U.S. Dept of Education Demands "anti-DEI" Certification in Exchange for Student Funding

"Overly Broad" Says Some School Districts

The U.S. Department of Education (USED) made a surprising demand of all state education agencies (SEAs) on April 3, 2025: agree to USED terms to abolish diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), or else lose federal funding. Federal funding that would otherwise go to special education services, meals for children, and much needed funding for high poverty schools (i.e., those with large percentages of students on free and reduced meals). Nearly 90% of school districts benefit from the Title I program serving low income schools.

In the USED announcement of the anti-DEI demand, Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor stated, “Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right.” He then claimed that schools use “DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another based on identity characteristics in clear violation of Title VI.”

Essentially, to fulfill the Trump and Project 2025 goal of eliminating DEI, the USED targeted the most vulnerable populations of students, threatening to hold hostage funding that is statutorily required under Title V and Title I of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). This letter was intended to satisfy vague requirements of anti-DEI executive orders (EOs) by President Trump (e.g., EOs 14173, 14168, and 14151)  and a “novel” interpretation of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Each state was given a 10-day deadline, which was later extended to April 24th due to a lawsuit by the National Education Association against Trump’s USED.

Civil Rights groups from around the nation signed a letter sent by the Legal Defense Fund (LDF) to all SEAs to:

“Not abandon your lawful efforts to support Black students and other students of color and should issue guidance to [S]EAs and their administrators and staff to stay the course…. Embracing diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility fosters academic excellence, innovation, and a thriving school culture where all students feel valued and empowered…. We urge you to continue to support school communities and educational environments that ensure equal opportunities for all students.”

Trump Administration’s Novel Interpretation of the Civil Rights Act

The USED claimed that their April 3rd letter was to certify compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act; however, states had already certified compliance in order to receive federal funds, as they do every year. Additionally, the USED certification letter contained additional language, not found in Title VI, specifically:

“The use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI”) programs to advantage one’s race over another—is impermissible. The use of certain DEI practices can violate federal law. The continued use of illegal DEI practices may subject the individual or entity using such practices to serious consequences [including withholding federal grants and litigation].”

Analyses of the anti-DEI EOs have found that the EOs are inconsistent with the Civil Rights Act, state legislation, and other laws, thus there are multiple lawsuits against these EOs. However, Mel Wilson (LCSW, MBA), Senior Policy Advisor for the National Association of Social Workers identifies something even more insidious in the EO 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination And Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity: 

“The authors of this EO knew quite well that DEI as a concept is a derivative of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. By appropriating that term, they hope to create a false equivalency that DEI is as much a civil rights violation against White people as it is seen as a protection for communities of color.”

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) echoes this when they described the Trump 2025 plans before inauguration: 

“The anti-DEI backlash is part of a larger effort by right-wing foundations, think tanks, and political operatives to dismantle civil rights gains made in recent decades.”

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is considered by nearly every American to be one of the nation’s most important equal rights, anti-discrimination legislation for all Americans. But not Project 2025, whose blueprint is the guiding light for the Trump Administration.

Youngkin Punts the Controversy to School Districts

What did the Governor of Virginia do? Did he defend Virginia’s public schools and funding for our low income students and those who require special education support? No. He shifted the burden to every school district in Virginia.

Unlike Maryland which handled the letter at the state level, Youngkin’s Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) stood down and punted the issue to all 132 school districts. Thus requiring expenditures of time and money to individually analyze the demand letter vis-a-vis federal and state regulations and federal funding. 

Imagine how much time that took away from education excellence and supporting staff and students. Imagine the difficult conversations behind closed doors with superintendents, general counsels, school boards, and other staff: do we cave to federal extortion to ensure funding for our students, or do we find a different path?

The School Superintendents Association (AASA) published a letter on April 14th from the EducationCounsel LLC to provide guidance to school districts and SEAs citing multiple concerns, including: lack of clarity over what “DEI” actually is makes it hard to comply, it may increase litigation exposure, and “raises multiple procedural concerns regarding the rights of states and districts.”

On April 24th, Superintendent Aaron Spence of Loudoun County Public Schools (LCPS) summed up the controversy and responded to the USED demand letter citing legal concerns, as well as a lack of clarity by the USED: 

• “There are legal challenges to this request that argue, in part, that the requested USDOE certification—as written—is vague, overly broad, and committing public school divisions to terms/conditions beyond what is required under applicable law.”

• “Most importantly, the requested certification lacks clarity. It references “illegal DEI” or “certain DEI practices” without explaining what those terms mean or how they differ from the diversity, equity and inclusion programs and initiatives we currently have in place–programs that help students feel valued, included, and supported…. We cannot–and should not be asked to–certify we are not engaged in behaviors that have not been clearly defined. Doing so would not be prudent.”

Mr. Spence cited that other SEAs (e.g., Maine, New Jersey, Oregon, and about a dozen more) have declined to sign the USED certification, including Maryland which signed an “alternative certification.” In Virginia, LCPS and Fairfax County Public Schools (FCPS) are reported to be the only school districts to have declined to sign the USED certification letter. Superintendent Michelle Reid affirmed her commitment of inclusive, equitable education for Fairfax County students to Virginia Mercury, “Here in FCPS, we believe our diversity is a strength and that each and every child deserves access to a world-class education.”

Ultimate Impact on the Nation’s Public Schools

In many ways, the anti-DEI certification letter from the USED feels like a game of chicken, except Secretary Linda McMahon tried to tie students to the bumper hoping that state SEAs would swerve and cave to Trump’s anti-DEI demands. Or maybe a better metaphor is this was an old fashioned "stickup" with Linda McMahon's USED demanding, "Your Title I student funding or your DEI."

Either way, it was effective. Most states caved to the unreasonable demands, yet nearly one-third of the states did not. Outside of Loudoun and Fairfax counties, school districts around the Commonwealth signed the USED anti-DEI certification, but it is clear by public statements that this was, for the most part, under duress, as districts were concerned about losing federal grant funding for their low-income students.

For example in Hampton Roads, some school districts responded by eliminating DEI programs (e.g., Virginia Beach and Suffolk), but others modified the terms of the USED anti-DEI certification letter (e.g., Norfolk and Hampton). On April 24th, the Norfolk School Board went a step further to reject Trump’s anti-DEI EO in a 5-2 vote.

Legally, the Trump Administration has hit significant legal hurdles in light of rulings by federal judges in Maryland, New Hampshire and Washington, D.C.. NPR reported that these judges ruled on April 24th that the "Trump administration had overstepped when it ordered the nation's schools to stop all diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs as well as classroom teaching the administration might consider discriminatory." This restricts the ability of the USED to force districts to "eliminate DEI" (?) by withholding federal funds designated for low-income and disabled students in K-12 schools.  

Fortunately, the AASA has continued coverage of legal challenges to Trump’s anti-DEI EOs, as well as updates on the USED anti-DEI certification letter including the most recent news that the USED bowed to legal pressure: 

“On 4/28, the U.S. Department of Education sent a notice to State Chiefs that they were no longer requiring districts and States to complete the Title VI DEI certification. It is unclear whether the litigation on the underlying DEI guidance will be appealed by[US] ED in three separate circuits. ” 

The USED is playing chicken with our students' future, but their games are only wasting time, energy, and critical education funding. Our students, staff, and families deserve better than that.

Of course this is not over. Public schools will continue to face attacks on the critical initiatives, like DEI, that offer respect, opportunity, and success for students. This will be played out in the courts and the news for the next 1,360 days.