logo
A Legal Battle Over Trump's Threats to Public School Funding Has Begun

A Legal Battle Over Trump's Threats to Public School Funding Has Begun

New York Times17-04-2025
The Trump administration is facing lawsuits and growing pushback over its demand that all 50 states end the use of what it says are illegal diversity programs in public schools or risk losing federal funding for low-income students.
About a dozen mostly Democratic-leaning states including California, New York and Michigan, have refused to sign on to the administration's directive. The nation's two largest teachers' unions, along with the N.A.A.C.P., are challenging the demand in federal court.
Arguments in one of those cases will be heard in New Hampshire on Thursday, escalating an increasingly tense standoff over the federal government's role in local education.
The Trump administration is relying on a novel interpretation of civil rights law, arguing that the Supreme Court's decision in 2023 overturning affirmative action in college admissions also applies to K-12 public schools. Federal officials say the ruling 'sets forth a framework' for the use of race in education generally. And they say it requires banning curriculum and programs that are targeted toward specific racial groups, or that center on concepts such as structural racism, the idea that racial discrimination is pervasive in the economy, law and other institutions.
But that interpretation of federal law is contested by many education officials and legal scholars.
'The Trump administration is trying to use a relatively narrow decision and turn it into a broad holding that brings about whatever it wishes,' said Justin Driver, a professor at Yale Law School and an expert on the Constitution and education.
Now, several court cases are teed up to determine if Washington can withhold billions of federal dollars for schools to educate low-income students, a program known as Title I. Many of the nation's poorest school districts rely heavily on the funds, but even affluent districts receive some Title I money if they serve low-income students.
The pressure on K-12 public education has intensified as Mr. Trump has made clear that he intends to follow through on his threats.
Last week, the administration moved to withhold federal education aid and school-meal funding from the entire state of Maine, in response to its policies on transgender athletes. It has threatened to do the same to California, because of its policies around parental notification for transgender students.
In Democratic-leaning states that oppose the move, state officials have argued they are already in compliance with federal civil rights laws.
Michael F. Rice, the superintendent of public education in Michigan, said that elite college admissions was 'by definition zero sum. If you get in, I have a lesser chance of getting in.'
By contrast, he said, many D.E.I. initiatives in Michigan are 'positive sum.' By expanding literature to include diverse viewpoints or creating new pipelines for teachers that also diversify the work force, he said, 'you have not disadvantaged anyone.'
Chris Reykdal, the superintendent in Washington State, vowed to go to court if needed to defend state and local control over education. In a letter responding to the Trump administration, he wrote that diversity, equity and inclusion were 'core values' in Washington State's education system and that 'we will not suppress or cede that to the federal government.'
'I'm not hiding this in order to keep federal money,' he said in an interview. 'I'm saying, it's what makes us successful and we should all celebrate and be more vocal.'
Hot-button issues around race and gender are core to this dispute, but the legal challenges may be decided on more routine procedural questions.
The New Hampshire case, brought by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, argues that the Trump administration is violating congressional regulations that say federal agencies cannot dictate matters of local curriculum or instruction.
'This case is really about some fundamental failures of process at the Department of Education,' said Sarah Hinger, a lawyer with the A.C.L.U.
A similar challenge, brought by the American Federation of Teachers and other groups, is pending in Maryland. The Trump administration is expected to appeal any ruling against it, and these questions could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The administration has argued that diversity programs violate federal civil rights law, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin. It has not offered a detailed definition of D.E.I., but has given hints of some programs that it might prohibit.
For example, the administration has said programs that separate students by race, in order to provide targeted academic or social support, are a form of illegal segregation. It has also argued that lessons on concepts like white privilege are discriminatory toward white students, and that efforts to recruit more nonwhite teachers constitute illegal affirmative action.
In a statement, Madi Biedermann, a spokeswoman for the Education Department, said, 'The Trump administration will no longer allow taxpayer dollars to sponsor discrimination against students.'
Title I dollars were withheld at least once before, in the 1960s, as a tool to compel school districts to desegregate.
At that time, legal experts say, the federal government was enforcing the Supreme Court's landmark decision in Brown v. Board of Education from a decade earlier. In 1966, shortly after Title I dollars were first allocated and when enforcement of the policy was at its most vigorous, researchers estimate that about 20 percent of districts in formerly Confederate states had their Title I dollars withheld or deferred.
'There is no question they can impose fiscal penalties on state and local governments that violate the law,' said David A. Super, a professor at Georgetown Law who has studied administrative law and the federal budget.
But the government must cite a clear violation of existing law, something he says the Trump administration has not yet done.
The administration may also face another legal hurdle, because federal dollars for K-12 schools are allotted by Congress.
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 limits the president's authority to freeze funds appropriated by Congress. Mr. Trump has said that he wants the Supreme Court to strike down that law, giving him greater power over federal spending in a variety of arenas.
Many Republican-led states already have laws banning or limiting D.E.I. in schools, and some officials in those states have agreed to the Trump administration's demands as a matter of course.
Texas, for example, is asking districts to sign onto the federal government's new diversity directives by the April 23 deadline, noting that it 'reinforces' existing policies in the state.
In Florida, where Gov. Ron DeSantis set an early model for Mr. Trump's education policies, school districts said they expected few changes. 'Here in Florida, there's no anticipated impact,' said Keyla Concepción, a spokeswoman for Broward County Public Schools.
Nationwide, public schools receive only about 10 percent of their funding from the federal government — much less than many colleges, which rely on federal research grants and tuition aid.
But for many districts, like Los Angeles, the loss of those funds would still be a significant blow. Alberto Carvalho, the superintendent of Los Angeles's public schools, said his district received more than $1 billion in federal funds annually, which support teachers' aides, free meals and mental health counselors.
He noted that his district was not opposed to making changes in response to federal scrutiny.
But in this case, he said, Mr. Trump's directives contradict California state regulations on how schools should handle race and gender issues.
Mr. Carvalho added that he had not been surprised to see K-12 leaders across the country rise up to resist the president, given the vulnerability of many of the children enrolled in public education.
'We are morally compelled and legally required,' he said, 'to protect their rights.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

WH Orders Review Of Smithsonian Museums To Ensure Alignment With Trump Directive - Anderson Cooper 360 - Podcast on CNN Podcasts
WH Orders Review Of Smithsonian Museums To Ensure Alignment With Trump Directive - Anderson Cooper 360 - Podcast on CNN Podcasts

CNN

timea few seconds ago

  • CNN

WH Orders Review Of Smithsonian Museums To Ensure Alignment With Trump Directive - Anderson Cooper 360 - Podcast on CNN Podcasts

WH Orders Review Of Smithsonian Museums To Ensure Alignment With Trump Directive Anderson Cooper 360 45 mins The White House lays out plans for getting involved in what's on display at the Smithsonian museums, with an eye toward enforcing its view of American history. Plus, with troops arriving tonight for police duty in Washington D.C., my conversation with Maryland's Governor Wes Moore, home to Baltimore, where the President is also talking about taking over law enforcement.

Left-wing dark-money megadonors, including George Soros, fund group organizing protests against Trump's DC crime crackdown
Left-wing dark-money megadonors, including George Soros, fund group organizing protests against Trump's DC crime crackdown

New York Post

time29 minutes ago

  • New York Post

Left-wing dark-money megadonors, including George Soros, fund group organizing protests against Trump's DC crime crackdown

Several lefty, dark money organizations, including George Soros', contributed more than $20 million to groups funding protests against President Trump's crime crackdown in Washington, DC. Free DC, a 'fiscally sponsored special project' of progressive nonprofits Community Change and Community Change Action, brought 150 demonstrators near the White House Monday to protest Trump's plan to deploy National Guard troops in the district and federalize the city's police department. 'Do not obey in advance' and 'Take up space' are among Free DC's 'guiding principles,' and the group urges supporters to 'go outside at 8:00 PM and bang pots and pans, sing, chant, or make noise for five minutes' every night 'of this occupation.' Advertisement Free DC has scheduled multiple events since Monday's anti-Trump protest, including a 'Cop Watch Training,' suggesting further protests are planned amid Trump's effort to make DC the 'safest, cleanest and most beautiful cities anywhere in the world' – by ramping up law enforcement efforts and removing homeless encampments from public places. 3 Free DC has called for protests every night 'of this occupation.' REUTERS Community Change and Community Change Action, the groups bankrolling Free DC's activism campaign, have been the beneficiaries of millions of dollars in donations from hedge-fund tycoon George Soros' Open Society Foundations and Tides Foundation, and the dark-money Arabella Advisors network, according to an analysis shared with The Post. Advertisement 'It is ironic that a protest to ostensibly 'Free DC' was hosted by Community Change, a group funded by massive amounts of outside dark money to push a pro-crime agenda,' Caitlin Sutherland, the executive director of nonprofit watchdog Americans for Public Trust, said in a statement. 'DC is facing shootings, carjackings, and assaults, and yet progressive groups like The Pritzker Foundation, George Soros, and the Arabella Network all spend millions of dollars to manufacture protests that weaken our communities,' Sutherland added. In 2023 alone, Community Change and Community Change Action received $4 million from Soros' Open Society Foundations, $680,000 from the Arabella network, and $145,000 from the Tides Foundation, Americans for Public Trust found in publicly available financial disclosures. Arabella Advisors, a Washington, D.C.-based consulting firm, manages several funds that finance left-wing groups, including the Sixteen Thirty Fund, Windward Fund, New Venture Fund, which have all given money to Community Change and Community Change Action since 2020. Advertisement Similarly, Soros' Open Society Foundations and Tides Foundation and Tides Advocacy (part of the billionaires' Tides Network) are far-left grantmaking organizations. 3 Free DC is project of two Soros-backed progressive groups. AFP/Getty Images 3 Free DC organized a protest against Trump's order in district on Monday. AP Between 2020-2023, Community Change and Community Change Action received $12.6 million from Open Society Foundation, $5.6 million from the Arabella network, and $1.9 million from the Tides network – under numerous grants labeled for such purposes as 'civil rights, social action, advocacy' and 'social welfare activities.' Advertisement Additionally, Community Change received $1 million across 2021 and 2022 from Future Forward USA Action, a Democratic Party-aligned super PAC affiliated with Future Forward PAC – one of the major political groups that backed former Vice President Kamala Harris in the 2024 election. It's unclear how much of this money has been directly used by Free DC, which says on its website it began organizing in 2023, in response to a congressional effort to block a controversial update to DC's criminal code. Free DC and Community Change did not respond to The Post's requests for comment.

These are the voters who should scare Democrats most
These are the voters who should scare Democrats most

Boston Globe

time29 minutes ago

  • Boston Globe

These are the voters who should scare Democrats most

In dozens of interviews, working-class swing voters said they had misgivings about the Trump presidency -- but many also said they were just as skeptical of the Democratic Party. Five years ago, Raymond Teachey voted, as usual, for the Democratic presidential nominee. But by last fall, Teachey, an aircraft mechanic from Bucks County, Pennsylvania, was rethinking his political allegiances. To him, the Democratic Party seemed increasingly focused on issues of identity at the expense of more tangible day-to-day concerns, such as public safety or the economy. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up 'Some of them turned their back on their base,' Teachey, 54, said. Advertisement Working-class voters like Teachey, who supported Biden in 2020 but either backed Trump last year or, as Teachey did, skipped the 2024 presidential election, help explain why Democrats lost pivotal swing counties like Bucks and vividly illustrate how the traditional Democratic coalition has eroded in the Trump era. Now, Democrats hope to bring these voters back into the fold for the midterm elections in 2026, betting on a backlash to Trump and his party's far-reaching moves to slash the social safety net. Sarah Smarty, a home health aide and an author who voted for Joe Biden in 2020 but flipped to President Trump last year, in Mifflin County, Penn. HANNAH YOON/NYT But in interviews with nearly 30 predominantly working-class voters who supported Biden in 2020 before defecting or struggling deeply with their choices last year, many had a stinging message for the Democratic Party. Advertisement Just because we have misgivings about Trump, they say, it doesn't mean we like you. 'I think I'm done with the Democrats,' said Desmond Smith, 24, a deli worker from Smithdale, Mississippi, and a Black man who said he backed Biden in 2020 at the height of the racial justice protests. But last year, disillusioned by what he saw as the party's overemphasis on identity politics and concerned about illegal immigration, he voted for Trump. Asked how Democrats could win him back, he said, 'Fight for Americans instead of fighting for everybody else.' An in-depth postelection study from Pew Research Center suggests that about 5% of Biden's voters in 2020 switched to Trump in 2024, while roughly 15% of those voters stayed home last year. Trump retained more of his 2020 voters than Democrats did, a crucial factor in winning the election. Polling on the current attitudes of those Biden defectors is limited, but it is clear the Democratic brand, broadly, continues to struggle. A Wall Street Journal poll released in late July found that the party's image was at its lowest point in more than three decades, with just 33% of voters saying they held a favorable view of Democrats. 'They're doing nothing to move their own numbers because they don't have an economic message,' said John Anzalone, a veteran Democratic pollster who worked on that survey. 'They think that this is about Trump's numbers getting worse,' he added. 'They need to worry about their numbers.' Certainly, anger with Trump, an energized Democratic base and the headwinds a president's party typically confronts in midterm elections could help propel Democrats to victory next year. Advertisement Democrats have had some recruitment success (and luck), and they see growing openings to argue that Trump's domestic agenda helps the wealthy at the expense of the working class, a message they are already beginning to push in advertising. There is no top-of-the-ticket national Democrat to defend or avoid, while Republicans have virtually no room to distance themselves from Trump's least popular ideas. But interviews with the voters whom Democrats are most desperate to reclaim also suggest that the party's challenges could extend well beyond next year's races. Here are five takeaways from those conversations. Biden's disastrous reelection bid fueled a trust issue. It hasn't gone away. Bielski, 35, an executive chef at a private club, said he had typically voted for Democrats until last year's presidential election, when he backed Trump. Democratic leaders had insisted that the plainly frail Biden was vigorous enough to run, and they had encouraged skeptical voters to fall in line. Instantly after he dropped out, they urged Democrats to unite behind the candidacy of Kamala Harris, who was then the vice president. That did not sit right with Bielski, who said he was already distrustful of Democrats who had pushed pandemic-era lockdowns. Harris, he said, 'wasn't someone that I got to vote for in a primary.' 'It almost seemed wrong,' continued Bielski, who lives in Phoenix. 'It was kind of like, OK, the same people that were just running the country are now telling us that this is the person that we should vote for.' After Harris became the Democratic nominee, some voters interpreted her meandering answers in televised interviews as an unwillingness to be straight with them. By contrast, while Trump gave outlandish and rambling public remarks riddled with conspiracy theories and lies, some said they had gotten the general sense that he wanted to tackle the cost of living and curb illegal immigration. Advertisement 'It was difficult to understand what her point of view was,' said Bruce Gamble, 67, a retired substation maintainer for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority. Gamble said he voted for Biden in 2020 and Trump last year. Trump 'was able to communicate better to me,' he added, while Harris 'felt like she was talking over my head, so I didn't quite trust her.' Raymond Teachey, an aircraft mechanic in Bristol, Penn. HANNAH YOON/NYT Worried about paying the bills, they saw Democrats as too focused on cultural issues. Many in this multiracial group of voters said they thought Democrats had gone too far in promoting transgender rights or in emphasizing matters of racial identity. But often, they were more bothered by their perception that those discussions had come at the expense of addressing economic anxieties. 'It seemed like they were more concerned with DEI and LGBTQ issues and really just things that didn't pertain to me or concern me at all,' said Kendall Wood, 32, a truck driver from Henrico County, Virginia. He said he voted for Trump last year after backing Biden in 2020. 'They weren't concerned with, really, kitchen-table issues.' A poll from The New York Times and Ipsos conducted this year found that many Americans did not believe that the Democratic Party was focused on the economic issues that mattered most to them. 'Maybe talk about real-world problems,' said Maya Garcia, 23, a restaurant server from the San Fernando Valley in California. She said she voted for Biden in 2020 and did not vote for president last year. Democrats talk 'a lot about us emotionally, but what are we going to do financially?' Advertisement She added, 'I understand that you want, you know, equal rights and things like that. But I feel like we need to talk more about the economics.' But in a warning sign for Republicans, a recent CNN poll found that a growing share of Americans -- 63% -- felt as if Trump had not paid enough attention to the country's most important problems. Marlon Flores, a technician at a car dealership in Houston. DESIREE RIOS/NYT 'America First' gained new resonance amid wars abroad. As wars raged in the Middle East and Ukraine, some working-class voters thought the Biden administration cared more about events abroad than about the problems in their communities. 'They were funding in other countries, while we do not have the money to fund ourselves,' said Smarty, 33, a home health aide and an author. She said she voted for Biden in 2020 and Trump in 2024, adding that she viewed Trump as a man of action. 'I would really like to see more jobs,' she said. 'I would like to see them take good care of people who are homeless in our area.' Bielski said that against the backdrop of overseas turmoil, Trump's 'America First' message resonated. But these days, he does not think Trump is living up to that mantra. 'We're getting into more stuff abroad and not really focusing on economics here,' he said. 'It doesn't seem like he's holding true to anything that he's promised.' Flores, 22, a technician at a car dealership, said the foreign policy emphasis -- and a sense that life was tough regardless of the party in power -- helped explain why he skipped last year's election as well as the 2020 presidential race. Advertisement 'No matter how many times have we gone red, or even blue, the blue-collar workers' have seen little progress, Flores said. President Trump at the White House on Aug. 11. Alex Brandon/Associated Press They worry about illegal immigration. But some think Trump's crackdowns are going too far. These voters often said they agreed with Trump on the need to stem the flow of illegal immigration and strengthen border security. But some worried about the administration's crackdown, which has resulted in sweeping raids, children being separated from their parents, the deportation of American citizens and a growing sense of fear in immigrant communities. Several people interviewed said they knew people who had been personally affected. Smarty, for instance, said her friend's husband, who had lived in the United States for 25 years, had suddenly been deported to Mexico. Her friend is 'going through some health problems, and they have kids, and that's really hard on their family,' Smarty said. 'I don't really feel that's exactly right.' They're not done with every Democrat. But they're tired of the old guard. Many of the voters interviewed said they remained open to supporting Democrats -- or at least the younger ones. 'Stop being friggin' old,' said Cinnamon Boffa, 57, from Langhorne, Pennsylvania. As she recalled, she supported Biden in 2020 but voted only downballot last year, lamenting that 'our choices suck.' Teachey thought there was still room for seasoned politicians, but in many cases, it was time to get 'the boomers out of there.' He is increasingly inclined to support Democrats next year to check unfettered Republican power. 'They're totally far right,' he said of the GOP. 'Honestly, I don't identify with any party.' This article originally appeared in

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store