A federal judge on Thursday blocked Trump administration directives that threatened to cut federal funding for public schools with diversity, equity and inclusion programs.

The ruling came in a lawsuit brought by the National Education Association and the American Civil Liberties Union, which accused the Republican administration of giving “unconstitutionally vague” guidance and violating teachers’ First Amendment rights.

A second judge in Maryland on Thursday postponed the effective date of some U.S. Education Department anti-DEI guidance, and a third judge in Washington, D.C., blocked another provision from taking effect.

In February, the department told schools and colleges they needed to end any practice that differentiates people based on their race. Earlier this month, it ordered states to gather signatures from local school systems certifying compliance with civil rights laws, including the rejection of what the federal government calls “illegal DEI practices.”

The directives do not carry the force of law but threaten to use civil rights enforcement to rid schools of DEI practices. Schools were warned that continuing such practices “in violation of federal law” could lead to U.S. Justice Department litigation and a termination of federal grants and contracts.

U.S. District Court Judge Landya McCafferty in New Hampshire said the April letter does not make clear what the department believes a DEI program entails or when it believes such programs cross the line into violating civil rights law. “The Letter does not even define what a ‘DEI program’ is,” McCafferty wrote.

The judge also said there is reason to believe the department's actions amount to a violation of teachers' free speech rights.

“A professor runs afoul of the 2025 Letter if she expresses the view in her teaching that structural racism exists in America, but does not do so if she denies structural racism’s existence. That is textbook viewpoint discrimination,” McCafferty wrote.

An Education Department spokesperson did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

States were given until the end of Thursday to submit certification of their schools’ compliance, but some have indicated they would not comply with the order. Education officials in some Democratic-led states have said the administration is overstepping its authority and that there is nothing illegal about DEI.

The Feb. 14 memo from the department, formally known as a “Dear Colleague” letter, said schools have promoted DEI efforts at the expense of white and Asian American students. It dramatically expands the interpretation of a 2023 Supreme Court decision barring the use of race in college admissions to all aspects of education, including, hiring, promotion, scholarships, housing, graduation ceremonies and campus life.

In the ruling in Maryland, U.S. District Judge Stephanie Gallagher postponed that memo. She found it was improperly issued and forces teachers to choose between “being injured through suppressing their speech or through facing enforcement for exercising their constitutional rights.” That suit was filed by the American Federation of Teachers, one of the nation's largest teachers' unions.

“The court agreed that this vague and clearly unconstitutional requirement is a grave attack on students, our profession, honest history and knowledge itself,” Randi Weingarten, president of the AFT, said in a statement.

A judge in Washington, D.C., granted a preliminary injunction against the certification letter after the NAACP argued it failed to identify specific DEI practices that would run afoul of the law.

All three lawsuits argue that the guidance limits academic freedom and is so vague it leaves schools and educators in limbo about what they may do, such as whether voluntary student groups for minority students are still allowed.

The April directive asked states to collect the certification form from local school districts and also sign it on behalf of the state, giving assurance that schools are in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

President Donald Trump’s education secretary, Linda McMahon, has warned of potential funding cuts if states do not return the form by Friday.

In a Tuesday interview on the Fox Business Network, McMahon said states that refuse to sign could “risk some defunding in their districts.” The purpose of the form is “to make sure there’s no discrimination that’s happening in any of the schools,” she said.

Schools and states are already required to give assurances to that effect in separate paperwork, but the new form adds language on DEI, warning that using diversity programs to discriminate can bring funding cuts, fines and other penalties.

The form threatens schools’ access to Title I, the largest source of federal revenue for K-12 education and a lifeline for schools in low-income areas.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Alex Brandon—AP

President Donald Trump has ordered sharper scrutiny of America’s colleges and the accreditors that oversee them, part of his escalating campaign to end what he calls "wokeness” and diversity efforts in education.

In a series of executive actions signed Wednesday, Trump targeted universities that he views as liberal adversaries to his political agenda. One order called for harder enforcement of a federal law requiring colleges to disclose their financial ties with foreign sources, while another called for a shakeup of the accrediting bodies that decide whether colleges can accept federal financial aid awarded to students.

Trump also ordered the Education Department to root out efforts to ensure equity in discipline in the nation's K-12 schools. Previous guidance from Democratic administrations directed schools not to disproportionately punish underrepresented minorities such as Black and Native American students. The administration says equity efforts amount to racial discrimination.

Foreign money is at issue in clash with Harvard

Colleges’ financial ties with foreign sources have long been a concern among Republicans, especially ties with China and other countries with adversarial relationships with the U.S. It became a priority during Trump’s first term and reemerged last week as the White House grasped for leverage in its escalating battle with Harvard University.

The White House said it needed to take action because Harvard and other colleges have routinely violated a federal disclosure law, which has been unevenly enforced since it was passed in the 1980s. Known as Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, the law requires colleges to disclose foreign gifts and contracts valued at $250,000 or more.

Last week, the Education Department demanded records from Harvard over foreign financial ties spanning the past decade, accusing the school of filing “incomplete and inaccurate disclosures.” Trump's administration is sparring with Harvard over the university's refusal to accept a list of demands over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests as well as its diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

In the executive order, Trump calls on the Education Department and the attorney general to step up enforcement of the law and take action against colleges that violate it, including a cutoff of federal money.

The Trump administration intends to “end the secrecy surrounding foreign funds in American educational institutions” and protect against “foreign exploitation,” the order said.

It was applauded by Republicans, including Rep. Tim Walberg of Michigan, chair of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce. He accused China of exploiting academic ties to steal research and “indoctrinate students.”

Accreditors ordered to drop DEI

Another order aims at accrediting bodies that set standards colleges must meet to accept federal financial aid from students. Trump campaigned on a promise to overhaul the industry, saying it was “dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics.”

Often overlooked as an obscure branch of college oversight, accreditors play an important role in shaping colleges in many aspects, with standards that apply all the way from colleges’ governing boards to classroom curriculum.

Trump's executive order is the opening salvo in what could be a lengthy battle to overhaul the accrediting industry. Chief among his priorities is to strip accreditors of DEI requirements imposed on colleges. Some accreditors have already dropped or stopped enforcing such standards amid Trump’s DEI crackdown.

Trump’s order calls on the government to suspend or terminate accreditors that discriminate in the name of DEI. Instead, it calls on accreditors to focus more squarely on the student outcomes of colleges and programs they oversee.

The president wants to make it easier for new accreditors to compete with the 19 that are now authorized to work on behalf of the federal government. As it stands, new accreditors looking to be recognized by the government must undergo an arduous process that traditionally takes years. Trump’s order said it should be “transparent, efficient, and not unduly burdensome.”

“Instead of pushing schools to adopt a divisive DEI ideology, accreditors should be focused on helping schools improve graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement.

De-emphasizing equity in school discipline

Trump also invoked opposition to equity efforts in his order on school discipline. The edict signed Wednesday seeks a return to “common sense school discipline,” allowing decisions to be based solely on students’ behavior and actions, McMahon said.

Another executive order instructs government agencies and departments to no longer rely on “disparate impact theories.” Under the disparate impact standard, policies and practices that disproportionately impact minorities and other protected groups could be challenged regardless of their intent.

In many schools around the country, Black students have been more likely to receive punishments that remove them from the classroom, including suspensions, expulsions and being transferred to alternative schools. A decade ago, those differences became the target of a reform movement spurred by the same reckoning that gave rise to Black Lives Matter. The movement elevated the concept of the “school-to-prison pipeline” — the notion that being kicked out of school, or dropping out, increases the chance of arrest and imprisonment years later.

Federal guidelines to address racial disparities in school discipline first came from President Barack Obama’s administration in 2014. Federal officials urged schools not to suspend, expel or refer students to law enforcement except as a last resort, and encouraged restorative justice practices that did not push students out of the classroom. Those rules were rolled back by Trump’s first administration, but civil rights regulations at federal and state levels still mandate the collection of data on discipline.

On Wednesday, Trump directed McMahon to issue new school discipline guidance within 60 days. The order also calls for a review of nonprofit organizations that have promoted discipline policies rooted in equity and ensure they don’t receive federal money.

Another order creates a federal task force focused on giving America’s students training on artificial intelligence as early as kindergarten. It would work to develop new online learning resources.

Trump is also establishing a White House initiative to empower Historically Black Colleges and Universities. Among other efforts, it would seek to promote private-sector partnerships with HBCUs and schools’ workforce preparation in industries like technology and finance.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Alex Brandon—AP

Campus mentors. Move-in events. Scholarships. Diversity offices that made them feel welcome on predominantly white campuses.

As U.S. colleges pull back on diversity, equity and inclusion practices, students of color say they are starting to lose all of these things and more.

The full scope of campus DEI rollbacks is still emerging as colleges respond to the Trump administration’s orders against diversity practices. But students at some schools said early cuts are chipping away at the sense of community that helped open the door to higher education.

“It feels like we’re going back. I don’t know how else to describe it,” said Breeana-Iris Rosario, a junior at the University of Michigan, which is closing its DEI office and scrapping a campus-wide inclusion plan. “It’s like our voices aren’t being heard.”

The retreat from DEI has been building for years, driven by Republican-led states that have ordered public colleges to close DEI offices and eliminate programs. But it has accelerated under President Donald Trump and his threats to cut federal funding.

Trump’s administration escalated the battle when it suggested in a letter to Harvard University that the school should lose its nonprofit status for defying federal orders, including a demand to eliminate DEI “to the satisfaction of the federal government.”

At Michigan, students have been told the casualties include orientation events for new Latino, Arab and Asian American students, along with the LEAD Scholars program, a financial aid award for Black, Latino and Native American students.

Coming from a low-income part of Detroit, Rosario said winning the scholarship cemented her decision to attend Michigan. She later met some of her best friends at a move-in event for Latino students called Alma. Losing those programs, she fears, could reinforce a sense of isolation among Hispanic students, who make up 6% of the school’s undergraduates.

“It would be hard to find my community if I didn’t have access to these resources,” she said.

Colleges respond to federal orders

A February memo from the Education Department directed schools and colleges to eliminate race from any decision-making around hiring, admissions, housing, financial aid and student life. It warned violators could lose access to federal money.

Dozens of universities have since come under investigation, all while the Trump administration freezes billions of dollars at Harvard and other colleges accused of defying orders on campus antisemitism and transgender athletes.

Michigan was among the first to make major DEI rollbacks, and others have followed to avoid federal scrutiny. Others have rebranded DEI offices and scrubbed the term from websites, and others still are standing firm in support of DEI.

At Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland, officials cited the federal orders when they moved to close the campus DEI office last month.

“It is clear we must be in compliance with them to receive the federal funding that is critical to our present and future,” said Eric Kaler, Case’s president, in a campus message.

Kaler said the office will be replaced by an Office for Campus Enrichment and Engagement, though it’s unclear what that will entail. The private university receives about $250 million a year in federal research funding, 16% of its total revenue, according to university data.

Justen Pippens said the DEI office was like a second home on campus. The junior called it a “stress-free zone” where he could get personal and academic guidance. He grew so close with one staff member that he came to know her as Auntie. He said it’s unclear whether those employees will have jobs at the new office.

Case also is halting its Envision Weekend, an orientation event for underrepresented students. Pippens said it’s a setback for him and other Black students, who make up just 6% of undergraduates at Case.

“Now,” he said, “we no longer have our central support systems on campus.”

A victory for DEI opponents

In Virginia, Republican Gov. Glenn Youngkin celebrated when the University of Virginia’s governing board voted to end DEI programs in March.

“DEI is done at the University of Virginia,” Youngkin said in a statement, calling it a shift toward “merit-based opportunity.”

Tyler English, a senior at UVA, said students have been told scholarships and graduate programs focused on minority students are being scaled back or eliminated. Among other changes, a student group called Men of Color, Honor and Ambition is replacing the word “color” with “character,” he said.

“For a portion of us, we now question whether our identities and voices are truly valued in this space,” said English, a member of the campus’ Black Student Alliance.

University spokesperson Brian Coy wouldn’t provide details on DEI rollbacks and said he couldn’t confirm changes to scholarships.

The government’s anti-DEI campaign is being challenged in court by opponents who say it offers little clarity on exactly which practices are outlawed, leaving schools to weed out anything that could be construed as DEI.

As a result of the vague directives, “those who are advocating against this work are getting a higher return on their investment than they should,” said Paulette Granberry Russell, president of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education.

Yet opponents are pressing the White House to go further. Christopher Rufo, a conservative strategist who has fought DEI, said the government should root out DEI using tools that forced desegregation during the Civil Rights Movement.

“DEI is a violation of the Civil Rights Act,” Rufo said on X. “Any publicly funded institution that continues to practice DEI should face a federal investigation, consent decree, termination of funds, and loss of nonprofit status. If that doesn’t work, send in the 101st Airborne.”

Some fear diversity setbacks

In Michigan, the rollbacks are targeting programs that aimed to preserve racial diversity after the state banned affirmative action in 2006, including the LEAD program.

University of Michigan officials declined to discuss changes, but a campus message from President Santa Ono said the school will find other ways to support students, including an expansion of scholarships for low-income students.

Rosario and other LEAD scholarship winners received an email saying there would be “no adverse financial impact” to their financial aid, with no further explanation.

Rosario doesn’t entirely blame the university for the cuts, but she wonders why Michigan moved quickly to make changes while some colleges held firm. The first in her family to attend college, she fears what it means for the next generation of students.

“They’ve taken away our sense of community,” she said. “It just makes it that much harder for people of color to feel comfortable pursuing higher education.”

___

AP Education Writer Cheyanne Mumphrey in Phoenix contributed to this report.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

© Getty Images—Bill Pugliano