability to provide students with a full account of the holocaust. Under the bill, 'those discussions could be deemed 'antisemitic' depending on how a single phrase is interpreted, regardless of intent or context,' she said. The bill would have created a process for punishing those who break the rules. At K-12 schools, a first-offense violation would lead to a reprimand, a second offense to a suspension of a teacher or principal's certificate and a third offense to a revocation of the certificate. At colleges and universities, violators would have faced a reprimand on first offense, a suspension without pay for a second offense and termination for a third offense. The proposal also would have required colleges and universities to consider violations by employees to be a negative factor when making employment or tenure decisions. Under the proposal, universities and colleges couldn't recognize any student organization that invites a guest speaker who incites antisemitism, encourages its members to engage in antisemitism or calls for the genocide of any group. Elsewhere in the U.S., a Louisiana lawmaker is pushing a resolution that asks universities to adopt policies to combat antisemitism on campuses and collect data on antisemitism-related reports and complaints. And a Michigan lawmaker has proposed putting a definition of antisemitism into the state's civil rights law.
