The Digital Equity Act tried to close the digital divide. Trump calls it racist and acts to end it
It all came crashing down this month when President Donald Trump — on his own digital platform, Truth Social — announced his intention to end the Digital Equity Act, a federal grant program meant to help bridge the digital divide. He branded it as 'RACIST and ILLEGAL' and said it amounts to 'woke handouts based on race.' He said it was an 'ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway," though the program was actually funded with $2.75 billion.
The name seemed innocuous enough when the program was approved by Congress in 2021 as part of a $65 billion investment meant to bring internet access to every home and business in the United States. The broadband program itself was a key component of the $1 trillion infrastructure law pushed through by the administration of Democratic President Joe Biden.
The Digital Equity Act was intended to fill gaps and cover unmet needs that surfaced during the massive broadband rollout. It gave states and tribes flexibility to deliver high-speed internet access to families that could not afford it, computers to kids who did not have them, telehealth access to older adults in rural areas, and training and job skills to veterans.
Whether Trump has the legal authority to end the program remains unknown. But for now the Republican administration can simply stop spending the money.
'I just felt my heart break for what we were finally, finally in this country, going to address, the digital divide," said Angela Siefer, executive director of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance, a nonprofit that was awarded — but has not received — a $25.7 million grant to work with groups across the country to help provide access to technology. 'The digital divide is not just physical access to the internet, it is being able to use that to do what you need to do.'
The word 'equity'
While the name of the program likely got it targeted — the Trump administration has been aggressively scrubbing the government of programs that promote diversity, equity or inclusion — the Digital Equity Act was supposed to be broader in scope.
Though Trump called it racist, the words 'race' or 'racial' appear just twice in the law's text: once, alongside 'color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability,' in a passage stating that no groups should be excluded from funding, and later, in a list of covered populations, along with older adults, veterans, people with disabilities, English learners, people with low literacy levels and rural Americans.
'Digital Equity passed with overwhelming bipartisan support,' said Democratic Sen. Patty Murray of Washington, the act's chief proponent, in a statement. 'And that's because my Republican colleagues have heard the same stories as I have — like kids in rural communities forced to drive to McDonalds parking lots for Wi-Fi to do their homework.
"It is insane — absolutely nuts — that Trump is blocking resources to help make sure kids in rural school districts can get hot spots or laptops, all because he doesn't like the word equity!'
The National Telecommunications and Information Administration, which administers the program, declined to comment. It's not entirely clear how much of the $2.75 billion has been awarded, though last March the NTIA announced the allocation of $811 million to states, territories and tribes.
'More confident'
On a recent morning in Portland, Oregon, Brandon Dorn was among those taking a keyboard basics class offered by Free Geek, a nonprofit that provides free courses to help people learn to use computers. The class was offered at a low-income housing building to make it accessible for residents.
Dorn and the others were given laptops and shown the different functions of keys: control, shift and caps lock, how to copy and paste. They played a typing game that taught finger and key placement on a color-coded keyboard.
Dorn, 63, said the classes helped because 'in this day and age, everything has to go through the computer.' He said it helped him feel more confident and less dependent on his children or grandchildren to do things such as making appointments online.
'Folks my age, we didn't get this luxury because we were too busy working, raising the family,' he said. 'So this is a great way to help us help ourselves.'
Juan Muro, Free Geek's executive director, said participants get the tools and skills they need to access things like online banking, job applications, online education programs and telehealth. He said Trump's move to end funding has put nonprofits such as Free Geek in a precarious position, forcing them to make up the difference through their own fundraising and 'beg for money to just provide individuals with essential stuff."
Sara Nichols works for the Land of Sky Regional Council, a multicounty planning and development organization in western North Carolina. On the Friday before Trump's inauguration in January, the organization received notice that it was approved for a grant. But like other groups The Associated Press contacted, it has not seen any money.
Land of Sky had spent a lot of resources helping people recover from last year's storms. The award notice, Nichols said, came as 'incredible news.'
'But between this and the state losing, getting their letters terminated, we feel just like stuck. What are we going to do? How are we going to move forward? How are we going to let our communities continue to fall behind?'
Filling unmet needs
More than one-fifth of Americans do not have broadband internet access at home, according to the Pew Research Center. In rural communities, the number jumps to 27 percent.
Beyond giving people access to technology and fast internet, many programs funded by the Digital Equity Act sought to provide 'digital navigators' — human helpers to guide people new to the online world.
'In the United States we do not have a consistent source of funding to help individuals get online, understand how to be safe online and how to use that technology to accomplish all the things that are required now as part of life that are online,' said Siefer of the National Digital Inclusion Alliance.
This includes everything from providing families with internet hot spots so they can get online at home to helping seniors avoid online scams.
'Health, workforce, education, jobs, everything, right?' Siefer said. 'This law was going to be the start for the U.S. to figure out this issue. It's a new issue in the big scheme of things, because now technology is no longer a nice-to-have. You have to have the internet and you have to know how to use the technology just to survive, let alone to thrive today.'
Siefer said the word 'equity' in the name probably prompted Trump to target the program for elimination.
'But it means that he didn't actually look at what this program does," she said. "Because who doesn't want grandma to be safe online? Who doesn't want a veteran to be able to talk to their doctor rather than get in a car and drive two hours? Who doesn't want students to be able to do their homework?'
—-
Ortutay reported from San Francisco.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
27 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Confusion over the Alaska summit shows Vladimir Putin still calls the shots
In the five months since Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelenskyy met at the Oval Office in late February, Ukrainian officials have worked hard to repair the damage of that day, which ended with the Ukrainian president being kicked out of the White House. With advice from European allies, Zelenskyy recalibrated his strategy for dealing with the Trump administration, and there was a feeling it was broadly going well. 'We managed to reset communications, to find a new language to work with Trump,' said one senior official in Kyiv a week ago. It has also seemed as if Trump's rhetoric was finally shifting, as he termed Russia's bombing of Ukrainian cities 'disgusting' in recent weeks and set Vladimir Putin a deadline of last Friday to stop the war or face the imposition of crippling new sanctions. Then came envoy Steve Witkoff's visit to Moscow last Wednesday. Putin appears to have made no major concessions during the three-hour Kremlin meeting, and in return was rewarded not with debilitating sanctions but with an invitation to meet Trump in Alaska. The offer to thrash out a Ukrainian peace deal at a bilateral summit with Trump represents exactly the sort of great-power deal-making Putin has always craved. It will be his first trip to the US since 2007, with the exception of visits to the UN. Exactly how the Alaska summit will look is still unclear, with a particularly Trumpian kind of confusion and chaos accompanying its announcement. Kyiv, European capitals and even Trump's own staff have been trying to understand what exactly was agreed in the Kremlin. The first announcements from the White House suggested Putin would meet Trump, followed by a three-way meeting between Trump, Putin and Zelenskyy. This was swiftly denied by Putin. As he put it, 'we are still far from creating the conditions' for a meeting with Zelenskyy. An aide denied that the Russian side had ever agreed to a three-way meeting. A White House source told the New York Post on Thursday that if Putin did not agree to meet Zelenskyy, the meeting with Trump would not go ahead. But a few hours later, Trump denied that: he was happy to meet Putin anyway. The back-and-forth gave the distinct impression, not for the first time, that in the relationship between Trump and Putin, it is the Russian president who calls the shots. Some administration officials later briefed US media outlets that they may invite Zelenskyy anyway, and the German chancellor, Friedrich Merz, said in a Sunday interview he 'hopes and assumes' that Zelenskyy will take part. For now, this does not seem likely. A senior White House official told NBC that Trump was 'open' to a trilateral summit, but was 'focusing on planning the bilateral meeting requested by president Putin'. As worrying for Kyiv as the planned format of the talks is the apparent Russian deal now on the table. The plan, as it has been reported after filtering through the Trump administration and then to European capitals, is that the Ukrainian army should unilaterally withdraw from the parts of Donetsk and Luhansk it still controls, which would presumably include the fortified military stronghold of Kramatorsk. In exchange, the Kremlin would agree to freeze the lines in other places. 'Ukrainians will not give their land to occupiers,' Zelenskyy said over the weekend, adding that handing over land to Russia would violate the Ukrainian constitution. He said any deal done without Ukraine was destined to be 'stillborn'. Zelenskyy's public posture that Ukraine will never cede land is true up to a point. Kyiv is unlikely to renounce legal claims to its own territory, but the Ukrainian elite and much of Ukrainian society is increasingly ready for a deal that would recognise Russian de facto control, perhaps for a set period of time, in exchange for ending the fighting. The main problem with such a deal has always been what kind of guarantees Ukraine would receive that Russia would not simply use a ceasefire as time to regroup before attacking again. Brief discussions earlier this year about a European peacekeeping force to police a ceasefire were quickly scaled back to a 'reassurance force' stationed far from the frontlines. Ukrainians would therefore have not much to rely on but Putin's word, which they have learned from experience not to trust. Even still, there is a significant camp in the Ukrainian political and military elite who believe that, after more than three years of war, the situation has become so dire that the country is obliged to take such a deal, simply to allow for a pause in the fighting. The problem for Kyiv is the deal Putin apparently pitched to Witkoff is significantly worse than simply freezing the lines. 'As things stand, Ukraine and Europe are on the verge of being confronted with exactly the kind of Faustian deal they feared would emerge back in February,' Sam Greene, a professor at King's College London, wrote on X. Over the past few days, Zelenskyy and his team have been rallying support among European leaders and trying to put together an alternative, European plan. Unfortunately for Kyiv, previous experience suggests Trump is unwilling or unable to exert real pressure on Putin. 'If Putin and Trump reach an agreement directly, Europe will be faced with a fait accompli. Kyiv – even more so,' said Roman Alekhin, a Russian war blogger, on Sunday. It is exactly that prospect Ukraine's leadership will be doing their utmost to prevent in the days before Friday's summit.
The Independent
39 minutes ago
- The Independent
Russians crow over Trump-Putin summit being held in Alaska: ‘Makes the US an Arctic nation'
It's the first time that a Russian leader has been invited to American soil outside of the United Nations since 2007, and comes without the Kremlin having made any apparent concessions amid its war of aggression in Ukraine. Just days before the summit was announced, Trump was sharing his anger at Putin's consistent bombing of Ukraine and threatened to increase sanctions on Russia. The sudden decision to meet with the Russian leader prompted European and Ukrainian officials to scramble to respond to the new arrangement. One of the top interlocutors between the Kremlin and the Trump administration is Russia's special economic envoy Kirill Dmitriev, who argued that the decision to have the meeting in Alaska was symbolically significant. The U.S. bought Alaska from Russia in 1867 for $7.2 million, roughly two cents per acre. 'Born as Russian America — Orthodox roots, forts, fur trade — Alaska echoes those ties and makes the U.S. an Arctic nation,' he said on X. Konstantin Malofeyev is a billionaire who the Obama administration sanctioned for funding separatists in Ukraine backed by the Kremlin and interfering in elections in a number of countries. He claimed Alaskans 'respectfully remember their Russian past and their Orthodox present.' Alexander Kots, a war correspondent supportive of the Kremlin, said in his Telegram channel that 'The meeting in Alaska has every chance to become historic.' 'That is, of course, if the West does not try to pull off another scheme,' he added. Meanwhile, analysts in the West urged caution. Michael McFaul served as the U.S. ambassador to Russia during the Obama administration. 'Trump has chosen to host Putin in a part of the former Russian Empire,' he said on X. 'Wonder if he knows that Russian nationalists claim that losing Alaska, like Ukraine, was a raw deal for Moscow that needs to be corrected.' 'The symbolism of holding the Trump-Putin summit in Alaska is horrendous — as though designed to demonstrate that borders can change, land can be bought and sold,' said King's College London Russian Politics professor Sam Greene, according to The Washington Post. 'Never mind that mainstream Russian discourse maintains a claim that Alaska should be returned to Russia.' While Czar Alexander II offered up Alaska for sale, Putin has taken Ukrainian territory by force via the unlawful annexation of Crimea in 2014 and the subsequent full-scale invasion of the country in 2022, when he illegally claimed to annex four regions of Ukraine. Russia analysts told The Post that it's unlikely that the Kremlin has left behind any of its goals for Ukraine, such as demilitarization, the replacement of the current regime with a pro-Russia one, and for Ukraine not to join NATO. A senior fellow with the Carnegie Russia Eurasia Center, Tatiana Stanovaya, said Trump 'didn't want to fall into confrontation with Russia.' 'Trump himself said that further sanctions probably wouldn't force Putin to change his mind. We could see from these signals that Trump could be open to a new attempt, and he did so just days before the end of his ultimatum,' Stanovaya added. The deputy head of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, Janis Kluge, told The Post that Putin's proposal is 'part of the war.' 'It's just a temporary ceasefire in exchange for land,' said Kluge. 'It is meant to give Putin an advantage in the longer run against Ukraine and the West.' A former top Kremlin official told the paper that Russia appeared willing to compromise, as it indicated that it was ready for a ceasefire. 'Politically, it is easier [for the Kremlin] to continue the war until Ukraine's final collapse than to make peace,' the anonymous official said. 'This is why they are clinging on to the idea that there needs to be a temporary but not permanent truce — and then in the meantime [Ukrainian] elections can be conducted.' While the Kremlin has pushed for a friendly regime in Kyiv, Ukrainians have often demonstrated their wish for free and fair elections and a democratic future as part of the European Union. Pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov said, 'Russian troops are not going to make any step backward,' as part of a deal to reach a ceasefire. However, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said Saturday that he wouldn't agree to any deal that included handing over territory to Russia, saying Ukraine's constitution prohibited it. 'There are no guarantees,' Markov added, according to The Post. 'But there are also no guarantees that Ukraine won't begin the war again.' He went on to say that Russia's top goal during the summit was to paint Europe and Ukraine as impediments to Trump's dream of achieving a peace deal. 'Russia hopes that Trump will finally become sensible and see that Zelensky is the main reason for the war that is happening now, and that the second reason for the war is European leaders … and that they are his enemies too,' said Markov, adding that Trump will realze that 'Putin is one of his few good political friends.'
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The government needs to face up to reality
Martin Kettle's analysis of the dysfunctionality of government is spot-on, but incomplete (The biggest problem for Starmer and co: the machinery of government is broken and they can't fix it, 7 August). The core problem is our unwillingness to face up to reality, whether it is on tax, the need to invest in reform, the impact of Brexit, the pros and cons of legal migration, the real steps necessary to stem illegal migration at source, the implications of the new cold war, or the new world order under Donald Trump. By biting our tongue and trying to fudge the hard choices, successive governments have both confused and misled. Now is the time to treat the public as adults and trust them to recognise the need to get real. We need to rebuild the country to make it relevant for both today and the future, and that means moving beyond the Widow Twankey politics of saying a lot but doing nothing. Now is the time for genuine leadership and a promise to lead, not follow, the KellyPrime minister's official spokesperson 2001-07 Have an opinion on anything you've read in the Guardian today? Please email us your letter and it will be considered for publication in our letters section.
