Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Trump’s Plot Against America’s Schools Sparks National Outrage

Opinion

Girl in a Christian school
Half the students benefiting from ESAs never attended public school — they were always privately educated.
Jonathan Kirn

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint, Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Our public education system is under attack. On March 20, after only seven weeks in office and without input or approval from Congress, President Trump issued an executive order instructing the Secretary of Education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and give the states sole responsibility for educating our nation’s children.”


The U.S. Congress created the Department of Education in 1979, and its leader, the Secretary of Education, is a member of the President's cabinet. By directing changes that compromise the department’s ability to function, Trump's March 20 order attempts to circumvent the requirement that only Congress may approve the department’s closure. This move takes a page from the Project 2025 playbook, which calls for the department’s elimination.

At the same time, and without any apparent recognition of the irony, the administration has directed school districts to radically limit what our children learn, threatening to withhold funds from public schools if they fail to verify that they have eliminated all programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion. This transforms Project 2025’s goal of obliterating any mention of diversity, equity, or inclusion from federal policy.

On April 3, a department memo sent to public education officials across the country indicated that failure to comply would result in loss of the funds provided to schools under Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, a move that would hit hardest those schools with high percentages of students of color or from low-income families. The administration has also rolled back school discipline guidelines announced by President Obama, which included recommendations to promote nondiscriminatory practices and training— another harmful move given that over two-thirds of students suspended, expelled and arrested in public schools are Black and brown.

Why This Matters

Gutting the Department of Education’s workforce harms families: When resources and support for public education at the local level are wildly uneven and often discriminatory, federal support can help level the playing field. The Education Department can help ensure that students can access classes and programs that might not otherwise be available. Eliminating the department would ensure that, in a land of equality, some students have the resources they need to succeed while others do not.

In a devastating step towards dismantling the agency, the administration fired approximately a third of its workforce. As Jessica Tang, president of the Massachusetts American Federation of Teachers, stated, “Withdrawing funding in schools across the country is . . . a cruel attempt to cause chaos and destruction . . .. These cuts will disproportionately harm those most in need of services—students with disabilities and low-income students," Tang said. "The federal education agenda is nothing short of a dismantling of our ability to provide a fair and equal public education.”

Planned changes limit parents’ access and civil rights enforcement: The administration also plans to relocate the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to the Department of Justice (DOJ) and has closed OCR offices nationwide. This means that parents seeking federal review of school district decisions regarding their children’s individual education and accommodation plans would need DOJ support for their claims, an unlikely result, as DOJ has already made clear that its role is to zealously defend the President's agenda.

Absent that support, families would be left to navigate and litigate their own claims, an option likely unaffordable to most.

Funding cuts make it harder for students to get an equal education: Federally funded student loans also help remove barriers to higher education at a time when tuition is rising. Almost 60 percent of the Education Department's $268 billion budget in 2023 was allocated to federal loans, the federal work-study program, and Pell grants, which help roughly one-third of U.S. undergraduates afford college by providing federal loans.

Dismantling the Department makes it easier for unlawful discrimination to prevent students from fully participating in school. The Department supports programs that supplement state and local funding for low-achieving children, particularly in low-income neighborhoods, as well as funding for students protected under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, which helps cover special education costs. Cutting these programs jeopardizes the rights of 7 million special education students to a fair and appropriate education. Cutting staff also makes it harder for the Department to carry out its mandates to oversee civil rights enforcement in schools and under laws prohibiting discrimination of sex or race.

Administration policies aim to whitewash history: The administration’s actions lead us down a path that threatens the First Amendment free-speech rights of teachers and students, and chills the candid exchange of ideas, which is essential to learning. The administration appears to be focusing on a concern that white students would feel threatened or uncomfortable if questions of race were even discussed - although the administration has struggled to define what conduct or program would violate its interpretation of civil rights laws. For example, Education Secretary Linda McMahon has said that schools should be allowed to celebrate Martin Luther King Jr., but she has been less clear when asked whether classes could talk about Ruby Bridges, who, as a six-year-old girl, stood up to segregationists, or the 1921 massacre of Black citizens in Tulsa, Oklahoma. What about Rosa Parks, Harriet Tubman, or Juneteenth?

Black history is American history. All students should learn about the compromises that were made when the Constitution was drafted to unify the nation—including the decision to preserve the institution of slavery, which profoundly altered U.S. history. The 13th, 14th, and 15th Amendments, often referred to as Civil War or civil rights amendments, directed states to emancipate slaves, to address "the badges and incidents" of slavery, to guarantee equal protection under the law, and to prohibit laws denying or abridging a citizen’s right to vote based on color. Prior to these amendments, only propertied white male citizens had the right to vote. The primary goal of these amendments was to redress our history of racial discrimination against Black people. Understanding this history is a critical part of a basic education.

Takeaways:

It is disingenuous to say that the goal of dismantling the Department of Education is to return local control of education to states and to promote parental autonomy. Ending federal oversight of education would lead us down a dangerous path, opening the door to a return to the Jim Crow era, when laws, customs, and schools enforced racial inequality. In defending Florida educational policies restricting how the history and impact of racism can be taught, Governor Ron DeSantis gaslit the public by stating that some Blacks actually benefited from slavery as they were able to develop “job skills.” Similar efforts would erase iconic names and important events from the historical record.

The administration is effectively taking a wrecking ball to public education and, in doing so, threatens the future of our most vulnerable resource—our children. This campaign has been described as the “gutting of the system from the inside,” with the ideological goal of not just weakening public education but eliminating it altogether and replacing it with a patchwork of private voucher schools and deregulated magnet and charter chains. This is the opposite of standing up for equal opportunity and would set the nation back at a time when the overwhelming majority of Americans want to see it move forward.

The Hon. Jay Blitzman is a retired Massachusetts Juvenile Court Judge and former Executive Director of Massachusetts Advocates for Children. Jay is a law school lecturer who consults on youth and criminal issues. Blitzman is a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Read More

Pro-Trump protestors
Trump supporters who attempted to overturn the 2020 election results are now seeking influential election oversight roles in battleground states.
Andrew Lichtenstein/Getty Images

Loving Someone Who Thinks the Election Was Stolen

He’s the kind of man you’d want as a neighbor in a storm.

Big guy. Strong hands. The person you’d call if your car slid into a ditch. He lives rural, works hard, supports a wife and young son, and helps care for his aging mom. Life has not been easy, but he shows up anyway.

Keep ReadingShow less
Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

U.S. President Donald Trump in the Oval Office of the White House on December 15, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Anna Moneymaker/Getty Images)

Project 2025 Drives Trump’s State Dept Overhaul

In May 2025, I wrote about the Trump administration’s early State Department reforms aligned with Project 2025, including calls for budget cuts, mission closures, and policy realignments. At the time, the most controversial move was an executive order targeting the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), shutting it down and freezing all federal foreign aid. This decision reflected Project 2025’s recommendation to scale back and "deradicalize" USAID by eliminating programs deemed overly politicized or inconsistent with conservative values. The report specifically criticized USAID for funding progressive initiatives, such as policies addressing systemic racism and central economic planning, arguing that U.S. foreign aid had become a "massive and open-ended global entitlement program" benefiting left-leaning organizations. The process connecting the report’s ideological critiques to this executive action involved a strategic alignment between key administration officials and Project 2025 architects, who lobbied for immediate policy adjustments. This coalition effectively linked the critique to policy by framing it as a necessary step toward realigning foreign aid with national interests and conservative principles.

Back then, I predicted even more sweeping changes to the State Department. Since May, several major developments have indeed reshaped the department:

Keep ReadingShow less
SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.
apples and bananas in brown cardboard box
Photo by Maria Lin Kim on Unsplash

SNAP Isn’t a Negotiating Tool. It’s a Lifeline.

Millions of families just survived the longest shutdown in U.S. history. Now they’re bracing again as politicians turn food assistance into a bargaining chip.

Food assistance should not be subject to politics, yet the Trump administration is now requiring over 20 Democratic-led states to share sensitive SNAP recipient data—including Social Security and immigration details—or risk losing funding. Officials call it "program integrity," but the effect is clear: millions of low-income families may once again have their access to food threatened by political disputes.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections
us a flag on white concrete building

Democrats’ Redistricting Gains Face New Court Battles Ahead of 2026 Elections

Earlier this year, I reported on Democrats’ redistricting wins in 2025, highlighting gains in states like California and North Carolina. As of December 18, the landscape has shifted again, with new maps finalized, ongoing court battles, and looming implications for the 2026 midterms.

Here are some key developments since mid‑2025:

  • California: Voters approved Proposition 50 in November, allowing legislature‑drawn maps that eliminated three safe Republican seats and made two more competitive. Democrats in vulnerable districts were redrawn into friendlier territory.
  • Virginia: On December 15, Democrats in the House of Delegates pushed a constitutional amendment on redistricting during a special session. Republicans denounced the move as unconstitutional, setting up a legal and political fight ahead of the 2026 elections.
  • Other states in play:
    • Ohio, Texas, Utah, Missouri, North Carolina: New maps are already in effect, reshaping battlegrounds.
    • Florida and Maryland: Legislatures have begun steps toward redistricting, though maps are not yet finalized.
    • New York: Court challenges may force changes to existing maps before 2026.
    • National picture: According to VoteHub’s tracker, the current district breakdown stands at 189 Democratic‑leaning, 205 Republican‑leaning, and 41 highly competitive seats.

Implications for 2026

  • Democrats’ wins in California and North Carolina strengthen their position, but legal challenges in Virginia and New York could blunt momentum.
  • Republicans remain favored in Texas and Ohio, where maps were redrawn to secure GOP advantages.
  • The unusually high number of mid‑decade redistricting efforts — not seen at this scale since the 1800s — underscores how both parties are aggressively shaping the battlefield for 2026.
So, here's the BIG PICTURE: The December snapshot shows Democrats still benefiting from redistricting in key states, but the fight is far from settled. With courts weighing in and legislatures maneuvering, the balance of power heading into the 2026 House elections remains fluid. What began as clear Democratic wins earlier in 2025 has evolved into a multi‑front contest over maps, legality, and political control.

Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network