Trump has promised to eliminate the funding of schools that do not do dei work – but half of the states do not comply

This article is part of TPM Cafe, the House of TPM for the opinion and the analysis of the news. It was initially published during the conversation.

It has been about six months since the United States Ministry of Education sent a “dear colleague” letter to all schools that receive federal funding, warning them that they could risk losing this money if they promote what the ministry calls racial preferences “omnipresent and repugnant”.

The letter, among others, reversed the positions of the previous presidents on the way in which diversity, equity and inclusion influence the disciplinary measures of the schools. He advised schools to start in the two weeks to eliminate all the discipline protocols rooted in Dei, on the grounds that this work is discriminatory against white students.

Trump also published an executive decree “reintegrating Commisson’s school discipline policy”, in April 2025, double the letter.

Trump’s letter and decree have an unusual level of influence on how schools can decide the best way to teach and, if necessary, to discipline students. It also reduces recognized research according to which black, Latin American and Amerindian students are disciplined more frequently and severely than white and Asian students.

I am an educational academic who has spent the last 13 years analyzing the school discipline policy. Although previous administrations have published “dear colleague” letters to schools, Trump is the first which spreads as if it were a law – establishing a new previous potential for the executive power to issues educational mandates without the approval of the branches of the judicial government or the congress.

Although all states except two have responded to Trump’s letter, about half of them said they would not comply with their terms – despite the administration’s threat to reduce funding if they do not follow the advice.

Understand Dei in education

Education, or diversity, equity and inclusion focused on actions, refers to an ideology and programming that intend to improve models of racial inequality. In the context of discipline in schools, DEI strategies could include teachers with conversations with children about their behavior, rather than suspending them immediately.

Research shows that these techniques can help reduce racial discipline gaps in academic success and disciplinary results.

The Obama administration in 2014 recognized this research in its own letter of “dear colleague” to schools. The administration advised schools to reform their discipline practices towards non -punishing alternatives to the suspension or a risk of being the subject of a survey for discrimination.

The first Trump administration canceled this letter in 2018.

Then, in 2023, the Biden administration published a document in the same direction as the letter from Obama.

Trump’s February 2025 letter brought together all these recommendations under the banner of “Dei” and argued that such practices are discriminatory and privileged students on white and Asian students.

In his decree in April, Trump reiterated that if the schools did not eliminate Dei, they would be without compliance with title VI of the law on civil rights of 1964. This law prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin,

Public school districts must regularly issue a certificate of compliance with the government showing that their work is in accordance with title VI.

Although the Trump administration characterizes Dei as “the smuggling of racial stereotypes and the awareness of explicit race in the training, programming and daily discipline”, it does not define exactly what constitutes the programming of Dei.

This endangers school districts to lose funding if they maintain initiatives related to racial equality.

Legal concerns with Trump directives

The executive office and the members of the congress generally issue “dear colleagues” letters, which are not legally binding, to advise schools and others on politics.

However, Trump’s letter was written as a mandate and reinforced by a decree, which is legally binding.

Some researchers call the “overlap” letter of the legal authority.

In the spring of 2025, I analyzed states’ responses to the letter and Trump decree.

Two states, Iowa and Tennessee, had not yet provided public responses.

Twenty-three states respected the administration directive by signing the letter to May 30. Some, like Oklahoma, have not only certified the letter but also adopted the laws of states prohibiting the dei policies and programs.

The 25 remaining states have refused to certify the letter, saying that they have already respected title VI and that their policies are not discriminatory.

In addition, 19 of these 25 states continued the Trump administration during the letter in April, leading to an injunction of the court later this month which temporarily released the States to have to comply with its requests.

I noticed that many states that refuted Trump’s letter used the same exact words in their responses, reporting a concerted effort to withstand Trump’s directives. States that have not connected to the letter but opposed it to its intention generally resisted for legal grounds, ethics or both.

A legal argument

Most of the states that have rejected it put their refusal to sign Trump’s letter in federal law. They cited the law on civil rights and the law on the reduction of documents, which protects states to have to file redundant documents. Because these states have already certified compliance with title VI, this argument goes, they should not have to do so again under the directive of Trump.

The commissioners for the education of a few states, including Illinois and Minnesota, also cited a specific language used by Betsy Devos, the former Trump’s education secretary in his first mandate, who supported Dei’s policies.

Charlene Russell-Tuker, the Connecticut education commissioner, also stressed that for the federal government to cancel the programming of I, he should first legally modify the definition of title VI.

States resistant to other reasons

Some education officials have also argued that their work is ideologically necessary to provide learning environment for all students.

Patrick Tutwiler, interim education commissioner of Massachusetts, wrote in a letter of April 16, for example, that “Massachusetts will continue to promote diversity in our schools because we know that this improves the results for all our children”.

Other officials displayed more subtle resistance. Randy Watson, Kansas Education Commissioner, for example, confirmed “the commitment of the State to comply with all federal laws”, including title VI – but has not explicitly discussed the “dear colleague” letter from Trump.

Likewise, Kentucky has informed the Ministry of Education of its compliance with federal law, while simultaneously encouraging local districts to pursue diversity, equity and inclusion work.

The Mississippi State of Education Department stressed that school districts are operating independently, so that the State cannot force policies to them. However, the Mississippi reported compliance by citing a new state law prohibiting I and confirmed that each of its individual school districts has already certified respect for federal laws.

No more legal decline

It is not yet clear, which could follow the injunction of the April court, which largely prevented the Ministry of Education from reducing federal funding to schools that have continued their Dei programs and policies.

Although the Trump administration has made significant discounts at the Ministry of Education, it has not announced that states refusing to certify the letter will lose funds.

This is the first time that an administration has issued such a direct threat to retain the financing of kindergarten in the 12th year, placing schools in an unknown place, without a clear plan in the way of moving forward.