Public Education Under Threat: 4 Trump Administration Actions To Watch in the 2025-26 School Year

This issue brief is part of a series from the Center for American Progress examining the challenges that parents, educators, and students face as they prepare for and begin the 2025-26 school year.

As students, families, and educators prepare for the new school year, they face a great deal of uncertainty about the role the federal government will play in public education. Since assuming office in January 2025, the second Trump administration has taken steps to diminish the federal government’s role in public education¹ while illegally withholding funds, allowing ICE raids in K-12 public schools, and threatening districts in an attempt to control local instruction.² These actions have created chaos and confusion, harming the quality of education that students across the United States receive.

As communities navigate this devastating climate at the dawn of a new academic year,³ this issue brief details the harms these actions perpetuate and sheds light on the federal policies and actions that can be expected in the weeks, months, and even years ahead.

Federal law prohibits the federal government from controlling a public school’s curriculum, instruction, staffing, or text materials.⁴ These decisions are left to states and districts. Still, the Trump administration has made multiple attempts to control how public schools discuss diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility (DEIA) and gender identity.

On President Donald Trump’s first day in office, he rescinded guidance from the U.S. Department of Education aimed at creating and supporting inclusive environments for LGBTQI+ students.⁵ Less than two weeks later, he followed up with an executive order directing the secretaries of education, defense, and health and human services to create a plan to eliminate federal support for the inclusion of DEIA and gender identity in K-12 school materials.⁶ Going a step further, in February, the Department of Education announced that it considers DEIA programs discriminatory, threatening to withhold federal funds from any state or district that continues to operate these programs.⁷ In April, the department issued yet another letter threatening to withhold funds if states and districts did not promise to comply with its new interpretation of civil rights laws.⁸

Most recently, the U.S. Department of Justice issued guidance describing which DEIA programs and policies it considers illegal for federal grantee recipients to use funding for.⁹ This guidance warns that such activities—including staff trainings and hiring practices that encourage diversity—could result in the loss of federal funding.¹⁰

This pattern of action suggests the administration is likely to continue enacting policies expressly to hinder local districts’ ability to ensure that academic programs and learning environments reflect DEIA principles. The “DEI” acronym itself has been distorted and misrepresented by the current administration, which has referred to it as “discriminatory equity ideology” and incorrectly stated that it creates and increases prejudice.¹¹

DEIA initiatives, at their core, benefit all students, not just some, by ensuring that people of all identities, abilities, and perspectives are welcomed. DEIA practices remove accessibility barriers for students with disabilities; open doors for girls to participate in science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) programs; ensure students of different religions and ethnicities are educated without harassment or discrimination; and offer a moral compass to help districts intentionally identify and address inequities in their school system, such as the consistent lack of Advanced Placement (AP) courses available in low-income and rural schools.¹²

In anticipation of future federal actions related to the use of DEIA in public schools, districts should understand the difference between executive mandates and guidance versus what U.S. law states. While the Trump administration may issue letters and orders, these are not legally binding and do not supersede existing federal and civil rights laws regarding harassment, discrimination, and hate crimes.

Alongside attacks on inclusive school instruction, the Trump administration has federalized private school voucher programs. During his second week in office, President Trump signed an executive order directing the Department of Education to issue guidance on how states can use federal public education funds to support private school choice programs.¹³ In response, the department issued a letter in March encouraging states to use their Title I funds—which are appropriated by Congress to support public education specifically for students experiencing poverty—to expand private school voucher programs.¹⁴

Further escalating these efforts, President Trump signed into law the country’s first federal private school voucher program, created through the Educational Choice for Children Act (ECCA).¹⁵ If an individual donates up to $1,700 to organizations that offer vouchers to cover students’ private school tuition, the ECCA rewards them with a 100 percent tax credit. This permanent, uncapped program could cost the federal government nearly $51 billion annually.¹⁶ By comparison, the government provides just $14 billion in annual funds under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) and $18 billion in Title I funding for high-poverty schools.¹⁷ The high cost of this program could trigger funding cuts elsewhere, including in public education, and could lead to school budget issues if districts experience decreases in student enrollment due to the increased use of private school vouchers.¹⁸ At the same time, the ECCA creates no accountability measures to ensure that participating students receive a high-quality education, and it puts students at risk of facing discrimination from private institutions.¹⁹

States that have implemented similar programs have already observed harmful impacts.²⁰ Private school voucher programs have led states to cut funding for public education and public schools to close their doors,²¹ all while providing no tangible benefit to student achievement and primarily supporting families whose children were already enrolled in private school.²² This nexus of impacts has proven especially harmful for rural communities, which rely more heavily on public schools and state funds.²³

Given the Trump administration’s significant support for private schools, districts can expect future actions further expanding choice programs.²⁴ As state governors weigh whether to opt into the ECCA, the administration will likely release guidance for its implementation.²⁵ The administration has also proposed expanding school choice as one of its supplemental grant priorities, meaning the department will likely announce grant competitions and other policies supporting school choice expansion,²⁶ including the possible use of IDEA funds to support choice options for students with disabilities.²⁷ This would not be limited to private schools; the president’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2026 calls for investing $500 million in charter schools, an increase of $60 million from the previous year.²⁸ While, like private schools, charter schools are typically independently managed, they are also commonly tuition-free and publicly funded.

Under federal law, the Department of Education is responsible for carrying out key functions in support of public education, including overseeing national education data collection and research; enforcing civil rights protections; and holding states and districts accountable for student performance and school improvement.²⁹ Nevertheless, President Trump issued an executive order earlier this year calling for the entire department to be eliminated, and the U.S. Supreme Court has since allowed him to take steps to do so.³⁰

The administration justified its decision to cut the department by citing recent declines in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) report card scores,³¹ despite $190 billion in COVID-19 relief funds provided to state and local school districts.³² This rationale overlooks broader, more persistent challenges in the public education system, including the federal government’s declining financial support for public education over the past 20 years.³³

Following the executive order, the Department of Education fired nearly half its workforce.³⁴ Already the smallest Cabinet-level agency by staff and budget,³⁵ the department is now left with around 2,000 employees responsible for overseeing the education of more than 50 million school-aged children and 18.4 million students in postsecondary education.³⁶

This workforce reduction means fewer staff to ensure robust upkeep of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) accountability systems, including timely data reporting and oversight of efforts to improve academic outcomes and close achievement gaps.³⁷ Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has encouraged states to submit waivers to avoid federal accountability requirements under ESSA,³⁸ despite concerns from education advocates and a request from members of Congress urging the administration to reject them.³⁹

Some states, such as Indiana, have already requested these ESSA waivers.⁴⁰ If approved, Indiana’s waiver would allow the state to redirect funding intended to improve low-performing schools toward purposes that do not benefit students in underresourced and underperforming schools.⁴¹ It should be expected that some other states will follow suit and request waivers eliminating or significantly altering testing and accountability requirements. This will obscure the transparency of information regarding school quality, which families rely on to make informed decisions about their children’s education.

The Department of Education’s workforce reduction also weakened the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), which enforces federal civil rights laws in public schools to help protect students from discrimination.⁴² While families, districts, and stakeholders can still report incidents of harassment, discrimination, and hate, there is growing concern about the OCR’s capacity to investigate and resolve complaints given that the agency lost seven of its 12 regional offices and nearly 180 staff attorneys.⁴³ For context, the OCR received 22,687 complaints in FY 2024, the most in agency history.⁴⁴ Recently, Secretary McMahon explicitly acknowledged the agency’s backlog of civil rights complaints.⁴⁵ Without an adequate staff of investigators, attorneys, and other key personnel, the OCR will not be able to protect students from discrimination.

Although Congress controls the purse when it comes to federal spending, the Trump administration has unilaterally withheld K-12 education funds without congressional approval.⁴⁶ Soon after Secretary Linda McMahon’s confirmation in March, the administration abruptly rescinded $2.5 billion in COVID relief grants previously authorized by Congress through the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Elementary and Secondary School Education Relief (ESSER) program.⁴⁷ States and districts that had already committed these funds had to stop projects midway to reevaluate how to pay for them, creating chaos and uncertainty.⁴⁸ This action came despite the fact that 41 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico received extensions to use the funds through March 30, 2026, to address the long-term impacts of the pandemic on student achievement.⁴⁹ The administration claimed the disbursement of these already-approved funds would now be determined on a case-by-case basis, introducing more bureaucracy rather than reducing it, as they have publicly pledged to do.⁵⁰

More recently, the administration withheld a combined $6.2 billion in congressionally approved K-12 funding that was supposed to be released on July 1, amounting to 14.4 percent of the Department of Education’s budget.⁵¹ These funds were intended to support professional development for educators (Title II-A); services for English learners (Title III-A); migrant education services (Title I-C); 21st Century Community Learning Centers, which provide summer learning and after-school programs (Title IV-B); and student support and academic enrichment (Title IV-A).⁵²

The funding delay sparked concerns from superintendents nationwide who feared they would have to cut academic programs,⁵³ while some districts had already eliminated staff positions and programs as a result.⁵⁴ Facing litigation and pushback from both Democrats and Republicans, as well as education advocates,⁵⁵ the Trump administration reversed its decision in late July, releasing the funds mere weeks before the start of the school year; but new conditions were attached.⁵⁶ These conditions, outlined in grant award notices (GANs) that are on file with the Center for American Progress, include requirements to comply with the administration’s executive orders, Office of Management and Budget memos, and other department or program specific announcements. They also prohibit grantees and subgrantees from using funds on programs that benefit individuals without legal immigration status, with additional reporting mandates.

Since assuming office, the Trump administration has rescinded or frozen more than $10 billion in support for K-12 education. While some funds have been released, the administration continues to withhold more than $4 billion for programs that K-12 public schools need to ensure a successful academic year, including those that support teacher effectiveness, school-based mental health services, and long-term academic recovery from the pandemic.⁵⁷

Looking ahead, the president’s fiscal year 2026 budget request offers a glimpse into what funding cuts can be expected, either through the appropriations process or a rescissions package. These cuts are expected to strain state and local budgets, adding more pressure to generate education revenue that was once provided by the federal government. And states’ ability to raise funding for education will be more challenging as they redirect funds to make up for the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s recent cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP).⁵⁸

Since taking office in January, the Trump administration has already signaled sizable shifts in K-12 education policy. These include reduced federal spending for public education, which places more responsibility on states and local districts to generate school revenue. Navigating any funding cutbacks and increased federal influence over curricula will be challenging for school districts. With the possibility of a rescissions package and more freezes on federal education awards, state and district leaders should prepare for funding gaps by identifying alternative sources of support to prevent staffing cuts and the loss of academic programs.⁶¹

The authors would like to thank Jared Bass and Mishka Espey of the Center for American Progress for their valuable contributions to this issue brief. The authors would also like to thank Madison Weiss for her thorough fact-checking.