Students walk to their buses at the end of the school day in Minneapolis, Minn. Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin are among the states pushing back on the U.S. Education Department’s DEI directive.
Carlos Gonzalez/The Minnesota Star Tribune/TNS/ABACA via Reuters
hide caption
toggle caption
Carlos Gonzalez/The Minnesota Star Tribune/TNS/ABACA via Reuters
Every year, in order to receive federal money, state and local school leaders promise the U.S. Department of Education they will continue following federal rules, including civil rights laws. It’s standard practice.
So when the department sent a memo on April 3 asking school leaders to, once again, certify they would follow civil rights laws, or risk losing federal funds, it left many scratching their heads. Hadn’t they already done that this school year?
“The confusion is this has never happened before. We already don’t allow discrimination,” says David Law, the incoming president of The School Superintendents Association and superintendent of Minnetonka Public Schools in Minnesota. “Why would we certify if we’re already making sure that we comply?”
What exactly is the Education Department asking school leaders to do?
In its latest DEI directive to K-12 school leaders, the Trump administration has asked every state and local school leader to recommit to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prevents race-based discrimination for federally funded programs. It says states that fail to recertify could lose their federal funds, including grants intended for low-income students.
The recertification order argues that diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs violate civil rights laws, but it doesn’t clearly define what such violations look like.
“DEI is so ambiguous that I could talk to four people in our community, and they would all define it differently,” says Law.
The Education Department has not responded to multiple requests for details on what constitutes a violation and its plans to enforce this interpretation of civil rights law. But in a statement released with the April 3 directive, Craig Trainor, the U.S. Education Department’s acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said, “Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these [civil rights] obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics.”
The range of state responses to the administration reflect the lack of clarity — and the lack of consensus — around what constitutes DEI.
In a recent notice, Pennsylvania’s Acting Secretary of Education Carrie Rowe reassured her school leaders that while the federal letter referenced DEI, it “did not identify those practices or define ‘illegal DEI,’ and there are no federal or state laws generally prohibiting efforts relating to diversity, equity, or inclusion.”
In contrast, Arizona’s State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tom Horne told his school leaders that he agrees with the Trump administration’s interpretation of federal law, and that schools should avoid “concepts like Critical Race Theory that promote racial division.”
Initially, state and local education agencies had 10 days to sign and send back their recertification. But a lawsuit filed by education groups, including one of the nation’s largest teachers unions, helped get that deadline extended to April 24.
How states are responding to the department’s demands
The day after the Education Department sent out its directive, New York became the first state to publicly push back. In a letter to the department, obtained by NPR, the New York State Education Department said it was “unaware of any authority” the federal government has to force school leaders to recertify in order to keep federal funding. Minnesota, Illinois and Wisconsin are among the states that followed suit.
“At best, the Reminder and Request appears to be redundant,” wrote Benjamin Jones, general counsel at the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction, referring to the Trump administration’s order. “At worst, the Reminder and Request appears to be unauthorized, unlawful and unconstitutionally vague.”
Vermont sent a single certification on behalf of all of its school districts. Missouri and Montana, two Republican-led states, are taking a similar approach.
New Hampshire and Idaho are among the Republican-led states that have told their school districts they should individually certify. New Hampshire is also publicly tracking which of its districts sign, garnering praise from U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. Idaho noted in a letter to school leaders that the state’s legislature recently moved to “prohibit DEI-based discrimination and hiring, DEI offices and officer positions” in their higher education institutions. The letter says the new laws are “noteworthy in this context because they illustrate the state’s stance on DEI practices in public education.”
Several other states, including Nevada, say they are still assessing next steps.
“If anything, the last three months have taught us that it makes sense to wait and learn,” Law says of his fellow superintendents and school leaders around the nation. “There’s less and less immediate knee-jerk reaction” in response to the slew of orders from the administration, he says.
Are the administration’s demands legal?
Some law experts question the order’s legal standing.
“I have never seen anything like it during my 40 years of work in this field,” says Julie Underwood, former School of Education dean at the University of Wisconsin-Madison, and an expert in civil rights and education law.
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, left, speaks alongside U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi at the Department of Justice headquarters in Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. McMahon has praised New Hampshire for publicly tracking which of its districts sign the administration’s DEI directive.
Jose Luis Magana/AP
hide caption
toggle caption
Jose Luis Magana/AP
Underwood says that, normally, if a district or state were in violation of civil rights laws, they would have a chance to prove their case.
“They would have due process. You’d have to go through the procedures that are set out in the statute and regulations in order to cut those federal funds,” she explains.
In New York’s response, the state Education Department’s counsel, Daniel Morton-Bentley, questioned the U.S. Education Department’s power to change the conditions around the state’s federal education funding “without formal administrative process.” Other democratic-led states, including Washington, Illinois and Oregon, responded similarly.
“Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” Craig Trainor, of the U.S. Department of Education, said in the initial message to state leaders. “When state education commissioners accept federal funds, they agree to abide by federal antidiscrimination requirements.”
The country’s two largest teachers unions have separately sued the Education Department over its threats to pull federal funding from schools with race-based programs.
Regardless of where the legality question lands, Underwood says the threat of public schools facing investigations related to DEI has had what she calls “an incredible chilling effect” in classrooms. Some teachers have told NPR they feel watched, and are being extra cautious about what and how they teach.
“When you’ve written something that’s so over-broad and vague, no one knows how to comply,” Underwood says.
Fast-changing guidance is “chewing up time” for school leaders
Just in the last few weeks, the Education Department has issued other notices threatening to pull federal funding from schools if school leaders don’t comply with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the law.
The department also launched an “End DEI” portal to seek complaints from the public about “illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning.”
These directives are coming during an already busy time of year for K-12 school administrators, who are currently planning budgets and staffing for the fall. With drastic and rapid changes to the Department of Education, David Law says many school communities are nervous about what’s next.
“Leaders, parents, community members are saying, ‘What does this mean? What’s gonna change?’ That is creating anxiety that wasn’t there a year ago.”
He says, “Monthly changing guidance that’s chewing up time for administration can be a distraction and can be detrimental on school systems.”
He worries demands from the Trump administration are taking educators away from their important work and says, ultimately, all educators have the same goal: “Our focus is on making sure that everyone who walks through the door is engaged, connected, feels a sense of belonging.”
