Navigating DEI: States vs. Trump
By Darius Spearman (africanelements)
Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.
DEI Funding Under Threat
The Trump administration has threatened to eliminate federal funding for schools that do not cease Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives (newsone.com). Many states, however, are resisting this directive. The U.S. Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter warning schools that federal funding could be lost if they promote “pervasive and repugnant” racial preferences (newsone.com). In addition, President Trump issued an executive order, “Reinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policy,” in April 2025, reinforcing the letter's demands (newsone.com).
The administration's stance is that DEI programs are inconsistent with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin (edweek.org). Despite these threats, about half of the states that have responded to Trump's letter have indicated they will not comply (theconversation.com). This creates a significant standoff between federal and state authorities regarding the future of DEI in education.
State Resistance to Anti-DEI Directives
States are pushing back against the Trump administration's anti-DEI directives on legal and ethical grounds. Many states that rejected the directive grounded their refusal in federal law, citing the Civil Rights Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act (newsone.com). Some states, like Connecticut, argue that for the federal government to cancel DEI programming, it would first need to legally change the definition of Title VI (newsone.com).
Education officials in states like Massachusetts argue that DEI work is ideologically necessary for providing supportive learning environments for all students (newsone.com). Furthermore, some states, such as Kansas and Kentucky, have affirmed compliance with federal law while simultaneously encouraging local districts to continue DEI work (theconversation.com). This dual approach highlights the complex legal and ethical considerations at play.
Executive Power and Legal Questions
The Trump administration's approach to “Dear Colleague” letters and executive orders regarding DEI is seen as an unusual and potentially legally questionable expansion of executive power. While previous administrations issued “Dear Colleague” letters as advisories, Trump's letter is framed as a mandate, reinforced by an executive order, which is legally binding (newsone.com). Some scholars are calling the letter an “overreach” of legal authority, as it attempts to issue educational mandates without the approval of the judicial or congressional branches (newsone.com).
The administration's directive gives schools two weeks to eliminate DEI initiatives or risk losing federal funding (ctinsider.com). The Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights has opened over 80 investigations into universities and schools since late January, mostly targeting DEI, in response to the president's social-policy agenda (edweek.org). This aggressive enforcement strategy raises concerns about the balance of power and the legal limits of executive authority.
Defining DEI: A Lack of Clarity
The lack of a clear definition for “DEI programming” by the Trump administration creates uncertainty and risk for school districts. The Trump administration characterizes DEI as “smuggling racial stereotypes and explicit race-consciousness into everyday training, programming, and discipline,” but does not define what constitutes DEI programming (newsone.com). This ambiguity puts school districts at risk of losing funding if they maintain any initiatives related to racial equality (newsone.com).
The executive order, “Reinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policies,” targets “behavior modification techniques” defined as school discipline policies or practices that incorporate or are based on “discriminatory equity ideology” (presidency.ucsb.edu). This order is part of a broader effort to roll back DEI policies and reframe civil rights enforcement, applying to student conduct as well as curriculum and hiring (jdsupra.com). The administration views previous guidance that encouraged schools to address racial disparities in discipline as promoting “discriminatory equity ideology” and leading to increased classroom disorder (presidency.ucsb.edu). This broad and undefined terminology leaves schools guessing about what specific actions might lead to federal funding cuts.
Understanding “Discriminatory Equity Ideology”
Discriminatory Equity Ideology: This term, used by the Trump administration, refers to school discipline policies or practices that incorporate or are based on what they consider “discriminatory equity ideology.” It is a key target of the executive order “Reinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policies.”
Enforcement and Consequences
The Trump administration's executive order on school discipline requires a report to the President that includes measures to ensure federal funds do not support “racially preferential policies,” including through nonprofit organizations (whitehouse.gov). This implies that federal funding could be withheld from schools or organizations found to be implementing policies deemed to be based on “discriminatory equity ideology” (edweek.org). The report will detail any nonprofits that receive federal subsidies that promote DEI and its use for dealing with student behavior, and calls for the termination of those funds (edweek.org).
The order calls for appropriate action against educational agencies that fail to comply with Title VI by continuing to use “racially preferential discipline practices” (whitehouse.gov). While the primary stated consequence is the potential loss of federal funding, the broader context suggests a reinterpretation of civil rights enforcement that could lead to legal challenges or investigations for non-compliant entities (jdsupra.com). This marks a significant shift in how the federal government intends to enforce its education policies.
Impact on States and Compliance
The Trump administration's actions are impacting states' decisions regarding DEI, with some states complying and others actively resisting. As of May 30, 23 states had complied with the administration's directive by signing the letter (newsone.com). Some complying states, like Oklahoma, have also passed state laws banning DEI policies and programs (newsone.com).
The remaining 25 states refused to certify the letter, asserting compliance with Title VI and that their policies are not discriminatory (newsone.com). Furthermore, 19 of those 25 states sued the Trump administration in April, resulting in a court injunction that temporarily released states from compliance (newsone.com). This legal pushback demonstrates the strong opposition from a significant number of states.
Broader Federal Policy Landscape
The Trump administration's DEI directives, particularly the executive order on school discipline, are part of a broader federal policy landscape aimed at rolling back previous administrations' approaches to diversity, equity, and inclusion (jdsupra.com). This order specifically targets school discipline policies that consider race, which the administration views as “discriminatory equity ideology” (presidency.ucsb.edu). It contrasts sharply with the Obama administration's 2014 guidance, which pressured schools to equalize disciplinary rates by race, and the 2023 guidance from the previous administration that noted statistical racial disparities could indicate Title VI violations (whitehouse.gov, presidency.ucsb.edu).
The current administration's stance emphasizes that discipline should be based solely on objective behavior, not race, and seeks to ensure federal funds do not support policies deemed “racially preferential” (whitehouse.gov). This approach signifies a shift in civil rights enforcement, moving away from race-conscious policymaking in education (jdsupra.com). This ongoing debate reflects fundamental disagreements about the role of race and equity in American education.
Office for Civil Rights Investigations
The Role of Title VI
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance (edweek.org). The Trump administration asserts that DEI programs, particularly those addressing racial disparities in school discipline, violate Title VI by promoting “racial preferences” (newsone.com). This interpretation contrasts with previous administrations that viewed efforts to address racial disparities as consistent with Title VI's goal of ensuring equal opportunity.
States resisting the directive argue that their DEI initiatives are designed to ensure compliance with Title VI, not to violate it (newsone.com). They contend that addressing systemic inequalities is necessary to prevent discrimination. This fundamental disagreement over the interpretation of Title VI forms the core of the legal battle between the administration and resisting states.
The Paperwork Reduction Act
The Paperwork Reduction Act (PRA) is a federal law that requires federal agencies to obtain approval from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) before collecting information from the public. States resisting the Trump administration's directive have cited the PRA as a reason for non-compliance (newsone.com). Their argument is that since they already certify compliance with Title VI, requiring them to do so again under the new directive constitutes redundant paperwork, which the PRA aims to prevent.
This legal maneuver highlights the states' strategy to challenge the administration's demands on procedural grounds, in addition to substantive ones. The PRA provides a legal basis for states to push back against what they perceive as unnecessary administrative burdens imposed by the federal government.
Legal Challenges and Injunctions
The legal challenges to the Trump administration's DEI directives have led to significant developments. In April, 19 states sued the administration over the “Dear Colleague” letter, resulting in a court injunction that temporarily released states from having to comply with its demands (newsone.com). This injunction provides a temporary reprieve for states that wish to continue their DEI programs without immediate fear of losing federal funding.
The outcome of these legal battles will have long-term implications for federal authority over state education policies and the future of DEI initiatives. The courts will ultimately decide the legality of the administration's directives and the extent to which the executive branch can impose mandates on states without congressional approval.
Key Events in the DEI Directive
U.S. Department of Education sends “Dear Colleague” letter warning schools about DEI funding cuts.
President Trump issues executive order “Reinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policy.”
19 states sue the Trump administration, leading to a court injunction temporarily releasing them from compliance.
23 states comply with the directive; 25 states refuse to certify the letter.
Implications for Students
The debate over DEI programming has significant implications for students, particularly those from marginalized communities. Proponents of DEI argue that these initiatives are crucial for creating supportive learning environments and addressing historical inequities (newsone.com). They believe that DEI helps to foster a sense of belonging and improve academic outcomes for all students, especially those who have been historically underserved.
Conversely, the administration's stance suggests that DEI programs may lead to “racially preferential” treatment, potentially harming other student groups (whitehouse.gov). The elimination of DEI programs could impact how schools address issues of race, culture, and identity, potentially leading to a less inclusive educational experience for some students. The long-term effects on student well-being and academic achievement remain a critical concern.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.
