Are the President's Actions About Public Schools Legal?

Since Inauguration Day, the Trump administration has attacked public education and inclusive policies, often in direct conflict with existing law.

Here is a deeper look at the legality of the Trump administration’s actions.

View past legal updates:

May 1, 2025
April 24, 2025
April 10, 2025
April 3, 2025
March 27, 2025

May 8, 2025

Recent Executive Actions Impacting Education

Are the President's Proposed Sweeping Budget Cuts to Federal Education Initiatives Legal?

On May 2, Trump released a “skinny budget” proposal for the 2026 fiscal year would reduce funding by nearly $18 billion for the National Institutes of Health, $12 billion for the Department of Education (ED), and $5 billion for the National Science Foundation. It also proposes turning IDEA funding into a block grant, consolidating 18 ESSA programs into a single block grant, and eliminating funding for TRIO and Federal Work-Study (among other programs). A more detailed budget proposal is expected later in the month.

Is it Legal for the President to Cancel $1 Billion in Federal Mental Health Grants for K-12 Schools?

On April 29, the Department of Education notified schools that it will be discontinuing $1 billion in federal grants dedicated to school-based mental health services, claiming that the grants violated “the letter or purpose of Federal civil rights law.” The grants were authorized as part of the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, which was passed in 2022 after the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. Schools have used the grant money to hire mental health professionals, including counselors and social workers.

Is it Legal for the President to Fast-Track Switching Accreditors for Colleges and Universities?

On May 1, the Department of Education (ED) released a Dear Colleague Letter to make it easier for higher education institutions to switch accreditors. The Letter was issued in response to Trump’s April 23 Accreditation Executive Order, which directs ED to deny, monitor, suspend, or terminate recognition of accreditors who include DEI in their standards. According to the Letter, institutions are allowed to change accreditors to align with their religious values, comply with state laws, or avoid DEI requirements. ED now has 30 days to approve the change in accreditors; the request will also be approved even if ED does not formally act within those 30 days, so long as the institution submits materials showing “reasonable cause.”

Is it Legal for the President to Restrict In-State Tuition Access Based on Citizenship?

On April 28, Trump issued an Executive Order (“Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens”) threatening to revoke federal funding from cities with sanctuary jurisdiction status and that have policies specifically benefiting undocumented immigrants. It directs the Attorney General to end the enforcement of policies that “favor aliens over American citizens,” including state laws offering in-state tuition to undocumented students but not out-of-state citizens. Currently, 24 states and the District of Columbia allow in-state tuition for undocumented students.

Is it Legal for the President to Strengthen ICE's Power to Deport Foreign Students?

On April 29, the Trump administration unveiled a new policy that will expand ICE’s power to terminate the legal status of foreign students. The policy—presented by U.S. attorneys as evidence in a district court filing—broadens the list of criteria that can be used to revoke legal status. Notably, this includes “evidence of a failure to comply with the terms of nonimmigrant status” and “U.S. Department of State visa revocation,” which can be issued without evidence of a violation and is not subject to court challenges. Although the Trump administration began restoring thousands of students’ legal statuses last week after a series of court decisions, this new policy potentially places these students in jeopardy once again.

Recent Department of Education Investigations

Since last week, ED has launched several investigations into schools over alleged violations of federal laws like Title VI and Title IX:

• On April 29, ED launched a Title VI investigation into Chicago Public Schools (CPS) over its 2025-2029 Black Students Success Plan, which outlines goals such as hiring more Black teachers and lowering suspension rates for Black students. The plan was created in response to a 2023 Illinois law directing the Chicago Board of Education to close academic gaps between Black students and their peers.
• On April 30, ED began investigating the Washington State Superintendent’s Office, claiming that Washington State potentially violated federal laws (Title IX, FERPA, and PPRA) by requiring schools to adopt trans-inclusive athletics policies, not notifying parents if a student socially transitions, and training employees to address gender bias in instructional materials.
• On May 1, ED opened a Title VI investigation into Evanston-Skokie School District 65 in Illinois for practices such as sponsoring affinity groups for students and teachers of color, hosting racial literacy trainings for staff, and creating K-5 lesson plans that allegedly teach students to “disrupt the Western nuclear family dynamics” and “understand that our country has a racist history and is grounded in white privilege.”
• On May 6, ED launched a Title IX investigation into Saratoga Springs City School District in New York for its policy allowing students to “use facilities and participate in activities and sports consistent with their gender identity.”
• On May 6, ED, Health and Human Services, and the U.S. General Services Administration opened a review of alleged antisemitic violence at the University of Washington after dozens of pro-Palestinian student protestors were arrested the night before.

Litigation Updates

Judge Directs Department of Education to Restore COVID-19 Relief Funds

On May 6, a New York district judge issued a preliminary injunction halting ED’s revocation of pandemic relief fund extensions for K-12 schools. The pause temporarily reverses ED’s determination that states would forfeit any pandemic relief funds not liquidated by March 28, 2025 (a year before the extended deadline of March 2026 ED previously approved) and allows the 16 states and the District of Columbia to continue spending what remains of over $1 billion in funding they previously received.

University Coalition Sues NSF Over Indirect Research Cost Policy

On May 5, the American Council on Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, and 13 universities filed a lawsuit challenging the National Science Foundation’s plan to cap higher education institutions’ indirect research cost reimbursement rates at 15%. The lawsuit argues that the cap is “arbitrary and capricious” and violates the Administrative Procedure Act. Similar plans brought forward by the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy to cap indirect research costs have already been blocked in federal court.

May 1, 2025, Update

Trump’s April 23 Executive Orders Impacting Education

Is it Legal for the President to Order Higher Education Accreditors to Eliminate DEI Standards?

The executive order “Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education” directs the Department of Education (ED) to deny, monitor, suspend, or terminate recognition of accreditors that require schools to promote DEI initiatives. It also instructs ED to ensure accreditation standards promote “intellectual diversity.” Five of the seven major accreditors currently require institutions to address DEI; however, some accreditors had already softened DEIA language in their standards before the EO was issued.

Is it Legal for the President to Investigate Foreign Gifts and Contracts at Higher Education Institutions?

The executive order “Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities” calls on ED to “robust[ly] enforce” Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (which requires colleges report all foreign contracts and grants over $250,000) by instructing universities to “more specifically disclose details about foreign funding” and launching audits and investigations to ensure compliance. Institutions found to be noncompliant may lose federal funding. Two days after the executive order was issued, ED announced that it is investigating University of California, Berkeley, for an alleged violation. ED has launched a similar investigation into Harvard University.

Is it Legal for the President to Roll Back Initiatives to Address Student Discipline Disparities?

The executive order “Reinstating Common Sense School Discipline Policies” criticizes school policies that attempt to address racial disparities in student discipline. The EO claims that schools’ reliance on “behavior modification techniques” rather than suspension or expulsion undermines student safety, and that these schools are “weaponizing Title VI” to promote “discriminatory equity ideology.” The EO directs ED to issue Title VI guidance for school discipline and take “appropriate action” against states and school districts that do not comply with its interpretation of Title VI. It also calls upon the Department of Defense (DOD) to issue a revised student discipline code for military schools in line with this guidance.

Is it Legal for the President to Rescind Protections Against Disparate Impact Discrimination?

The executive order “Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy” seeks to roll back protections against policies that have a “disparate impact” based on race, sex, or other protected characteristics. Disparate impact discrimination occurs when a policy or practice that is facially neutral and applied without discriminatory intent nonetheless harms a protected class. While Title VI does not explicitly ban disparate impact discrimination, all federal agencies have adopted regulations under Title VI that do so. The executive order instructs the Attorney General to repeal or amend these regulations and work with the EEOC to review all pending disparate impact cases to align them with the executive order.

Is it Legal for the President to Channel Federal Funds to Advance AI in Education?

The executive order “Advancing Artificial Intelligence Education for American Youth” establishes a task force to improve “AI literacy and critical thinking skills” in K12 schools by partnering with AI industry organizations. By July 22, ED must issue guidance on the use of formula and discretionary grants for AI-based instructional resources. The executive order also directs ED to “prioritize the use of AI in discretionary grant programs for teacher training,” instructs the National Science Foundation to “prioritize research on the use of AI in education,” and calls on the Department of Labor to fund AI apprenticeship and certification programs.

Other Recent Trump Administration Actions

Is it Legal for the President to Order UPenn to Revoke Awards from Transgender Student Athletes?

On April 28, ED announced that it believes the University of Pennsylvania (UPenn) violated Title IX due to its former trans-inclusive athletics policies. This announcement follows ED’s decision back in March to freeze $175 million in UPenn’s federal funds over the alleged violations, which resulted in UPenn backtracking to no longer allow transgender women to compete in women’s sports. ED is now demanding further action—such as issuing a statement affirming the ban, revoking honors from trans athletes in Division I Swimming, and reassigning those distinctions to cisgender athletes. The focus specifically on Division I Swimming reflects the role of anti-trans activist and former Division I swimmer Riley Gaines, who once tied with a UPenn transgender student athlete for fifth place in a swimming competition three years ago.

Is it Legal for the President to Launch a Title VI Investigation Over a New York School Mascot Controversy?

On April 25, ED opened an investigation into New York’s Education Department for threatening to withhold funds from a school district over its refusal to retire its Native American mascot. In 2023, the state formally banned Native American mascots, logos, and team names, requiring districts to phase them out by June 2025. The Massapequa School District, whose “Chief” mascot includes a Native American headdress, resisted the mandate and sought help from the Trump administration. Although Massapequa agreed to retire its mascot by the 2024-2025 school year, it, along with several other districts, sued to challenge the state’s policy. A federal judge dismissed the case in March, finding the districts lacked standing to assert First Amendment claims and failed to present sufficient evidence.

Is it Legal for the President to Launch a Title VI Investigation into Harvard University and Harvard Law Review?

On April 25, ED and Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) launched a joint investigation into Harvard University and the Harvard Law Review for alleged “race-based discrimination” in violation of Title VI. The investigation is based on the Law Review’s selection process for articles and editors, which allegedly permits consideration of “DEI factors” including race.

Litigation Updates

State Coalition Sues Department of Education Over Anti-DEI Certification

On April 25, a coalition of 19 Democratic-led states filed a lawsuit against ED challenging its directive that states must certify that they do not operate any DEIA initiatives in their K-12 public schools (or else lose federal funding). The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Massachusetts, requests that the court invalidate the certification requirement and rule that states are not obligated to enforce or verify school district compliance. As noted above, the lawsuit was filed the day after three different judges blocked the Dear Colleague Letter and/or the certification requirement.

Education Research Groups Sue Department of Education Over IES Cuts

On April 16, the American Educational Research Association and the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness filed a lawsuit alleging that the Trump administration’s gutting of ED’s Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is unlawful. Since January 20, ED has terminated $900 million in IES contracts and fired more than 80% of IES’s employees. The complaint seeks an order directing ED to reinstate or promptly rebid all canceled contracts, ensure all data collected by previous contractors is preserved, and reinstate laid-off employees in roles “necessary to carry out IES functions.” Earlier in the month, the Institute for Higher Education Policy and the Association for Education Finance and Policy filed a similar lawsuit contesting IES’ dismantling.

Minnesota Sues Trump Administration Over Anti-Trans Executive Orders

On April 22, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a lawsuit challenging two Trump administration executive orders (the “Gender Ideology Order” and the “Sports Ban Order”) and related DOJ letters threatening to cut federal funding to Minnesota schools if the state does not comply with the directives. The lawsuit argues that the EOs exceed presidential authority, violate Title IX protections for transgender students, infringe on state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment, and violate the Administrative Procedure Act. Ellison asks the court to declare the orders and DOJ letters unconstitutional, unlawful, and unenforceable.

April 24, 2025

NEA Legal Wins!

Judge Issues Preliminary Injunction Blocking Anti-DEI Dear Colleague Letter

On April 24, 2025, the District Court of New Hampshire issued a preliminary injunction preventing the Department of Education (ED) from enforcing its February 14 Dear Colleague Letter, which threatened to cut federal funding from K-12 schools and colleges and universities if they pursued any “impermissible DEI” activities. NEA, NEA-NH, and individual educators (with the support of the ACLU, ACLU-NH, and ACLU-MA), challenged the Letter as impermissibly vague, a violation of the First Amendment, and a violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The Center for Black Educator Development subsequently joined the case as well. 

NEA also challenged the “End DEI Portal” and the requirement that school districts and state education agencies certify that they would comply with Title VI as ED defined its scope in the February 14 Letter. Today, the court agreed with us on all of our claims and enjoined enforcement of the Letter, the End DEI Portal, and the Certification Requirement in every school district, college, or university in which an NEA member is employed. A second lawsuit brought by AFT and others with the support of Democracy Forward secured an administrative stay on the enforcement of the Letter as well. A third lawsuit brought by the NAACP also secured an injunction against enforcement of the Letter. The triple rulings are a solid rebuke of ED and its attempt to upend civil rights laws to enforce the administration’s antiequality and anti-equity viewpoint on schools and universities.

Utah School Voucher Program Ruled Unconstitutional

On April 18, a Utah district court judge struck down the "Utah Fits All" universal school voucher program. The program, established in 2023, violates two separate provisions of the Utah Constitution – the requirement that public education is “free and open to all” and the prohibition against the use of the income tax for anything other than education and certain ancillary social services. The challenge to the program was brought by NEA on behalf of UEA, a member of the Utah School Board, and three individual Utah taxpayers. However, on April 23, the judge ruled that the program will be allowed to continue running pending an expected appeal before the Utah Supreme Court.

Is it Legal for the President to Penalize Harvard University for Alleged Title VI Violations?

On April 14, Harvard University rejected demands from the Trump administration over its alleged failure to curb campus antisemitism. As a result, the Department of Education (ED) terminated more than $2.2 billion of Harvard’s federal funding and is planning to freeze another $1 billion. ED is also seeking Harvard’s records on expelled foreign students, their research funding, and ties to foreign governments. In addition, the Internal Revenue Service is preparing to rescind Harvard’s tax-exempt status, and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has threatened to revoke Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, thereby preventing the University from hosting international students.

Is it Legal for the President to Terminate Maine's Federal Funding for Alleged Title IX Violations?

On April 11, Maine announced that it will not comply with directives from the Trump administration to ban transgender female athletes in girls’ sports. Following this decision, ED initiated proceedings to terminate Maine’s federal K-12 education funding, and the Department of Justice filed a civil suit. The Department of Agriculture (USDA) also attempted to freeze funding for Maine’s school lunch programs due to the alleged violations of Title IX. However, Maine secured a temporary restraining order blocking the freeze, as the judge ruled that USDA did not follow the process required by federal statute when it froze the funds.

Can the President Freeze NIH Funding for Universities with DEIA Programs or Israel Boycotts?

On April 21, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) announced that, effective immediately, colleges and universities wishing to receive funding will have to certify that they do not have any diversity, equity, inclusion, or accessibility (DEIA) programs. They will also have to certify that they do not boycott Israel or Israeli companies. Institutions refusing to provide certification will be at risk of having their funding rescinded and may be required to pay the funds back to NIH. Funds had already been frozen for Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, and Northwestern Universities prior to this announcement.

Can the President Attempt Immigration Enforcement in K-12 Public Schools?

On April 7, DHS officers tried to enter two elementary schools within the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) but were turned away by school officials. DHS stated that the officers were there to conduct “wellness checks” on unaccompanied children. Previous DHS guidance, in place since 1993 and memorialized in 2011, barred federal agents from engaging in immigration enforcement at schools and other designated sensitive locations. However, the Trump administration rescinded that policy in January, reopening the door for immigration enforcement in places like schools.

Can the President Restart Federal Student Loan Collections?

On April 21st, the Department of Education (ED) announced plans to resume collections on defaulted federal student loans, a process that has been paused since spring 2020. Beginning May 5, the agency will start referring borrowers in default to Treasury for collection by withholding tax refunds and federal benefits, including Social Security. Wage garnishments are expected to follow later in the summer. According to ED, only about 38% of the nearly 43 million borrowers are current on their loans, with a historic number now facing delinquency or default.

April 10, 2025

Is it Legal for the President to Demand K-12 Public School End DEI Initiatives or Risk Losing Funding?

On April 3rd, the Department of Education (ED) sent a letter to State Commissioners overseeing K-12 State Education Agencies requiring them to certify their compliance with its February 14 Dear Colleague Letter. The Letter suggests that certain DEI initiatives discriminate on the basis of race and are in violation of Title VI. Schools will have until April 24 to certify that they have ended any such DEI programs or else risk losing federal funding. Massachusetts, New York, and Washington have already alerted federal officials that they will not provide the requested certification, and several other states have indicated that they plan to not provide the certification as well.

Is it Legal for the President to Continue to Freeze University Federal Funds Over Alleged Antisemitism?

As of April 8, the Trump administration has frozen a combined total of more than $3 billion in federal funds across six universities: Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Northwestern, Penn, and Princeton. ED has also warned Harvard University that it will lose up to $9 billion unless it reforms antisemitism and admissions policies, bans masks for nonmedical purposes, reviews academic departments to “end ideological capture,” and provides “full cooperation” with the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. Harvard appears to be taking steps to comply. Alleged failure to address antisemitism on campus is the justification for these freezes, but the remedies sought often go far beyond the alleged concerns. ED has launched civil rights investigations into all of these institutions, as directed by Trump’s executive order.

Is it Legal for the President to Launch Investigations into Schools Over Alleged Title IX Violations?

In response to Trump’s executive orders on "gender ideology” and transgender athlete bans, the Education and Justice Departments announced the creation of a special investigations team within ED’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) to more rapidly resolve investigations and ensure that cases are “fully prepared for ultimate DOJ enforcement.” The special investigations team will include OCR investigators and attorneys, along with attorneys from the Justice Department’s civil right division and ED’s general counsel’s office. The investigative team announced on April 4 a directed investigation into the California Department of Education “for their alleged failure to protect women’s sports.”

Is it Legal for the President to Remove Books and Eliminate DEI Initiatives at U.S. Military Academies?

In response to orders from Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, the U.S. Naval Academy has removed nearly 400 books deemed to promote DEI from its library. The nation's five military academies were told in February to eliminate admissions “quotas” related to sex, ethnicity, or race after Trump signed an executive order to remove “any preference based on race or sex” from the military. West Point and the Air Force and Naval academies have also done curriculum reviews to remove materials that allegedly promote DEI. DODEA schools also have seen widespread efforts to censor school libraries and educational programming.

Soliciting Feedback to Deregulate Federal Financial Assistance Programs

On April 3, ED announced public hearings as a first step in a negotiated rulemaking to “streamline” federal student aid programs, including the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF), the Pay As You Earn (PAYE) Repayment plan, and the Income-Contingent Repayment (ICR) plan. While the specific changes ED seeks to make remain unclear, this process is in response to Trump’s executive order calling on ED to limit PSLF eligibility for organizations it believes violate federal immigration laws or subsidize other “illegal activities,” including by supporting transgender children seeking gender-affirming care. The rulemaking process typically takes at least one year to complete.

Litigation Updates

The U.S. Supreme Court Allows Trump to Cancel Millions of Dollars in Education Grants

On April 4, the Supreme Court stayed, in a 5-4 decision, a Massachusetts federal court’s temporary restraining order that directed ED to restore $65 million in canceled teacher training grants while the court considered a challenge to the grants’ cancellation. These grants were originally terminated by the Trump administration for funding programs it deemed to be DEI initiatives. The unsigned decision by the 5 Justices in the majority said the district court likely lacked jurisdiction under the Administrative Procedure Act to issue the order and that the plaintiffs had failed to show that ED could recover funds allocated under the order if the government ultimately prevailed in the case.

IHEP and AEFP Sue Over McMahon’s Cuts to Institute of Education Sciences

The Institute for Higher Education Policy and the Association for Education Finance and Policy filed a lawsuit on April 4 over cuts to the Institute of Education Sciences (IES). The Trump administration fired 80% of the agency’s staff and terminated $900 million in contracts, including many for congressionally mandated surveys, reports, and research studies. The lawsuit argues that these actions exceeded the administration’s authority, violating the constitutional separation of power and interfering with the agency’s statutory responsibilities to collect and disseminate data.

Massachusetts Judge Blocks Cap on NIH Funding

Colleges and universities that rely on the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for research funding received a favorable decision when a federal district court in Massachusetts permanently barred NIH from capping or cutting funding. These changes, if put into effect, would have cost institutions of higher education billions of dollars each year. NIH has appealed the ruling to the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Trump’s Recent Executive Actions Undermining Education

Is it Legal for the President to Open Investigations into 50+ Universities for DEI Practices?

The Department of Education (ED) is investigating more than 50 higher education institutions over DEI practices based on its February 14 Dear Colleague Letter, which contends that DEI initiatives discriminate on the basis of race. Forty-five of these universities are under investigation for having partnered with the Ph.D. Project, a nonprofit with programs limited to participants of color. Seven others face allegations of “impermissible race-based scholarships and race-based segregation.”

Is it Legal for the President to Impose University Funding Freezes Over Antisemitism Concerns?

ED has warned Columbia University that it will permanently lose federal funding unless it places its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department under receivership, bans identity-concealing masks, and reforms its policies on antisemitism, student discipline, and admissions. These demands follow the Trump administration’s freeze of $400 million in federal funding to the University, citing its alleged failure to curb antisemitism on campus. Despite the University making several of these concessions, ED has not lifted the freeze. Similarly, nearly $9 billion in federal contracts and grants are also currently under review at Harvard University on the basis of similar concerns.

Is it Legal for the President to Cut Funds to Enforce Transgender Athlete Bans?

The Trump administration has threatened to suspend millions of dollars in federal funding at the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Maine for alleged violations of Trump’s executive order banning transgender student athletes from competing on female sports teams. While the University of Maine has since complied, Maine’s Department of Education has refused and now faces potential federal enforcement actions, as ED alleges that Maine has violated Title IX.

Is it Legal for the President to Cancel Final COVID Relief Aid Payouts?

Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced that ED will halt the final payouts of federal pandemic relief funds to state governments and school districts, reversing a Biden era initiative that granted deadline extensions so that schools could spend the funds on pre-approved projects through early next year. McMahon has noted that state governments can reapply for extensions on individual projects if they can justify ongoing pandemic-related needs for American students.

Is it Legal for the President to Target Green Card and Student Visa Holders for Deportation?

Multiple foreign students and faculty who engaged in pro-Palestinian demonstrations last year have been taken into custody by ICE and threatened with deportation, despite being green card holders. This began on March 8 with the detention of Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil, the lead negotiator for Columbia University’s pro-Palestinian encampments. The Trump administration has also revoked at least 300 student visas, which are an easier target for the federal government as they do not require a judge’s approval to revoke.

Can the President Frame Title I Funds as Tool for School Choice?

As a follow-up to Trump’s executive order on school choice, on March 31, ED issued a guidance that highlights two provisions in Title I that it argues gives states “discretion to provide greater flexibility to support parents’ choices for their child’s education.” According to the guidance, under these provisions, states may use Title I funds for direct student services like advanced coursework, dual enrollment, and tutoring outside of a public-school setting. However, the guidance stops short of expanding private school vouchers and does not introduce new policies.

Litigation Updates

Maryland Judge Orders Department of Education to Restart Teacher Prep Grants

On March 19, a federal district court judge in Maryland ruled that the Trump Administration's termination of $600 million in teacher training grants over DEI efforts was unconstitutional. The judge has ordered ED to restore funding for certain programs within five business days, following an order made the previous week by a federal judge in Massachusetts, directing ED to reinstate canceled grants in eight states. The Trump administration has since appealed the order in the Massachusetts case to the U.S. Supreme Court, seeking to vacate the ruling, and has asked the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to stay the Maryland order until the Supreme Court issues a decision.

Appeals Court Rules Trump Can Fire Independent Federal Board Members

On March 28, a federal appeals court ruled that Trump can dismiss members of independent federal boards overseeing labor disputes and federal employee grievances. This decision temporarily pauses a lower court’s order that reinstated the dismissed members of the National Labor Relations and Merit Systems Protection boards. While federal law restricts a president’s ability to remove board members who oversee independent regulatory agencies, the Trump administration has argued that these limitations are unconstitutional. It is expected that the Supreme Court will eventually weigh in on this issue.

Is it legal for the president to eliminate the Department of Education?

The Trump administration has aggressively moved to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education (ED), issuing an EO on March 20th that instructs the Secretary of Education to take “all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of [ED] and return education authority to the states.” This directive follows a 50% reduction in ED’s staffing, along with the termination of $1.5billion in contracts and grants, rendering many offices non-functional.

Is it Legal for the President to Slash Federal Funding for DEI Efforts?

On February 14th, the U.S. Department of Education published a “Dear Colleague” letter warning schools that they could lose federal funding for advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The letter claims, without evidence, that discrimination exists “in every facet of academia” and condemns DEI programs for promoting discussions of systemic racism. Schools were given until February 28, 2025, to comply with the directive or risk losing federal funding.

Is it Legal for the President to Roll Back Protections for Transgender and LGBTQ+ Individuals?

On his first day in office, Trump issued an executive order mandating that federal agencies recognize only two genders based on biological sex at conception. He later signed an EO banning transgender and intersex athletes from female sports teams and facilities, which followed a Dear Colleague Letter issued by ED stripping away the Biden administration’s explicit protections for LGBTQ+ students.

Is it Legal for the President to Undermine Public Education Funding?

On January 29, Trump issued an executive order directing federal agencies to explore ways to use existing funding programs to support private and religious school vouchers. It tasks the Department of Education with promoting K-12 school choice and instructs other agencies to assess how other funding mechanisms could expand access to private education.

Is it Legal for the President to Penalize K-12 Educators for Supporting Gender Equity

On January 29, Trump signed an executive order directing federal agencies to develop a plan to eliminate funding used in K-12 schools to support “equity” and “gender ideology.” It echoes a similar 2020 executive order that courts deemed impermissibly vague. Most notably, it instructs the Attorney General to coordinate with prosecutors to take legal action against educators who allegedly violate parental rights—particularly those who support transgender students in socially transitioning.

Is it Legal for the President to Prohibit “Divisive Concepts” in Department of Defense Schools?

On January 27, Trump passed an executive order banning military-run schools from teaching “divisive concepts” about race, sex, and gender identity. The directive also mandates that curriculum emphasize American exceptionalism. Additionally, it orders the Secretaries of Defense and Homeland Security to conduct a sweeping review of leadership, instructors, and curriculum to ensure compliance with this directive.

NEA’s Legal Challenges Against Federal Overreach

Given that many of the Trump administration’s executive actions are in direct conflict with existing law, NEA has sued the administration to curb unlawful efforts that threaten the rights of students, parents, and educators:

NEA and ACLU Sue U.S. Department of Education Over February 14th Dear Colleague Letter

On March 5, NEA and ACLU filed suit challenging the U.S. Department of Education’s “Dear Colleague” letter that imposes impermissibly vague restrictions on DEI efforts and threatens federal funding cuts.

The lawsuit argues that the Education Department exceeded its authority, using the Letter to violate the First and Fifth Amendments and suppress academic freedom. Educators nationwide are already feeling the chilling effects of the department’s overreach and have reported growing fears of disciplinary action for teaching honest and inclusive curricula.

NEA, NAACP, and Broad Coalition Sue Trump Administration for Attempts to Dismantle the U.S. Department of Education

NEA, NAACP, and a coalition of education, civil rights, and school employee groups filed a lawsuit on March 24 asking the federal district court to immediately halt the government’s attempt to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.

The lawsuit argues that staff cuts have left the agency unable to carry out many of its statutorily-mandatory functions and put student civil rights in jeopardy.

It alleges that actions to dismantle the Department exceed the constitutional authority of the executive branch and violate the federal Administrative Procedure Act.