Democratic-led states and cities are locking horns with the Trump administration over a potential cut in education funding tied to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. This clash could be a critical test of the White House’s compulsion to impose its agenda on American educational institutions.
Minnesota and New York have taken a stand against a directive from the Education Department requiring local school systems to certify adherence to civil rights laws, which includes dismissing what is referred to as “illegal DEI practices.” The mayor of Chicago has declared legal action if any funding cuts proceed. Both California and Vermont have told their educational institutions that no response to the federal directive is necessary.
This defiance represents one of the strongest resistances as the Education Department endeavors to use federal funds as leverage for President Donald Trump’s objectives covering DEI, campus antisemitism, and policies involving transgender athletes. While both universities and K-12 schools are being targeted, public school systems receive the bulk of their funding from state and local governments.
Minnesota’s education commissioner criticized the administration’s actions in a letter, arguing there is no legal basis for considering DEI practices illegal. Willie Jett stated the funding threats could jeopardize programs that are essential for students and schools.
New York’s education office also countered the federal government’s demands, asserting that there will be no additional certification beyond what has already been provided ensuring compliance with federal laws.
The directive from the U.S. Education Department involves the signing of a certification by state agencies, affirming adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws and requiring similar commitments from school systems. Failure to adhere could result in the cessation of federal funds for violations observed, including DEI practices that are perceived as racially preferential.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised Puerto Rico as the first to comply with the certification process. She encouraged other states to follow suit by continuing to receive federal funds.
Though the directive doesn’t hold legal weight, it implies the intended use of civil rights enforcement to eliminate DEI activities in schools. Any non-compliance would open schools to potential litigation from the Justice Department and the end of federal grants.
The National Education Association is legally challenging the order, emphasizing an increasing tendency for schools to abstain from DEI programs due to elevated pressures from the federal authorities.
Some states already require adherence to antidiscrimination laws, thus questioning the necessity of the new certification. Missouri’s education office, for instance, believes existing assurances should suffice. However, Virginia and Arizona have shown intentions to comply, with the latter’s education chief expressing alignment with the directive.
The resistance by certain states contrasts with the approaches of universities under federal scrutiny. Institutions like Columbia University and Harvard have been involved in disagreement with the government over various demands. Yet, the significant reliance of colleges on federal funding – which constitutes a substantial part of their revenue – differentiates them from K-12 schools that have a more minor dependency.
Vermont’s education leader has reassured local schools of continued support for DEI, negating the need for individual district certification. The assurance to federal authorities has been communicated accordingly.
Illinois’ educational board criticized the federal government as overstepping its jurisdiction, and Chicago’s mayor has voiced readiness for legal action, labeling the directive as invasive.
New York and Minnesota’s correspondence references previous statements from Betsy DeVos, emphasizing the importance of diversity and inclusion, indicating a perceived inconsistency in the Education Department’s stance.
Several states are still evaluating the federal letter as this situation continues to unfold.