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
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump tariffs may remain in effect while appeals proceed, U.S. Appeals court decides
By Dietrich Knauth (Reuters) -A federal appeals court allowed President Donald Trump's most sweeping tariffs to remain in effect on Tuesday while it reviews a lower court decision blocking them on grounds that Trump had exceeded his authority by imposing them. The decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington, D.C. means Trump may continue to enforce, for now, his "Liberation Day" tariffs on imports from most U.S. trading partners, as well as a separate set of tariffs levied on Canada, China and Mexico. The appeals court has yet to rule on whether the tariffs are permissible under an emergency economic powers act that Trump cited to justify them, but it allowed the tariffs to remain in place while the appeals play out. The tariffs, used by Trump as negotiating leverage with U.S. trading partners, and their on-again, off-again nature have shocked markets and whipsawed companies of all sizes as they seek to manage supply chains, production, staffing and prices. The ruling has no impact on other tariffs levied under more traditional legal authority, such as tariffs on steel and aluminum imports. A three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of International Trade ruled on May 28 that the U.S. Constitution gave Congress, not the president, the power to levy taxes and tariffs, and that the president had exceeded his authority by invoking the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, a law intended to address "unusual and extraordinary" threats during national emergencies. The Trump administration quickly appealed the ruling, and the Federal Circuit in Washington put the lower court decision on hold the next day while it considered whether to impose a longer-term pause. The ruling came in a pair of lawsuits, one filed by the nonpartisan Liberty Justice Center on behalf of five small U.S. businesses that import goods from countries targeted by the duties and the other by 12 U.S. states. Trump has claimed broad authority to set tariffs under IEEPA. The 1977 law has historically been used to impose sanctions on enemies of the U.S. or freeze their assets. Trump is the first U.S. president to use it to impose tariffs. Trump has said that the tariffs imposed in February on Canada, China and Mexico were to fight illegal fentanyl trafficking at U.S. borders, denied by the three countries, and that the across-the-board tariffs on all U.S. trading partners imposed in April were a response to the U.S. trade deficit. The states and small businesses had argued the tariffs were not a legal or appropriate way to address those matters, and the small businesses argued that the decades-long U.S. practice of buying more goods than it exports does not qualify as an emergency that would trigger IEEPA. At least five other court cases have challenged the tariffs justified under the emergency economic powers act, including other small businesses and the state of California. One of those cases, in federal court in Washington, D.C., also resulted in an initial ruling against the tariffs, and no court has yet backed the unlimited emergency tariff authority Trump has claimed. Errore nel recupero dei dati Effettua l'accesso per consultare il tuo portafoglio Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati Errore nel recupero dei dati
Associated Press
23 minutes ago
- Associated Press
Judge tosses lawsuit over Trump's firing of US African Development Foundation board members
A federal judge has tossed out a lawsuit over President Donald Trump's dismantling of a U.S. federal agency that invests in African small businesses. U.S. District Judge Richard Leon in Washington, D.C., dismissed the case on Tuesday, finding that Trump was acting within his legal authority when he fired the U.S. African Development Foundation's board members in February. In March, the same judge ruled that the administration's removal of most grant money and staff from the congressionally created agency was also legal, as long as the agency was maintained at the minimum level required by law. USADF was created as an independent agency in 1980, and its board members must be confirmed by the U.S. Senate. In 2023, Congress allocated $46 million to the agency to invest in small agricultural and energy infrastructure projects and other economic development initiatives in 22 African countries. On Feb. 19, Trump issued an executive order that said USADF, the U.S. Institute of Peace, the Inter-American Foundation and the Presidio Trust should be scaled back to the minimum presence required by law. At the time, USADF had five of its seven board seats filled. A few days later, an administration official told Ward Brehm that he was fired, and emails were sent to the other board members notifying them that they had also been terminated. Those emails were never received, however, because they were sent to the wrong email addresses. The four board members, believing they still held their posts because they had not been given notice, met in March and passed a resolution appointing Brehm as the president of the board. But Trump had already appointed Pete Marocco as the new chairman of what the administration believed to now be a board of one. Since then, both men have claimed to be the president of the agency, and Brehm filed the lawsuit March 6. Leon said that even though they didn't receive the emails, the four board members were effectively terminated in February, and so they didn't have the authority to appoint Brehm to lead the board. An attorney for Brehm did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Another lawsuit over the dismantling of the agency is still pending before the same judge. In that case, two USADF staffers and a consulting firm based in Zambia that works closely with USADF contend that the Trump administration's efforts to deeply scale back the agency wrongly usurps Congress' powers. They also say Marocco was unlawfully appointed to the board, in part because he was never confirmed by the Senate as required. Leon's ruling in Brehm's case did not address whether the Trump administration had the power to install Marocco as board chair on a temporary basis.
Yahoo
23 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Acting NJ U.S. Attorney Alina Habba says Rep. LaMonica McIver indicted
A grand jury indicted U.S. Rep. LaMonica McIver on charges related to an incident at Delaney Hall in Newark last month, according to a social media post made by acting U.S. Attorney for New Jersey Alina Habba. McIver was at Delaney Hall with U.S. Rep. Bonnie Watson Coleman and U.S. Rep. Rob Menendez to "inspect the treatment of ICE detainees at Delaney Hall." All three are Democrats. The congresswoman said in a statement the 'facts of this case will prove I was simply doing my job and will expose these proceedings for what they are: a brazen attempt at political intimidation. 'This indictment is no more justified than the original charges, and is an effort by Trump's administration to dodge accountability for the chaos ICE caused and scare me out of doing the work I was elected to do,' McIver said. 'But it won't work — I will not be intimidated. The facts are on our side, I will be entering a plea of not guilty, I'm grateful for the support of my community, and I look forward to my day in court.' Habba said the federal grand jury 'returned a three-count indictment' against McIver for 'forcibly impeding and interfering with federal law enforcement officers.' 'It is my constitutional obligation as the chief federal law enforcement officer for New Jersey to ensure that our federal partners are protected when executing their duties,' she said. 'While people are free to express their views for or against particular policies, they must not do so in a manner that endangers law enforcement and the communities those officers serve.' The three counts have a maximum penalty of eight years for count one, an additional maximum penalty of eight years for count two and a maximum penalty of one year for count three. Earlier: NJ Rep. LaMonica McIver makes court appearance for assault charges in Newark ICE incident McIver said in a statement on May 19 she and her colleagues were "fulfilling our lawful oversight responsibilities, as members of Congress have done many times before, and our visit should have been peaceful and short." "Instead, ICE agents created an unnecessary and unsafe confrontation when they chose to arrest Mayor Baraka," she said. "The charges against me are purely political -- they mischaracterize and distort my actions, and are meant to criminalize and deter legislative oversight." Newark Mayor Ras Baraka had been arrested at Delaney Hall for trespassing but the charges have since been dropped. He is suing Habba for 'false arrest and malicious prosecution.' McIver's lawyer, Paul Fishman, served as U.S. Attorney in New Jersey during the Obama administration. He said in May the "decision to charge Congresswoman McIver is spectacularly inappropriate." "She went to Delaney Hall to do her job. As a member of Congress, she has the right and responsibility to see how ICE is treating detainees," Fishman said. "Rather than facilitating that inspection, ICE agents chose to escalate what should have been a peaceful situation into chaos. This prosecution is an attempt to shift the blame for ICE's behavior to Congresswoman McIver. In the courtroom, facts — not headlines — will matter." Katie Sobko covers the New Jersey Statehouse. Email: sobko@ This article originally appeared on NJ U.S. Attorney Alina Habba: Rep. LaMonica McIver indicted
