The Trump administration has issued its most direct warning to date that it wants to withhold a pivotal source of federal funding — Title I money — to school districts that run afoul of the White House’s preferred restrictions on diversity, equity, and inclusion practices.
The political and legal viability of the administration’s new statement on federal education funding, however, is unclear.
In a statement issued this week, the U.S. Department of Education said it had sent letters to state education commissioners requiring them to “certify their compliance with their antidiscrimination obligations in order to continue receiving federal financial assistance.”
The agency said it is specifically asking for assurances that districts comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the language of a 2023 U.S. Supreme Court decision that severely curtailed race-based preferences in college admissions.
The department specifically said local school districts receiving Title I funding must comply with the law showing “nondiscrimination,” as a condition of receiving financial assistance.
“Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor in a statement.
“When state education commissioners accept federal funds, they agree to abide by federal antidiscrimination requirements,” he added. “Unfortunately, we have seen too many schools flout or outright violate these obligations, including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of [the law.]”
The Trump administration has repeatedly attacked DEI programs in the federal government, including education, and in the private sector.
The new statement follows a February “Dear Colleague” letter that warned K-12 schools and colleagues they risked losing federal funding if they promoted racial preferences in admissions and other policies that the administration deemed “pervasive and repugnant.”
The department’s new letter cites a provision in the civil rights law that says individuals can’t be “excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.”
And it specifically says local school districts receiving Title I funding must comply with the law showing “nondiscrimination.”
Title I supports students in poverty and is funded at roughly $18 billion per year. School districts use that money to cover a wide array of programs.
A recent EdWeek Market Brief survey found that the top priority for districts in spending aid through Title I was for reading programs, followed by paraprofessional staff, math programs, and high-dosage tutoring.
For providers of products and services in the market, here are three things to remember about the implications of the Trump administration’s statement on DEI:
1. The Letter Offers Districts and Companies Little Clarity on What Race-Focused Practices the Administration Is Seeking to Clamp Down On
The department’s letter references racial preferences in admissions, but it does not state what specific forms of DEI in K-12 it would target.
Many instructional materials, for instance, have been criticized by Republican state lawmakers for their treatment of race. But the federal government is forbidden by law from dictating schools’ curriculum.
The administration’s new letter is “ambiguous,” Julia Martin, director of policy and government affairs for the Bruman Group, a federal education law firm, wrote in an email. “It asks for an assurance that districts and states will not engage in ‘illegal DEI’ but it doesn’t specify what that means,”
The upshot is school systems are asked to “agree to something without a clear roadmap for how they demonstrate compliance,” or even what the administration deems to be in step with the law, added Martin.
Join Us for EdWeek Market Brief’s Virtual Forum
Join our virtual forum June 10 & 11, 2025, to hear directly from school district leaders and industry peers about important trends playing out in the sector—and the support school systems need from education companies.
The big question for states and districts is whether there’s anything new that wasn’t in last month’s “Dear Colleague” letter, said David DeSchryver, senior vice president at Whiteboard Advisors.
“The answer is no,” he said.
While it might be relatively clear in admissions what race-based policies look like, in schools “there isn’t a definition of DEI,” DeSchryver said.
“There’s this muddling of what seems like something related to affirmative action … or a race-based action,” he said, with “a term that usually means accommodation for a diversity of viewpoints — which is diversity, equity, and inclusion.”
2. Attempts to Enforce the Policy Could Bring Legal Challenges
Several Trump administration policies focused on cutting government programs — including in education — are being challenged in court.
A federal judge in Massachusetts, for instance, temporarily blocked hundreds of millions of dollars in cuts to federal teacher-prep programs, a decision the administration is now appealing to the U.S. Supreme Court.
If the administration attempts to argue that school district practices on DEI run afoul of federal civil rights law, “you can guarantee that this is going to lead to some litigation and disagreements on the interpretation,” DeSchryver said.
Martin said she did not think Congress would attempt to block the administration’s policy through the letter. But how the question about if it can be used to dictate K-12 policy is “a question for the administration and the courts to answer.”
Also worth noting: The administration’s letter claims that if entities — presumably states and school districts — certify that their policies are in step with the law, but they’re not, they would be subject to liability under the federal False Claims Act.
But judgments on what qualifies as a violation under that law are also likely to be decided in the federal courts.
3. There Are Risks and Opportunities for School Districts, and Vendors
The absence of clarity in the Trump administration’s letter means school districts won’t know for certain what programs they should keep or halt, said Martin.
Many of their decisions will ultimately be “based on an internal risk assessment,” she said.
That’s likely lead to “programs being halted, either now or for next year, because of uncertainty about whether they would be considered allowable,” the attorney added.
Education companies may have difficulty proving to districts that their products are in compliance, she said, “if there is no clear standard.”
DeSchryver said school systems are likely to become much more precise in their language in describing programs and practices. That could apply to when they’re talking about diversity of educational approaches, broadly, such as those related to teaching and learning strategies, support for special needs students, and students’ economic opportunities.
States charged with administering Title I programs, he said, have the opportunity to use language in response to the letter that is “very precise,” he said.
The language the Department of Education has put forward in its letter is vague, and so “they are setting the table for a kind of a debate upon the meaning of these terms.”