Listen to this article
Download AudioTrump DEI Lawsuit Threatens School Funding
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.
19 States Sue Trump Admin Over Anti-DEI School Funding Cuts Impact on Vulnerable Students
Nineteen states have launched a major legal challenge against the Trump administration. They filed a federal lawsuit pushing back against directives that could strip schools of billions in federal funding. The core issue revolves around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programs in schools. The administration issued a directive in April 2025 demanding that states certify they are not using federal funds for “illegal DEI” initiatives. Consequently, states led by California, Illinois, Massachusetts, Minnesota, and New York argue this move is unconstitutional (Nineteen states sue Trump over school funding threat – POLITICO).
The lawsuit claims the Department of Education’s order oversteps its authority. Plaintiffs argue it violates the Constitution’s Spending Clause, which gives Congress the power to set conditions on federal funding, not the executive branch. They also cite violations of the separation-of-powers principle, asserting the administration cannot unilaterally impose such requirements (Nineteen states sue Trump over school funding threat – POLITICO). Furthermore, the states maintain that their DEI programs are lawful and essential for creating equitable learning environments for all students, particularly those from marginalized backgrounds.
DEI Education Funding Cuts: Billions at Risk for Vulnerable Kids
The financial stakes in this lawsuit are incredibly high. States claim the administration’s directive puts over $18.7 billion in federal education funds at risk nationwide. This money is crucial for supporting essential school programs. California, for instance, stands to lose roughly $8 billion, much of which goes toward students from low-income families and those with disabilities (Nineteen states sue Trump over school funding threat – POLITICO). New York could lose around $3 billion under the same directive.
These potential DEI education funding cuts disproportionately impact the most vulnerable students, including many Black children who rely on these resources. Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison sharply criticized the administration’s actions. He stated they effectively “close doors to success” for marginalized students, directly contradicting the administration’s supposed commitment to educational opportunity (Nineteen states sue Trump over school funding threat – POLITICO). Therefore, the threatened loss of funds represents a significant blow to efforts aimed at closing achievement gaps and ensuring equitable education for all.
Federal Education Funding at Risk Due to Anti-DEI Directive
Vague Anti-DEI Executive Orders Create Chilling Effect
A major point of contention in the lawsuit is the administration’s vague definition of “illegal DEI.” The April 2025 directive requires states to certify compliance but fails to clearly explain what specific programs or practices are considered unlawful (Nineteen states sue Trump over school funding threat – POLITICO). Plaintiffs argue this ambiguity creates a chilling effect. Consequently, schools and states might feel pressured to dismantle perfectly legal and beneficial equity initiatives simply to avoid the risk of losing critical funding.
Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell stressed that DEI efforts are both “legal and vital.” She highlighted how the directive’s lack of clarity forces schools into a difficult position, potentially causing them to abandon programs supporting disabled students, low-income students, and students of color (19 states sue Trump administration over anti-DEI directive in schools – India Today). This vagueness essentially forces states to self-censor, undermining efforts to create inclusive educational environments. Besides, federal judges have previously criticized the administration’s definition in related cases as potentially unconstitutionally vague (Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Enforcement of New Administration’s DEI-Related Executive Orders).
What is DEI in Education?
DEI means policies and practices ensuring fair opportunities for all students, staff, and faculty, no matter their background. It focuses on removing barriers like systemic racism and poverty.
It involves creating welcoming school cultures, designing inclusive curricula, and recruiting diverse staff to make everyone feel like they belong and challenge biases.
In K-12 schools, DEI promotes understanding different cultures, fights discrimination, and ensures resources are shared fairly to help all students succeed, especially Black students facing systemic disadvantages.
Broader Pattern: Trump Administration School Lawsuits Mount
This lawsuit by the 19 states isn’t happening in isolation. It is part of a larger pattern of legal battles surrounding the Trump administration’s aggressive stance against diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives across various sectors, including education, healthcare, and employment. Earlier in February 2025, higher education organizations filed their own lawsuit. They challenged Trump’s J20 and J21 Executive Orders (Higher ed organizations sue against Trump’s DEI orders – Inside Higher Ed). These orders aimed to terminate federal DEI grants (J20) and compel investigations into universities and corporations with DEI programs (J21) (Federal Judge Temporarily Blocks Enforcement of New Administration’s DEI-Related Executive Orders).
Civil rights groups, including the NAACP Legal Defense Fund (LDF) and Lambda Legal, also sued in February 2025. Their lawsuits argue that these anti-DEI executive orders violate fundamental rights like free speech and equal protection under the law. Specifically, they claim the orders unfairly target programs and services designed to support Black communities, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with disabilities (Civil and Human Rights Organizations Sue Trump Administration Over Executive Orders Banning DEI – NAACP LDF). Although a federal judge issued a temporary injunction in February blocking parts of the orders related to federal contractors, the administration appealed, thus continuing the legal uncertainty (Constitutional Clash: Trump Administration Appeals Ruling Blocking DEI Orders – Ogletree).
Trump DEI Lawsuit: “Anti-Discrimination” or Political Move?
The Trump administration frames its actions as necessary measures to enforce anti-discrimination laws. Officials from the Department of Education argue that federal funding must be tied to compliance with civil rights laws, such as Title VI, which prohibits race-based discrimination. They portray certain DEI programs as inherently discriminatory, suggesting they give unfair advantages based on race (Nineteen states sue Trump over school funding threat – POLITICO). Additionally, the administration points to the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning race-conscious college admissions as justification, claiming it supports their view that DEI initiatives are illegal (‘Illegal’ DEI: See Which States Are Telling Trump Their Schools Don’t Use Illegal DEI).
However, critics, including state attorneys general who have filed suit, view these justifications as a smokescreen for a politically motivated attack on equity. Illinois Attorney General Kwame Raoul accused the administration of weaponizing “vague, anti-DEI rhetoric” to illegally obstruct funds meant for vulnerable students (Nineteen states sue Trump over school funding threat – POLITICO). Legal experts also challenge the administration’s interpretation of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling. They argue the decision specifically addressed college admissions policies, not the broader range of DEI programs found in K-12 schools or other contexts (19 states sue Trump administration over anti-DEI directive in schools – India Today). Indeed, many view the administration’s stance as a misapplication of the law aimed at dismantling programs crucial for achieving racial equity.
Constitutional Principles in the DEI Lawsuit
Spending Clause Argument
Principle: The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to tax and spend public money and to set conditions on funds given to states.
States’ Claim: The Trump administration (Executive Branch) is illegally setting new conditions (DEI certification) on school funding without Congress’s approval. Conditions must also be clear, which states argue the DEI directive is not.
Separation of Powers Argument
Principle: The Constitution divides power between three branches: Legislative (Congress – makes laws/controls funding), Executive (President/Admin – enforces laws), and Judicial (Courts – interpret laws).
States’ Claim: By threatening to withhold funds appropriated by Congress based on its own interpretation of DEI, the administration is overstepping its executive role and interfering with Congress’s power over federal spending.
How Anti-DEI Measures Hit Black Students Hardest
The fight over DEI funding is not just about abstract legal principles; it has real-world consequences, especially for African American students. DEI initiatives in schools are designed to address the very real systemic inequities that often disadvantage Black children. These programs can include culturally responsive teaching methods, resources to support students facing poverty or discrimination, mentorship opportunities, and efforts to recruit and retain Black educators. Without these programs, existing achievement gaps could widen.
Studies and educational resources highlight that DEI practices can improve academic outcomes and social-emotional well-being for Black students by creating more inclusive and understanding school environments (Impact of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) in K12 Education). Furthermore, DEI efforts in higher education that increase faculty diversity provide crucial role models and mentorship for Black college students (What Is DEI in Education and How Can Universities Improve It?). Consequently, dismantling DEI under the guise of fighting “discrimination” risks rolling back decades of progress and removing vital support systems that help Black students navigate educational systems often stacked against them.
ABOUT THE AUTHOR
Darius Spearman is a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College, where he has been teaching 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.
