US Judges halt Trump administration's attempt to cut public school funding over DEI programs
Three federal judges blocked or delayed the Trump administration's recent efforts to clamp down on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs in public schools. The rulings came in separate lawsuits filed by civil rights and teachers' organizations who argued that the administration's directives were vague, overreaching, and violated constitutional rights.
Judges in New Hampshire, Maryland, and Washington, DC, issued rulings that limit or suspend implementation of recent guidance from the US Education Department.
In New Hampshire
US District Judge Landya McCafferty in New Hampshire said the administration's April guidance failed to clearly define DEI programs or clarify when such efforts might violate civil rights laws. 'The letter does not even define what a 'DEI program' is,' McCafferty wrote according to AP.
She added that the guidance could amount to viewpoint discrimination. 'A professor runs afoul of the 2025 letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism's existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination.'
In Maryland
In Maryland, US District Judge Stephanie Gallagher postponed the implementation of the February 14 memo, which had extended a 2023 Supreme Court decision banning race-based college admissions to other aspects of education, such as hiring, scholarships, and housing.
Gallagher found the memo was improperly issued and could force teachers to choose between 'being injured through suppressing their speech or through facing enforcement for exercising their constitutional rights.'
That case was filed by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT). Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, welcomed the ruling.
In Washington
In Washington, DC, a third judge granted a preliminary injunction against another element of the April guidance following a lawsuit by the NAACP, which argued that the administration failed to identify specific DEI practices that could trigger legal or financial penalties.
The US Education Department had given states until Thursday to certify that local schools are in compliance with civil rights law, including the abandonment of what it called 'illegal DEI practices.' States that refused to submit the form risked losing access to Title I funds — the primary federal aid program for schools in low-income communities.
President Donald Trump 's education secretary, Linda McMahon, emphasized the potential consequences in a Fox Business Network interview on Tuesday, saying states that refuse to sign could 'risk some defunding in their districts.'
McMahon said the goal was to ensure 'no discrimination happening in any of the schools.'
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
20 minutes ago
- The Hindu
U.S., China begin key trade talks in London
China and the United States began a new round of trade talks in London on Monday (June 9, 2025), Beijing's state media reported, as the world's two biggest economies seek to shore up a shaky truce after bruising tit-for-tat tariffs. The two sides are meeting in the historic Lancaster House, run by the U.K. Foreign Office, following a first round of talks in Geneva last month. Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng was again heading the team in London. Chinese state news agency Xinhua reported the start of the talks. Also read | Trump calls China's Xi tough, 'hard to make a deal with' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Trade Representative Jamieson Greer are leading the U.S. delegation, President Donald Trump said Friday. "The meeting should go very well," Mr. Trump said on his Truth Social platform. His press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, told Fox News on Sunday: "We want China and the United States to continue moving forward with the agreement that was struck in Geneva." While the U.K. government reiterated that it was not involved in the discussions, a spokesperson said: "We are a nation that champions free trade." U.K. authorities "have always been clear that a trade war is in nobody's interests, so we welcome these talks", the spokesperson added. Rare earths The talks in London come just a few days after Mr. Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping finally held their first publicly announced telephone talks since the Republican returned to the White House. Mr. Trump said Thursday's call reached a "very positive conclusion". Mr. Xi was quoted by Xinhua as saying "correcting the course of the big ship of Sino-U.S. relations requires us to steer well and set the direction". Tensions between the two nations have soared, with Mr. Trump accusing Beijing of violating a tariff de-escalation deal reached in Geneva in mid-May. "We need China to comply with their side of the deal. And so that's what the trade team will be discussing tomorrow," Ms. Leavitt said Sunday. A key issue will be Beijing's shipments of rare earths — crucial to a range of goods including electric vehicle batteries and which have been a bone of contention for some time. "Rare earth shipments from China to the US have slowed since President Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April," said Kathleen Brooks, research director at trading group XTB. "The US wants these shipments to be reinstated, while China wants the US to rethink immigration curbs on students, restrictions on access to advanced technology including microchips, and to make it easier for Chinese tech providers to access US consumers," she added. In April, Trump introduced sweeping worldwide tariffs that targeted China most heavily. At one point, Washington hit Beijing with additional levies of 145 percent on its goods, prompting China to respond with tariffs reaching 125% on US goods. After two days of talks in Switzerland, both sides agreed to slash the eye-watering tariffs for 90 days, but key differences remain -- especially over China's rare earth export restrictions. The impact was reflected in the latest official export data released Monday in Beijing. Exports to the United States fell 12.7%in May from the previous month, with China shipping $28.8 billion worth of goods. This was down from $33 billion in April, according to Beijing's General Administration of Customs. 'Green channel' Throughout its talks with Washington, China has also launched discussions with other trading partners — including Japan and South Korea — to try to build a united front to counter Trump's tariffs. On Thursday, Beijing and Canada agreed to regularise their channels of communication after strained ties. Beijing has also proposed establishing a "green channel" to ease exports of rare earths to the European Union, and fast-tracking approval of some export licenses. China is expected to host a summit with the EU in July, marking 50 years since Beijing and Brussels established diplomatic ties. According to a spokesperson for Starmer, Britain's finance minister Rachel Reeves took advantage of the talks in London to meet with her US counterpart Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng on Sunday.
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump vs. Musk feud started in private: Shocking details emerge about tense meeting before public meltdown
Trump and Elon Musk were already fighting in private before their feud went public. A tense meeting over a NASA pick made things worse. What followed was a wave of insults, anger, and big moves from both sides. Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads What made Trump Mad Tired of too many ads? Remove Ads How the dirty laundry got public FAQs Trump and Elon Musk had a private fight before the drama exploded in public this week. Their feud was already heating up right after Musk's strange farewell party, where he showed up with a black eye and gave a weird excuse for it, as per to White House insiders, Trump got angry just before Musk's final Oval Office meeting last week. Trump had just found out that Jared Isaacman, the guy Musk wanted to lead NASA, had donated a lot of money to Democrats in recent years, as mentioned in the report by New York though political donations are easy to find online like on OpenSecrets, Trump hadn't noticed this before and got mad when he found out. After being friendly during Musk's televised farewell, Trump got real and told Musk this wasn't okay. Trump even read some names out loud, while shaking his head. He told Musk straight up, 'This isn't good', as per tried to defend Isaacman by saying his donations showed Trump's team was open to hiring from all political sides, like Trump himself. But Trump didn't care, he basically called Isaacman a 'turncoat', meaning a that intense talk at the end of May, Isaacman's nomination was canceled. That moment pushed Musk over the edge. He got super mad at Trump. Just days later, Musk started thrashing Trump's 2025 budget and tax plan, calling it an 'abomination.' Musk also went way too far by hinting at a pedophilia accusation against Trump, as mentioned by New York Times hit back publicly, in his usual harsh style. Trump even threatened to cancel SpaceX's NASA contracts. And as a final slap, Trump decided to sell the red Tesla he had bought in March, which he had originally bought to show support for had a private argument over Musk's NASA nominee, who had donated to threatened SpaceX contracts and sold his Tesla car to show he's done with Musk.
Mint
31 minutes ago
- Mint
Donald Trump's new travel ban is coming into effect
The executive order banning travel from 12 countries, which comes into effect on June 9th, is more methodical than previous iterations. In his first batch of executive orders, issued on January 20th, President Donald Trump directed several top advisers to compile a list of countries with insufficient screening standards for potential migrants, which they considered to be a national-security risk. The order warned that people from these countries could be barred from coming to America. It was a signal that Mr Trump intended to resurrect the travel ban, one of the most controversial immigration policies of his first term. Most of the countries targeted in this, the fourth version of the policy, are in the Middle East and Africa. Nationals from seven other countries, including Cuba and Venezuela, face partial restrictions. A country might find itself on the travel-ban list if its citizens tend to overstay their visas; if it has refused to take back deportees; if instability within the country prevents proper screening or information sharing; or if it 'has a significant terrorist presence'. A tally from David Bier and Alex Nowrasteh of the Cato Institute, a libertarian think-tank, suggests that 116,000 immigrants, and more than 500,000 visitors (including students and temporary workers) could be affected by the ban over the next four years. The way the ban was rolled out and how the proclamation was written shows how the White House has learned from its earlier failures. When Mr Trump first tried to ban travel from seven Muslim-majority countries in 2017, chaos ensued. Travellers who had already been issued visas or were approved for refugee resettlement were held at airports. Some green-card holders were detained. The ban followed through on a campaign promise for 'a total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on'. Thousands of Americans, joined by Democratic Party leaders, gathered at big-city airports to protest. This was early in Mr Trump's first term and the #resistance was in full swing. Federal judges issued nationwide injunctions to block the first and second iterations of the travel ban. A third version of the policy ended up in front of the Supreme Court by virtue of Trump v Hawaii. Writing for the court, Chief Justice John Roberts found that the Immigration and Nationality Act gives the president exceptional discretion to bar certain people, including specific nationalities, from the country so long as he can argue that their presence is 'detrimental to the interests of the United States'. The ruling offered yet more evidence for what Adam Cox of New York University has termed 'immigration exceptionalism': the court's profound deference to the president where immigration policy is concerned. That opinion influenced the way the Trump administration resurrected the policy for his second term. The president halted refugee admissions in January (except for white South Africans) and waited until June to implement the new travel ban, to try to avoid the kind of protests and litigation that took place last time around. The proclamation announcing the new ban lists each country and the justification for its inclusion on the list. There are exemptions, including for green-card holders, athletes travelling to America for the World Cup or the Olympics in coming years, Afghans who worked for the American government and the immediate families of Americans, so long as they can prove their relationship. This is a 'much more defensible executive order than the iterations in Trump 1.0', says Muzaffar Chishti of the Migration Policy Institute. But just because travel ban 4.0 looks like it will hold up in court doesn't mean it makes sense. Like slapping tariffs on allies to bring back American manufacturing or declaring a foreign invasion to speed up deportations, Mr Trump's justification for banning foreigners from these countries does not hold up to much scrutiny. The president suggested that the ban would help neutralise national-security threats such as the recent attack on Jewish marchers in Boulder by an Egyptian man who overstayed his visa. Yet Egypt is not on the list. A Department of Homeland Security report confirms that most listed countries do indeed have high visa-overstay rates. But, with the exception of Haiti and Venezuela, the total number of people from restricted countries who didn't leave America when they were supposed to is relatively small. Meanwhile some 40,000 Colombians and 21,000 Brazilians, who are not subject to travel restrictions, overstayed their tourist and short-term work visas (see chart), yet their countrymen are not banned. The travel ban also sends a message. It is yet another signal—along with the detention of international students for their political views and immigration raids in big cities—that America is becoming much more hostile to foreigners. When the Supreme Court decided Trump v Hawaii in 2018, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote a concurring opinion in which he describes an 'anxious world' watching to see whether America's leaders 'adhere to the Constitution and to its meaning and its promise'. That warning looks ever more prescient.
