The U.S. Department of Justice agreed Aug. 10 to stop efforts to indefinitely 鈥減ause鈥� operations at 99 youth training centers in nearly every state, reaching a with seven students backed by the Public Citizen Litigation Group and the Southern Poverty Law Center.

The settlement lets the centers 鈥� which provide job training, dormitories and living expenses for 25,000 low-income students between 16 and 24 every year 鈥� continue serving students. It also ends worries the centers would close with students still in the middle of training for fields that include construction, health care, manufacturing and transportation.

鈥�(The) settlement puts an end to the unlawful threat hanging over Job Corps students’ heads for the last year,鈥� said Adam Pulver, a lawyer for the students.

In court filings, students told stories of being shut out of their dorms or being ordered to leave their Job Corps campus last year after the Trump administration ordered the centers to stop operating with one month鈥檚 notice in May, 2025.

鈥淚 want nothing more than to stay and finish my program, so I intend to remain on campus and attend classes until I am forced to leave,鈥� Maddex Noah Davis-Newman, 19, a trainee at the Tongue Point Job Corps center in Oregon told the court last June. 鈥淚n the past two weeks, I have lost a lot of friends here who had to return to abusive homes or are back living on the streets.鈥�

Others told the court they had dropped out of high school a few years earlier, or been kicked out of their parents鈥� homes, before Job Corps offered them shelter, food and training.

 鈥淚f not for Job Corps, I would have become homeless,鈥� Abigail Shauger, 19, a student at the Job Corps center in Grand Rapids, Michigan, told the court last June.

鈥淚f the shutdown continues, I will not be able to earn my trade certificate in the (Certified Nursing Assistant) program despite my training,鈥� she added. 鈥淚 was so close, with only two months left till my tests.鈥�

The U.S. Department of Labor, which oversees the program, referred questions to the Department of Justice, which did not respond to questions from 社区黑料. Administration officials have said since last May that Job Corps does not bring enough benefit to students to justify costing more than $1.6 billion a year.

鈥淛ob Corps was created to help young adults build a pathway to a better life through education, training, and community,鈥� Secretary of Labor Lori Chavez-DeRemer 鈥淗owever鈥he program is no longer achieving the intended outcomes that students deserve.鈥�

She pointed to a study finding that the program costs more than $80,000 per student per year, with just a 39% graduation rate and participants earning less than $17,000 a year, on average.

Job Corps has also long been on the list of programs conservatives consider wasteful, with the Heritage Foundation criticizing its several years ago because of low high school and college graduation rates and small wage increases for participants.

The non-profit , saying the data in that study was distorted by the pandemic, that the cost per graduate is about $57,000 and earnings average about $31,000.

Pulver said the government鈥檚 failure to follow shutdown procedures spelled out in law doomed its attempt. The administration had ordered the centers to stop operating with just a month鈥檚 notice. But Pulver said federal law lays out an orderly path to closing Job Corps centers over time, if the program is to be cut, so that students are not abruptly turned away with training half-finished.

He called the administration鈥檚 attempt to 鈥渟uspend鈥� operations while seeking to wipe out the program鈥檚 budget a 鈥渟leight of hand鈥� to avoid public debate and closure procedures. That let the students win a U.S. District Court ruling in July, 2025, blocking the suspension until the case was resolved.

鈥淚 think the judge in this case agreed that suspending something indefinitely, with no intention to ever reopen it, is closing it,鈥� Pulver said.

The administration also did not succeed in its hope of removing funding for Job Corps from the federal budget. through at least June 2027.

As schools reopen amid a national surge in measles cases, California students will continue to follow the state鈥檚 existing vaccination requirements, despite President Donald 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 latest effort to change the country鈥檚 childhood vaccine schedule. 

to determine which immunizations are required for students to attend school. The state will continue to follow guidelines created by the and other experts, said Dr. Erica Pan, director of the California Department of Public Health (CDPH) and the state鈥檚 public health officer. 

The , issued Aug. 10, calls for spreading childhood vaccinations across multiple medical visits. It also recommends administering the combined measles, mumps, rubella (MMR) vaccine as three separate shots, and reduces the number of recommended vaccinations for all children from 18 to 11. 

Trump and Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. announced during a press conference in which they repeated claims that immunizations cause autism, a theory that has been debunked by extensive research.

Pan and of Pediatrics President Andrew D. Racine said there is no evidence to justify making changes to the childhood immunization schedule. 

鈥淭he only purpose of this announcement is to sow confusion so that more people doubt the importance of vaccines,鈥� said Racine in a statement. 鈥淒elaying or skipping shots is risky, especially as measles continues to spread and children go back to school.鈥�

Although the order only advises states to consider updating their vaccination policies, it also calls for the U.S. attorney general to launch legal challenges against states that do not allow religious or medical exemptions. California only allows medical exemptions.

California rules won鈥檛 change

California was among a coalition of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in February for attempting to remove the recommended status for seven vaccines. The lawsuit also challenged the replacement of the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, an expert panel that has guided U.S. vaccine policy for decades, calling it 鈥渦nlawful.鈥�

In March, a f that the advisory committee had been replaced improperly and halted the plan to make changes to the vaccination schedule.

requires students to be vaccinated against 10 serious communicable diseases. Proof of in kindergarten and seventh grade, as well as upon entering childcare, transitional kindergarten, or when transferring schools from out of state. 

鈥淭his executive order will not change anything in California,鈥� Pan said. 鈥淲e are really committed to protecting access to vaccines for our communities.鈥�

Measles cases are increasing

The president鈥檚 executive order comes as measles cases in the U.S. hit a 35-year high. There have been 2,566 confirmed cases in the U.S. so far this year, compared to 2,289 confirmed cases during the entire year of 2025.

California has reported 58 cases of measles so far this year, up from 25 in 2025, according to the CDPH. All but 14 of the cases were people younger than 20, and all but four were either unvaccinated or their status was unknown, according to California Department of Public Health.

Catherine Flores Martin, executive director of the California Immunization Coalition, worries that the number of cases nationwide could be higher.

鈥淪ome parents have gotten comfortable with not reporting their cases,鈥� Flores Martin said. 鈥淪o that is a big concern.鈥�

Measles is highly contagious. About 90% of unvaccinated people who are exposed to someone with measles will contract the disease. 

Flores Martin said requiring children to receive vaccinations over multiple visits could make it more difficult for lower-income parents. 

鈥淚t will be way more onerous for parents and terrible for children,鈥� Flores Martin said. 鈥淵ou know, the stress. I would say every time I went to the doctor as a child I was always stressed because I was worried about getting the shots.鈥�

Is the order causing confusion?

and are continuously monitored and studied in the United States and California, Pan said. Still, she and other health experts worry that the White House announcement could create confusion about vaccinations just as students return to school.

Top health officials at San Diego Unified and Sacramento City Unified school districts told EdSource they have not noticed increased vaccine hesitancy this school year and have not received questions from parents about the president鈥檚 recommendations. That doesn鈥檛 mean parents have stopped raising concerns about vaccinations.

Sacramento City Unified lead nurse Susan Sivils reassures hesitant parents it is safe for their children to receive multiple vaccines in one visit.

鈥淚 just make sure they understand that, until they are up to date with all of those vaccines, they won鈥檛 be allowed to start school,鈥� she said.

Sivils said she knows of only one family this year that chose to bring their child in for multiple visits to receive their vaccinations.

More parents are opting to wait to immunize their children until they are older, said Flores Martin.

鈥淭hey say they are not hesitant, they just want to wait,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hose are informed, educated people, but what they鈥檙e deciding is very wrong from a scientific standpoint and a health standpoint for their children. So, we鈥檙e in uncharted territory because parents used to trust their doctor so much, but they鈥檙e not trusting them on this.鈥�

State immunization rates high

California鈥檚 kindergarten remain above the national average of 92.4%. But the , from 95.6% during the 2016-17 school year to 93.7% in 2024-25. Measles vaccination rates are a little better with 96.1% of kindergartners vaccinated in 2024-25, compared to 97% in 2018-19. 

Even relatively small declines can make a big difference in a state that had kindergartners and 213,313 transitional kindergarten students last school year. A 1% drop in measles vaccinations, for example, means that there would be approximately 5,600 fewer students in those two grades who received the MMR vaccine.

The share of students with medical exemptions remains low, at about 0.1%. But state health experts say the number of students enrolled in home-based private schools or independent study programs without classroom-based instruction is increasing. 

Although students in these schools don鈥檛 have to be vaccinated, their schools are required to maintain immunization records or risk .

Vaccination rates also are uneven across the state, with rural, charter and schools in low-income communities more likely to have under vaccinated students, according to the. 

If the immunization rate falls below 95% in a school or community, that opens up the possibility of an outbreak, Pan said. 

鈥淪o, yes, we want people to be up-to-date on their measles vaccine and make sure they have their two doses. That is part of the school vaccine requirements,鈥� Pan said.

This story was originally published by . Sign up for their .

Before I understood federal funding, program performance standards or the complicated systems that make Head Start possible, I understood what it meant to be a Head Start child.

Years later, I returned, first as a center director and later as a regional director of a Head Start program in Fort Worth, Texas. I have experienced Head Start from both sides: as a child who benefited from the program and as a leader responsible for ensuring other children and families received the same opportunity.

So, when the current administration says its proposed reforms will strengthen Head Start鈥檚 core mission by giving local communities greater flexibility, I have a perspective that is both deeply personal and professional. Let me tell you why I know I鈥檓 opposed to the changes outlined .

Head Start鈥檚 core mission has never simply been about putting more children in classrooms. The program was built on the understanding that a child鈥檚 ability to learn is connected to everything happening in that child鈥檚 life. That is why Head Start has always been more than early education.

Head Start recognizes that supporting a child often means supporting the entire family so the program offers a number of wraparound services to support families in helping their children thrive. From connecting parents with healthcare, dental care and mental health resources when needed, to providing nutritious meals for children, it鈥檚 about working alongside parents in partnership. 

The would dramatically reduce the federal standards that have helped define what families can expect from a Head Start program. 

For decades, Head Start has operated with clear expectations around the comprehensive needs of children. Under this proposal, many of those expectations would no longer be spelled out in the performance standards. Programs would have significantly fewer federal requirements governing how they address healthcare and developmental needs. 

As someone who attended Head Start, I have some of my earliest memories of being cared for in a safe environment by trusted educators and receiving healthy meals each day. For some families with limited resources, knowing their children would receive two nutritious meals and a snack helps ease the burden of choosing between keeping the lights on and providing healthy meals. Head Start also gives parents the opportunity to work while knowing their children are safe, cared for and learning. For my family, Head Start was not simply a place for me to go during the day. It was a support for our entire family.

As someone who has led a Head Start program, I know what these actions look like in practice. It looks like a teacher noticing something about a child and knowing there is a system for responding to the issue. It looks like a family services worker helping a parent navigate resources they may not have known existed. It looks like identifying a concern early enough to intervene. It looks like following up instead of simply handing a parent a referral and hoping for the best. 

Sometimes, Head Start is the first system that truly sees a family. That visibility and acknowledgment can change the trajectory of a child or a family’s life.

The proposed rule would also move away from many of Head Start鈥檚 existing expectations for curriculum, teacher development, coaching, classroom size and teacher-child ratios, to rely more heavily on state childcare requirements. 

I have managed Head Start centers and also worked as a preschool teacher. I know what happens when you increase the number of children in a classroom without increasing the number of adults responsible for their care. Someone pays the price. It may be a decrease in the individual attention a child receives, a delay in the teacher鈥檚 recognition of a developmental concern or less time available to build relationships with families. Removing any of these standards will have a domino effect. 

I struggle to understand how we can say we are giving communities more power while simultaneously weakening one of the clearest structures through which quality early education exists. 

Children growing up in low-income families do not deserve a lesser standard of early childhood education because it is cheaper to administer. They deserve high-quality classrooms. They deserve teachers who have the capacity to see them. They deserve safe environments. They deserve access to support when they need it. Their parents deserve a voice, and their families deserve to be treated as partners. That is what makes Head Start so successful. That is what contributed to my success. 

For generations, Head Start has represented creating opportunity by investing in the whole child and strengthening the entire family, and we cannot strengthen that mission by stripping away the very things that made it powerful.

I am a product of Head Start, and Head Start did not change my life by doing less.

The Trump administration is pushing a total overhaul of Head Start that could fundamentally reshape the 60-year-old program that has provided childcare and key support for America鈥檚 lowest-income families.

A released last week put more than 1,400 regulatory provisions that govern how Head Start is implemented on the chopping block. Across the country, 1,600 Head Start grant recipients provide quality care for disadvantaged children, as well as support for families by connecting them to health insurance, job training, developmental screenings, specialist referrals and postpartum support.

This latest proposal is aimed at cutting red tape and allowing more flexibility in the programs, the administration said.

鈥淭here’s 1,600 providers across the country facing different conditions, and our proposed rule will reduce their paperwork. It will streamline duplicative statutory requirements and give them flexibility for things like personnel and workforce decisions, as well as licensing relief,鈥� said Alex Adams, the assistant secretary at the Administration for Children and Families (ACF), on a call with reporters.

But Head Start providers and experts say the proposal may actually make it harder for programs to operate and transform Head Start to look more like commercial childcare than an anti-poverty program.

鈥淔amilies lose the assurance that Head Start means the same thing everywhere, and taxpayers lose a clear measure of impact that Head Start funding should have,鈥� said Celena Roldan Sarillo, the president of Start Early, a nonprofit that advocates for quality early learning.

Secretary of Health and Human Services Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on a call with reporters to announce the changes that 鈥渋t is important to protect鈥� Head Start, which is administered by HHS and was created in part by Kennedy鈥檚 uncle Sargent Shriver during the Lyndon B. Johnson administration. Kennedy wants to see more nutrition and physical activity requirements added to Head Start, and agrees the new rules could streamline it and open seats for more children.

That messaging, however, is misleading, said Yvette Sanchez Fuentes, the senior vice president at Start Early.

鈥淎t first glance, these proposed changes might not seem so terrible, but as you dig deeper into it, what we will find is that there really are a lot of changes that will impact what is the heart of Head Start,鈥� Sanchez Fuentes said, adding that the performance standards are not just red tape, 鈥渢hey really are the foundation for how we ensure that programs across the country are supporting children, families and communities in the way that they want best.鈥�

Here is a breakdown of what the administration is proposing to change for Head Start.

Overall, how is this proposal changing Head Start?聽

Fundamentally, the changes would have Head Start operate much more like other childcare centers under state and local rules. Because quality is such an important benchmark in Head Start, its rules are more stringent than the rules governing other childcare options 鈥� in many places, those differences would disappear.

鈥淪tates didn鈥檛 design their childcare programs to serve the population that Head Start serves. They design those to regulate private businesses and set a floor for safety, like they regulate hospitals or restaurants, not to prepare a high-need community for school,鈥� said Katie Hamm, who oversaw the Head Start program under the Biden administration.

Are there any immediate impacts to my child鈥檚 Head Start program?聽

No. The public has until October 6 to comment on the proposed rule before HHS reviews the comments and issues a final rule. That review process can take time 鈥� months or longer 鈥� in addition to any legal challenges that may arise, so it鈥檚 unlikely, though not impossible, for changes to happen this year.

How would classrooms change?聽

One of the biggest changes in the proposal is eliminating Head Start鈥檚 teacher-to-student ratios. One of Head Start鈥檚 quality initiatives is that it offers more individualized care 鈥� each teacher is in charge of a smaller number of students than in most other childcare settings. The policy is both about safety and support for low-income kids, some of whom need more focused attention.

Under the proposed changes, an estimated of children currently in Head Start would be subject to worse ratios. The maximum number of toddlers per teacher in nine states: Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Nevada, North Carolina and Texas.

The proposal also removes the cap on group sizes, so it鈥檚 likely classrooms would have more children.

Another big change: All instruction will have to take place in English instead of offering bilingual support to children who are not native speakers. in Head Start come from homes where a language other than English is spoken.

The only exception is for Head Start programs on Tribal lands.

Are there any changes that impact health and safety?聽

Yes.

Detailed requirements on how to prevent lead exposure are gone and replaced with a broader requirement that programs prevent children from being exposed to lead in water and paint in however way they see fit.

A requirement that a bus monitor be on board any buses transporting children at all times has also been removed.

Other detailed rules on facilities, safety training, hygiene, disaster preparedness and equipment and materials are also gone; instead programs are instructed to follow state laws in those areas.

Is discipline changing under the new regulations?聽

Currently, children generally cannot be expelled from Head Start. The proposed rule would remove that prohibition and allow programs to set their own disciplinary rules, as long as they align with state and local requirements. Head Start would still need to provide children with any behavioral problems with screenings and referral services.

The administration said it made these changes because when the expulsion and suspension rules were first implemented in 2016, many states did not have their own rules governing those issues. Since then, many states have adopted their own.

鈥淭hese proposed changes are not an endorsement of suspension and expulsion as approaches to address persistent and serious behavioral concerns; rather, the intent is to allow programs to determine their own discipline policies, within the context of state and local licensing requirements,鈥� the rule says.

Are there changes related to health support?聽

Head Start typically offers a variety of mental health and health screenings as part of its program requirements. For example, of enrollment, programs have to check that a family has insurance or ongoing medical care; within 45 days it needs to check for or conduct vision and hearing screenings; within 90 days, it needs to check on whether children have immunizations up to date, have had their well-child pediatrician checkup and had dental visits. Programs also require that children brush their teeth at school. All of those specific requirements are gone under the proposed rule.

Many mental health supports, such as a monthly mental health consultation, would go away.

So while the requirement from the Head Start Act 鈥� that programs support families with a comprehensive array of health services 鈥� remains, the set rules on how to achieve that, like the timeline requirements, disappear. Advocates say this could lead to inconsistent care and less accountability.

How does this impact children with disabilities?聽

Similarly, the proposed rules require that Head Start programs comply with all applicable federal and state regulations in providing services to children with disabilities, but eliminates much of the structure for how to provide those services.

What about impacts on unhoused children?聽

The proposed rule removes a provision that allows families experiencing homelessness to simply confirm their situation and thus qualify for Head Start. Families that are unhoused may also be in situations where they are living with someone else or in a temporary structure 鈥� situations they could rarely prove through documentation.

Under the new rules, families and children would have to provide some documentation.

Would newborn and pregnancy services be impacted?聽

Yes. Early Head Start, which services low-income pregnant people and children under the age of 3, would lose a lot of tailored requirements. Newborn home visits would still be required, for example, but the requirement that they happen within two weeks of birth was dropped.

Also gone is a requirement around addressing racial and ethnic disparities in birth outcomes. Currently, programs must track demographic data on pregnant people, identify any disparities and provide services to close those gaps. The administration said cutting that requirement is in line with its mission to cut back on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and claims programs said it was beyond the scope of what they could reasonably be expected to do.

Would parent involvement change?聽

Possibly.

The way Head Start works now, parents are actively engaged with much of the decision making at individual centers. Each center is required to have a parent committee that has power in advising the school on activities, policies and services, and the regulations determine how those must function.

Under the proposed rule, those committees would be optional, and the rules that govern how they operate would also be eliminated, which the administration said were designed to give programs more flexibility.

Are there any new rules being suggested?聽

Yes, and they largely have to do with nutrition and physical activity.

Programs will be required to offer 30 minutes of physical activity, ideally outside, for every three and a half hours of classroom instruction. That would expand the existing that programs 鈥渞ecognize physical activity as important to learning and integrate intentional movement and physical activity into curricular activities and daily routines.鈥�

require that programs generally fulfill a third to a half of children鈥檚 daily nutritional needs with meals at Head Start. Three- to 5-year-olds must get healthy meals and snacks that conform to U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) guidelines, and meals should be culturally appropriate as well as developmentally appropriate 鈥� infants and toddlers are fed according to their individual needs and readiness.

Under the new proposal, they will also be required to offer nutrient-dense whole foods within the framework of the USDA Child and Adult Care Food Program meal standard, ensuring that 鈥渁ll the meals are aligned with the dietary guidelines,鈥� Kennedy said.

What is the new addition around 鈥渉ealthy marriage”?

One of the less-talked-about additions the administration is proposing is providing educational material to children that 鈥渄emonstrates healthy marriage as a positive good,鈥� in concert with new strategies to engage parents in their kids鈥� learning, and particularly fathers, the rule says.

鈥淭his proposed change to current requirements reflects ACF鈥檚 commitment to supporting strong families as the cornerstone of a healthy society,鈥� the administration said.

If the rule is finalized, do programs have to adhere to it?聽

It鈥檚 unclear.

Adams emphasized that programs can continue to operate as they currently are if they wish to. In the areas where the administration is adding new requirements, however, such as nutrition and physical activity, programs would have to make changes.

鈥淚f a program likes its ratio, it can keep its ratio. If a program likes its group size, it can keep its group size. This does not require them to do anything different. As I said, flexibility is permission; it’s not a mandate,鈥� Adams said.

But the actual regulations that would be part of the final rule 鈥� 鈥� don鈥檛 specify that most of this is optional.

鈥淚f they truly mean, for example, a program can decide to keep the ratios that exist in the regulations today, the regulation should say that. It should say programs have a choice,鈥� Hamm said. 鈥淚t doesn鈥檛 say that, and so that鈥檚 a problem for a lot of reasons.鈥�

Head Start centers receive grants from the federal government to offer services 鈥� it鈥檚 unclear what assurance there is that the administration will offer grants to programs that choose to adhere to prior rules.

There鈥檚 already some evidence HHS could target programs it deems to be in misalignment with聽 the Trump administration. Earlier this year, the agency to Head Start programs that used words like 鈥渨omen鈥� and 鈥渞ace鈥� in their grant applications, what it perceived to be diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives that have been a target of the administration.

Head Start programs in Illinois, Pennsylvania, Washington and Wisconsin sued and a judge granted them a preliminary injunction, blocking the Trump administration from cutting funding while the case is litigated.

鈥淲hen grants get negotiated or when there are grant competitions, and HHS is selecting a grantee, they have a lot of power in that,鈥� Hamm said. 鈥淥ftentimes, a Head Start grant feels like they need to comply with what’s being asked of them.鈥�

Why is the administration pursuing these changes?聽

Since the start of the Trump administration, Head Start has .

Project 2025, the for President Donald 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 second term, advised eliminating the program, claiming it lacked positive outcomes and was rife with abuse. A leaked White House budget in early 2025 showed the administration was hoping to eliminate it altogether before massive backlash from Head Start parents and alumni persuaded the administration to change course.

But programs continued to face financial challenges. Funding was cut off at the start of 2025 as part of a government-wide freeze, leading some to close their doors. Then in April of last year, the administration closed five of the 10 regional offices that support Head Start programs.

Last summer, the administration released a proposed rule that would bar undocumented children from Head Start entirely. The proposal is on pause due to ongoing litigation.

Adams said the goal of the proposed rule is to provide flexibility in the program, not dismantle it.

鈥淚n broad strokes, what we are trying to accomplish is we built this rule around trusting local leaders to make the decisions that are best for their local communities,鈥� he said.

If the changes were enacted across programs, the administration estimates a savings of $2.2 billion that would be reinvested in the program to open as many as 236,000 new Head Start spots. There is no national repository of waitlist data on Head Start, though programs are required to be filled and maintain an active waiting list.

鈥淲e’re trying to ensure that programs have the flexibility not just to meet their community needs, but to start clearing out some of their waitlists, ensuring more children are served,鈥� Adams said.

How could these changes impact childcare staff?聽

The administration is proposing a reduction in how much money programs can spend on administrative overhead, lowering it from 15 percent to 5 percent.

The justification, Adams said, is 鈥渟o that more money is reaching children and families, and less is going to administrative overhead, like administrator salaries or administrative offices.鈥�

But childcare providers have argued that the reduction will actually mean less money to operate Head Start 鈥� money that goes to things like buses and human resources, or to conduct background checks and fix the refrigerator when it breaks.

鈥淒on’t believe that somehow that 15 percent makes our Head Start directors rich. It does not. Everyone I know in Head Start, including myself, has never become rich from being a Head Start employee,鈥� said Lori Pittman, the co-founder of the Washington State Parent Ambassador Program and a former Head Start parent.

By the administration鈥檚 own analysis, the changes could lead to at centers across the country. Other workforces that : home visit staff, health and mental health personnel, child development specialists and bus monitoring staff.

Is there any new money for Head Start under the proposal?聽

No. Funding for Head Start has remained flat for the past three years 鈥� about $12 billion 鈥� even though operating costs and inflation have risen.

How can I comment on the regulations?聽

Comments in the federal registrar . The open comment period will close October 6.

was originally reported by Chabeli Carrazana of . .

Maine joined 15 states on Friday in suing the Trump administration to prevent millions of dollars in cuts to school-based mental health funding.

The is part of an ongoing legal battle between Democratic-led states and the U.S. Department of Education over a mental health grant program that Congress established following the 2018 school shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

At stake is a $1 billion program that offers grants to school districts across the country to help them hire and train more mental health professionals to work in schools.

Democratic attorneys general in 15 states say the Trump administration, in defiance of a , plans to unlawfully terminate the grants at the end of this month, resulting in millions in lost funding.

鈥淥ur children deal with a unique set of problems which arise from growing up in 2026 鈥� from loneliness to substance use disorder to the ever-present fear of violence 鈥� and the programs funded through these grants are designed to help them cope and hopefully thrive,鈥� said Rhode Island Attorney General Peter F. Neronha, a Democrat, in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

In 2022, after a school shooting in Uvalde, Texas, claimed the lives of 19 students and two teachers, Congress allocated $1 billion to the Mental Health Service Professional Demonstration Grant Program to increase the number of school-based mental health professionals.

That funding effort was bipartisan; at the time Republican U.S. Sens. John Cornyn of Texas, Susan Collins of Maine and Thom Tillis of North Carolina . And within a year, the grants had funded mental and behavioral health services to nearly 775,000 students nationwide.

But in April 2025, under President Donald Trump, the U.S. Department of Education told grantees the funding would be halted because their programs . At that time, the grants were supporting efforts in 49 states to prepare thousands of mental health professionals to work in K-12 schools.

Trump administration officials told the media that the grants were cut over what the administration saw as connections to .

A coalition of 17 Democratic state attorneys general last July, and a court ruled in their favor, ordering the Trump administration to stop the grant discontinuation. In the months since the order, the education department has threatened to withhold funding or terminate the grants altogether.

The Democratic attorneys general said they filed the new lawsuit to cover gaps in the previous court order that could allow the Trump administration to follow through on its desire to halt the funding.

鈥淭he courts have repeatedly ruled that the Trump Administration does not have the power to arbitrarily revoke grant funding that provides critical mental health services to our students,鈥� said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell, a Democrat, in a about joining the lawsuit.

鈥淪till, the federal government continues its attempts to terminate funding.鈥�

Stateline reached out to the U.S. Department of Education for comment but did not receive a response before publication.

Attorneys general participating in the lawsuit are from California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Washington and Wisconsin.

This story was originally produced by , which is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network which includes Maine Morning Star, and is supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Maine Morning Star maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lauren McCauley for questions: info@mainemorningstar.com.

Three top Senate Democrats are accusing the Trump administration and Republicans of 鈥渢aking a wrecking ball鈥� to childcare programs, highlighting the issue in a midterm year where many Democrats are running on inflation and the high cost of living.

Childcare costs have skyrocketed in recent decades, outpacing inflation. There鈥檚 bipartisan consensus on the crisis: an found that 76 percent of Americans, including over 70 percent of independents and Republicans, view the cost of childcare as 鈥渁 major problem.鈥� 

Democrats have long highlighted the issue, but many Republican politicians also agree there鈥檚 a problem 鈥� if not on the solutions to it. Republicans, who largely oppose major new spending on social programs, control the White House and both chambers of Congress, meaning that Democratic-controlled states and cities like New York City and New Mexico have been taking the lead on major investments aimed at making childcare more accessible. 

Now, in a new report, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and two fellow Senate Democrats are accusing the GOP of having 鈥渋nflamed the childcare crisis.鈥� 

The report on childcare from Schumer and Democratic Sens. Patty Murray of Washington and Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, released Tuesday and shared first with The 19th, is the latest in a series of reports highlighting what Schumer says are the Trump administration鈥檚 鈥渂roken promises鈥� in areas including healthcare, housing and energy affordability. 

Even as childcare costs rise for families, wages for childcare providers remain low and draw fewer workers, creating a shortage of childcare slots and leaving many providers in a precarious position, especially since the funds Congress passed to stabilize the childcare industry during the COVID-19 pandemic have run out.

鈥淧eople in the richest country in the world should not view child care as a financial burden,鈥� Schumer said in a statement. 鈥淪enate Democrats are fighting to lower costs while continuing to expose how Trump and his administration鈥檚 continued broken promises have led to families struggling to make ends meet.鈥�

The report from Schumer, Murray and Warren charges that President Donald Trump and Republicans have 鈥渁bandoned America鈥檚 children and families鈥� by passing tax breaks for the wealthy and pursuing the war with Iran. 

鈥淭rump promised no new wars and lower costs 鈥� he broke that promise and even insisted that America couldn鈥檛 pay for child care because we had to pay for wars instead,鈥� Murray said in a statement. 鈥淢eanwhile, Democrats are putting forward an agenda that will make life more affordable for American families in all 50 states 鈥� and we鈥檙e making high-quality, affordable child care a top priority.鈥�

The Democrats point to Trump’s comments in April, when he 鈥渢he United States can鈥檛 pay for daycare鈥� because of the conflict in the Middle East, saying: 鈥淚t鈥檚 not possible for us to take care of daycare, Medicaid, Medicare, all these individual things.鈥�     

鈥淭he fact is that Trump and Republicans have done nothing to address the child care crisis in this country 鈥� in reality, they have made it worse,鈥� the report says. 鈥淩ather than lowering the costs of child care for the American people, Trump has taken a wrecking ball to federal programs and infrastructure that help American families access affordable child care.鈥澛�

The Schumer-led report charged that the Trump administration has 鈥渟ystemically attacked and undermined early childhood education programs鈥� with funding pauses, delays and personnel cuts at offices overseeing the federal government鈥檚 funding of childcare and , which funds early learning for low-income children. It also accused the administration of 鈥渨aging an all-out war鈥� on the childcare sector by freezing over $2 billion in federal childcare funds to five Democratic-controlled states over in childcare programs.  

Lawmakers in both chambers of Congress have introduced bipartisan proposals on childcare, and Republicans are also embracing the issue. Republican Reps. Ashley Hinson of Iowa, a candidate for U.S. Senate, and Ryan Mackenzie of Pennsylvania, who is seeking reelection in a competitive district, are among the cosponsors of the recently introduced bipartisan Child Care Modernization Act. 

鈥淔amily is at the heart of everything I do, and I鈥檒l keep fighting to make it easier to raise one,鈥�  

Mackenzie highlighted the rapidly increasing costs of childcare about the bill, saying: 鈥淚t鈥檚 more important than ever that we deliver the relief and reform that working families need to thrive.鈥�  

Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick, a fellow Pennsylvania Republican, cosponsored a bipartisan bill to expand a tax deduction for teachers to early childhood educators that . He鈥檚 also a cosponsor of the Improving Child Care for Working Families Act with Democratic Rep. Kim Schrier of Washington. 

But there鈥檚 been little appetite among Republicans for the kind of large-scale federal investments many Democrats argue are needed to make childcare affordable and accessible nationwide. Warren and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York , the Childcare for Every Community Act, which proposes new federal investments to create universal and affordable childcare. 

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Republicans鈥� party-line tax-and-spending bill passed last year, expanded some childcare subsidies and tax credits used by parents and employers, changes that experts said primarily benefit middle- and higher-income families. The Democrats鈥� report noted that childcare costs are especially burdensome for the lowest-income families and that 鈥渕any parents 鈥� disproportionately women 鈥� are forced out of the labor market as they simply cannot afford the high cost of care.鈥� 

Democrats have also criticized the bill for cutting Medicaid and food assistance programs, which many of the lowest-income families rely on. Federal cuts, combined with the COVID-era federal childcare funds running out and other economic pressures, have, in turn, .

鈥淎mericans are drowning under child care costs that just keep going up, and instead of doing anything to fix it, Donald Trump slashed the programs that help families afford care and gave billion-dollar tax handouts to giant corporations,鈥� Warren said in a statement. 鈥淔ixing the affordability crisis in this country means delivering universal child care, and Democrats are fighting to get it done.鈥�

In the absence of major federal action, some Democratic-controlled states and cities are leading the charge on universal childcare. And as Democrats focus on affordability in their messaging ahead of the 2026 midterms, candidates across the country are campaigning on universal childcare, universal pre-K and early childhood education.    

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani, who and is working with Gov. Kathy Hochul to phase in his childcare plan, recently made New York the first city to open . New Mexico also became the first state in the country to families last year. 

The state鈥檚 departing Democratic Gov. Michelle Lujan Grisham told The 19th that New Mexico鈥檚 investment also raised salaries and expanded benefits for childcare providers, a woman-dominated industry. 鈥淚t鈥檚 time,鈥� she said, 鈥渢hat America embraces universal childcare.鈥�  

鈥淲hen people refer to states like ours that still have some deep-rooted poverty issues, if we can do it, then anyone can do it,鈥� Lujan Grisham said in an April interview. 鈥淚’m not suggesting that it is a quick, 24-hour fix. 鈥� It took us all this time to build it out, but it is doable. And I think it could be some of the most important, impactful set of services and legislation for New Mexico families, and then a blueprint for American families, since the FDR investments in Social Security.鈥�

In remarks at the Center for American Progress鈥� IDEAS conference last month, Warren argued that Republicans are 鈥渇umbling the childcare issue at the most basic level.鈥� She also criticized her own party for not making major investments in childcare in its major party-line spending bills when Democrats controlled Congress for the first two years of President Joe Biden鈥檚 presidency, saying 鈥渨e lost childcare because not enough Democrats who were already in office were willing to fight for it.鈥�

鈥淚t would be political malpractice for Democrats not to be talking about childcare every chance we get, going into the midterms and beyond,鈥� Warren said. 鈥淲hen I look at the upcoming Democratic presidential primary, every 2028 candidate who understands what鈥檚 happening in this country, who wants to win, and who will deliver for families, will make universal childcare a core piece of their agenda.鈥�   

was originally reported by Grace Panetta of . Meet Grace and of their reporting on gender, politics and policy.

For 22 years, Kansas leaders protected a law allowing some undocumented students to pay in-state tuition to attend the state鈥檚 public colleges, universities and technical schools.

Those days are over.

During the recently ended session, the GOP-dominated state legislature passed overturning the policy that has allowed thousands of young Kansans to pay for and earn a college education. Only the veto of Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, saved the law from repeal.

National challenges are also looming.

The has begun systematically suing the more than 20 states that have such laws. The Department of Justice argues in-state tuition laws incentivize unauthorized immigration and favor immigrants over U.S. citizens.

On June 3, , which is similar to the one in Kansas. Nebraska鈥檚 Republican governor had agreed to a consent decree to end the law after being sued.

Kansas Attorney General warns that Kansas could be next.

鈥淚f Kansas were to be sued by the federal government over this statute, Kansas would likely lose the lawsuit,鈥� Kobach said in given to state legislators.

Other GOP legislators are pressing the same message.

Sen. Mike Thompson, a Johnson County Republican, led efforts in the last legislative session to reframe in-state tuition as a public benefit, arguing the Kansas law is out of sync with federal law, a view that Kobach also holds.

鈥淭he DOJ is watching Kansas closely and if we allow this to continue, we will be sued, and we will lose,鈥� Thompson said in a social media post.

Targeting Dreamers

Since 2004, thousands of immigrant Kansas high school graduates, often called Dreamers, have used the law to earn degrees by paying in-state fees instead of far higher international student rates.

Republican legislators have targeted the law each session, trying to overturn it.

Supporters have long pushed back, including the Kansas Board of Regents, the Kansas Association of School Boards and immigrant rights advocates.

Rep. Louis Ruiz, a Kansas City, Kansas, Democrat who is retiring at the end of this term, fears what the future holds for the state鈥檚 undocumented K-12 students.

Ruiz has long supported the students, knowing that many were brought to the U.S. as young children by their parents. They view Kansas as home.

鈥淪ome people, especially some Republicans, try to claim that these students are getting a free tuition,鈥� Ruiz said. 鈥淣o, that鈥檚 not accurate. They are paying a rate as residents of the state.鈥�

Qualifications include graduating from an accredited Kansas high school after attending for at least three years.

An Obama-era program has also aided undocumented immigrant students. But it also is under heightened .

offers temporary protection against deportation for those who qualify and undergo vetting, including biometrics.

DACA recipients can get a work permit and often begin putting their degrees to work in chosen professions.

New applications to the program are on hold while federal court challenges play out.

DACA approval must be renewed every two years.

by the administration are causing people to lose their status. And some have been deported.

The Trump administration says extra vetting is behind the lengthened wait times.

鈥淚 was terrified that it wouldn鈥檛 be a quick renewal,鈥� said one Kansas City area DACA recipient of her renewal, which was granted in August 2025.

Still, her concerns linger. She requested to remain anonymous. Similar to several people interviewed for this story, she is protective of extended family and other immigrants in her social circles.

鈥淓ven if you鈥檙e a permanent resident, you鈥檙e not safe,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hey鈥檙e looking for anything to detain you and deport you without giving you your day in court.鈥�

There were 505,940 active DACA recipients in the nation as of Sept. 30, 2025, according to U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services.

Kansas had 4,230 DACA recipients at that time. Missouri, which does not allow in-state tuition rates for undocumented students, had 2,490 DACA recipients.

Also, a Board of Immigration Appeals decision in late April found that holding an active DACA status is not sufficient alone to protect against deportation. The decision conflicts with rulings in federal courts that have upheld the program鈥檚 constitutionality.

The is trying to calm DACA recipients鈥� fears, releasing detailed information about the ruling. The center emphasizes that DACA still offers protections from deportation. But the situation can become more complicated if a person is detained by immigration officials.

鈥淚 feel like every day I wake up and it鈥檚 something else, something new,鈥� said Maria, a former DACA recipient and a graduate of Olathe East High School.

Last year, Maria completed the process to become a legal permanent resident through marriage to her U.S.-born husband.

Maria grew up in Olathe, with no memories of her native Puebla, Mexico.

She immigrated at 2 years old with her mother, reuniting with her father who had migrated earlier.

Maria fully understood her legal situation as a 16-year-old.

She wanted to study abroad, along with some of her classmates. Her mother explained that it would be impossible for Maria to leave the country and safely return, because of her lack of legal status then.

The Kansas in-state law made college financially feasible. She earned an associate degree at Johnson County Community College, then a bachelor鈥檚 degree in business administration and a minor in psychology from the University of Kansas.

Undocumented Kansas students, even with the in-state tuition law, cannot receive public federal or state grants and scholarships or subsidized student loans.

鈥淗ad it been out-of-state tuition, even for Johnson County Community College, I would not have been able to graduate at all,鈥� Maria said.

A mother鈥檚 plan to protect her U.S.-born children

Karina Valtierra prepared her four sons for the possibility that she could be deported.

Valtierra鈥檚 DACA status lapsed for eight tense weeks this spring.

A native of Durango, Mexico, she鈥檚 lived in the U.S. since the age of 11 and applied for her DACA renewal early. But it didn鈥檛 arrive by her February expiration date.

As a result, she couldn鈥檛 legally drive, or work, and had to step away from her job teaching young children at a school in Wichita.

She gave an aunt power of attorney. She arranged for house payments to be covered for the family home. She spoke to her oldest child, a 17-year-old, about assuming the role as head of the household.

The youngest, at 13, struggled to understand.

鈥淛ust having to have that conversation with them was awful,鈥� Valtierra said. 鈥淎nd trying to explain, 鈥業鈥檓 protecting you guys, making sure you鈥檒l be OK if anything happens.鈥� 鈥�

Valtierra鈥檚 renewal was approved in late March.

She鈥檚 resumed teaching, putting the early childhood/leadership degree she earned from Fort Hays State University into practice.

DACA was never intended to be a permanent fix. It was a stopgap for a generation of immigrants who had been brought to the U.S. without documentation as children.

Obama instituted it by executive order in 2012.

Congress, despite periods of strong bipartisan support, never passed the DREAM Act, which would offer a route to permanent legal status for some undocumented students.

DREAM stands for Development, Relief and Education for Alien Minors Act. The act was first introduced in 2001.

Most of the original DACA recipients, and many former students known as Dreamers, are now in their 30s or older.

鈥淲e consider this our country, even though we don鈥檛 have a piece of paper that says this is our country,鈥� Valtierra said. 鈥淣ow we have kids, and we鈥檝e built a life in here.鈥�

鈥業n their crosshairs鈥�

Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach has been a leading critic of in-state tuition laws and DACA. He has either filed or joined lawsuits against both, in Kansas and through national networks.

鈥淐ongress declared that no state may give in-state tuition benefits to illegal aliens unless the state extends the same tuition benefits to out-of-state U.S. citizens,鈥� submitted during the last legislative session.

More than two decades ago, the law鈥檚 authors took care to , ensuring that undocumented students had a higher burden to meet than native-born people, who can often establish residency for the purposes of tuition, in a year.

Early predictions of thousands of Kansas immigrant students enrolling using the in-state law each semester never materialized.

Enrollment peaked at 670 undocumented students statewide at institutions in 2015 and then again in 2017. The low was 169 students in 2006, according to state enrollment data.

The enrollments have been steadily declining for nearly a decade, with 310 in 2024.

Advocates worry that students aren鈥檛 being told by some colleges or academic advisers that the law still exists. Also, young people might be discouraged, given highly publicized crackdowns on undocumented immigrants by the current administration.

So far, the Justice Department has settled lawsuits with Nebraska, Texas, Kentucky and Oklahoma, ending in-state tuition programs in those states.

Lawsuits are pending in Democrat-led states of Illinois, Minnesota, Virginia and California.

If Kansas is sued, the legal action could reignite conflicts between Kobach, a Republican, and Kelly, a Democrat, or possibly her successor.

As attorney general, Kobach would need to defend the state鈥檚 law. Kobach is seeking reelection. Kelly is barred from doing so by term limits.

The two have wrangled in court recently over their respective legal lanes.

, alleging that he was failing to defend the state against the overreaches of the Trump administration.

In March, the Kansas Supreme Court issued a narrow decision that dismissed Kelly鈥檚 petition. Both sides claimed victory.

Kelly said that if Kobach continued to 鈥渞efuse to stand up for the state, Kansans can be assured that I will,鈥� according to

Advocates for immigrant students are preparing for the possible court challenge and other headwinds.

鈥淭he environment has definitely changed around the issue,鈥� said Alejandro Rangel-Lopez, campaign manager for New Frontiers, Loud Light鈥檚 project in southwest Kansas. 鈥淏ut I do believe we still have a really good law in place.鈥�

Rangel-Lopez, of Dodge City, helped organize some of the pushback during debates on , the bill that sought to end in-state tuition.

Planning continues, including gaining insights from states that have already been sued. And national organizations such as the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, also known as , have also been contacted.

鈥淲e know the fight isn鈥檛 over yet because of the national environment and that we鈥檙e probably in their crosshairs,鈥� Rangel-Lopez said.

This first appeared on and is republished here under a .

鈥淲e wouldn’t be able to function as an organization without him,鈥� said Superintendent Jennifer Gaffney. 鈥淎 lot of what students, teachers and our office staff do is centered around the use of technology and data systems. He is the backbone of all that.鈥�

But now Gaffney doesn鈥檛 know how much longer she can rely on the federal dollars that pay his salary. The Rural Education Achievement Program is among the 17 funding sources that the Trump administration wants to roll into a . Congress approved $220 million for REAP this year, but under the president鈥檚 plan, governors and state education chiefs would decide whether rural districts would get extra money.

Monty Mayer, superintendent of the Velva Public Schools in North Dakota, about 20 miles southeast of Minot, used the $14,000 he received from the program this year to pay teaching assistants to work with students who were behind academically.

鈥淢oney rolled into a block grant would be swallowed up by the bigger schools as their needs are much greater than ours,鈥� he said. That would leave 鈥渟mall rural schools looking to find answers in different places without a clear picture as to where those resources would come from.鈥�

During with the Senate appropriations committee in late April, Education Secretary Linda McMahon faced several questions from both Democrats and Republicans about the future of the program. She suggested that REAP was underutilized.

鈥淎 lot of rural schools do not have grant writers, cannot bring in the resources other states might have or other cities might have,鈥� she said. 鈥淎 lot of states never participated in any of the grant funding.鈥�

Under a consolidated program, she said, all states would receive a portion of the block grant and officials would decide 鈥渉ow this money should be spent in their state, where the greatest needs are, whether that’s in rural communities.鈥�

Officials with years of experience in rural education say that isn鈥檛 how REAP works. States or districts don鈥檛 write grant proposals for the funding, said Steven Johnson, superintendent of the Fort Ransom Public School District, which operates one elementary school in southeast North Dakota. Districts , based on size and location, receive an invitation to apply. And most do, Johnson said.

鈥淚t鈥檚 rarely about capacity or lack of grant-writing ability. If anything, what we鈥檙e seeing is the opposite,鈥� he said. 鈥淩ural districts rely on REAP because it is simple, direct and does not require extensive administrative capacity.鈥�

Abigail Swisher, who previously worked on the REAP program at the department, said where rural districts struggle is applying for large, competitive grant programs.

“Applying for competitive federal grants is time-consuming and complex. Larger districts are hiring grant writers who have the specialized expertise and who have time,” she said. “That’s exactly why we have the REAP program. It was designed by Congress to help fill that gap.”

There were efforts to help rural districts access those other programs, she said, but those ended with the new administration.

鈥楾esting and reporting standards鈥� 

Districts that for Small, Rural School Achievement funding, one of the two REAP programs, have fewer than 600 students and are located in an area their state defines as rural. Others, with 20% of students who live below the poverty line, qualify for the Rural and Low-Income School program, and some are eligible for both. This year, 17,873 were eligible for one or both programs.

Last week, Kirstin Baesler, the assistant secretary of Elementary and Secondary Education, that they have considerable leeway to use federal funds for programs like tutoring or after-school programs.聽

But Johnson said that flexibility was 鈥渙ne of the original core concepts behind REAP.鈥� His district, for example, didn鈥檛 have enough poor students to qualify for Title I funding, but under existing law, he was able to use federal funds to provide students with reading and math tutoring.

Congress created REAP as part of No Child Left Behind, the 2001 federal accountability law that set strict expectations for school improvement, and reauthorized the program as part of the Every Student Succeeds Act. Despite their small size, rural districts were not exempt from NCLB鈥檚 mandates, Johnson said. 

鈥淪mall, rural schools were expected to meet the same testing and reporting standards as larger systems but often lacked the staffing and resources to do so,鈥� he said.

A from AASA, the School Superintendents Association, showed that districts most commonly used the funds for technology, followed by staff training, compensation and expanding programs like STEM and arts for students. When Johnson asked other administrators across the country, they listed bullying prevention, special education assistants and support to help students graduate among the ways they use the funds.

鈥淩ural districts piece together budgets with many smaller sources,鈥� said Margaret Buckton, a school finance consultant in Iowa. Although REAP 鈥渋sn’t a huge sum, when combined with other small grants, it likely makes a difference.鈥�

Questions of 鈥榚fficacy鈥�

In her exchanges with Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, a Republican who has made rural schools a priority, McMahon questioned whether the program has a positive impact.

“Many of these programs have lost their efficacy and they really are not returning, giving the returns that we hope to see for rural schools,” McMahon said.

The Department of Education did not respond to questions about what data McMahon was referring to when she said the program wasn鈥檛 effective. But Melissa Sadorf, executive director of the National Rural Education Association, said because districts can use the funds in a variety of ways, the department looks primarily at compliance issues rather than impact on students.

鈥淭here is no single, consistent student outcome measure applied across grantees,鈥� she said. 鈥淭he program has not been the subject of a comprehensive federal evaluation in close to a decade, which makes any sweeping claim about effectiveness difficult to substantiate from the data.鈥�

That was mostly a summary of the challenges facing rural schools, like transportation and teacher recruitment, and what the department was doing to support them.

The department also tracks whether districts comply with the rules for using the funds.

A in the Custer County, Colorado, district, for example, discovered an accounting error because a staff member entered data using hand-written notes. The same issue came up in Indiana鈥檚 in 2022. The department鈥檚 website doesn鈥檛 list any reports conducted since McMahon took office.

The administration pitched the same block grant idea last year, and Congress ultimately rejected it. With the appropriations process likely to drag out for months, it鈥檚 unclear whether lawmakers will be more receptive this year. 

But for rural districts like Sackets Harbor, the site of an important naval base during the war of 1812, the continued uncertainty over federal funding is 鈥渦nnerving,鈥� said Gaffney, the superintendent. 

The district鈥檚 annual , in which students fanned out across the historic town for service projects, like gardening and polishing headstones, is popular with local residents. The school board asked voters to approve a nearly 8% tax increase, which they did. But with increases in English learners and students with disabilities, Gaffney said the district is still under 鈥渁 great deal of financial pressure.鈥�

鈥淭hat is precisely why every dollar matters to us, including REAP funding,鈥� she said. 鈥淭hese resources are vital in helping us maintain programs, services and opportunities for our students.鈥�

The Education Department plans to dissolve the office that supports the country鈥檚 5 million English learners.

The move comes as the Trump administration has called to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education and to stop funding English language acquisition programs in the federal budget. The country鈥檚 English learner student population includes U.S. citizen children of immigrant parents as well as authorized and undocumented immigrant children, communities that are reeling from the .

The Office of English Language Acquisition . Last August, the Department that many states and school districts rely on to protect the rights of immigrant students.

Education Department officials said dissolving the office and assigning its work to offices doing related work would be better for English learners.

In an emailed statement, Assistant Education Secretary Kirsten Baesler said the changes would align work across teams within the department, reduce administrative burden, and 鈥渆mpower states to design integrated supports.鈥�

鈥淓nglish Learners should never be treated as a siloed program, set aside as an afterthought,鈥� Baesler said. 鈥淲hen English language acquisition is embedded across core priorities like literacy, academic content, educator preparation, and accountability, it receives the seriousness and sustained focus it deserves.鈥�

The Education Department informed Congress of the changes in a February letter. first reported on the moves and the letter Tuesday.

According to the letter, distribution of federal Title III money that helps states educate English learners will be handled by the same office that distributes other large federal programs such as Title I.

罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 calls for eliminating Title III funding as a separate program, even as he also signed an executive order designating English as the official language of the United States. Congress last year disregarded a similar budget proposal and .

Training programs for teachers who work with English learners will move to the Office of Effective Educator Development Programs, the letter said. Language programs for Native American and Alaska Native children will move to the Office of Indian Education.

The changes do not affect the rights of English learner students under federal law. However, many advocates and educators said the office played a critical role in ensuring federal funds were spent appropriately and in sharing best practices and new research.

More of that responsibility now . While the Education Department says that shift is appropriate, many school districts historically have failed to meet the needs of English learners, leading to lawsuits.

The Education Department is in the process of , while programs related to educating Native American students are moving to the Department of the Interior.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools. This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at .

Ironically, the announcement comes as the administration is aggressively inserting itself in state and local education decision-making through a little-known administrative process. 

A General Services Administration that would require almost all applicants for federal funds to certify compliance with federal laws, executive orders and regulations 鈥� including non-discrimination laws 鈥� would also mandate adherence to the administration鈥檚 interpretation of what is discriminatory. In doing so, the announcement suggests that the Trump administration is interested not just in enforcing the law, but in discouraging efforts to increase diversity in education and beyond. 

The document treats 鈥渄iversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility鈥� initiatives as potentially discriminatory, including, for example, statements used by many employers to encourage applicants from various backgrounds. It rejects what the administration calls 鈥渃ultural competence鈥� requirements, potentially imperiling teaching practices that connect instruction to students鈥� backgrounds. And it would likely ban questions asking applicants to describe how they have overcome obstacles, as colleges are increasingly doing in the wake of the 2023 Supreme Court ruling striking down affirmative action in admissions. States and school districts found in violation of the proposed requirements would be subject to funding reductions, civil liability or even criminal prosecution 鈥� stark consequences for refusing to conform to administration policy. 

The GSA鈥檚 proposal flies in the face of studies showing that teacher diversity benefits all students.

demonstrates that student and teacher diversity in schools and colleges helps Black, Hispanic and other traditionally underserved students achieve in school and beyond. As FutureEd noted in a , when students of color have teachers of color, attendance, academic achievement and college enrollment increase and disciplinary infractions decline. 

The research has an important bearing on the performance of the nation鈥檚 schools, given that students of color comprise more than 50% of public-school enrollment nationally, while nearly 80% of teachers in the country鈥檚 schools are white.

White students also benefit from having teachers of color. In a of four East Coast school districts, white students who studied under a teacher of color reported working harder and being more confident in their abilities than those who did not. Among the potential reasons for the greater engagement: Teachers of color were more likely to believe that student intelligence is malleable rather than fixed and to address student misbehavior in ways that didn鈥檛 damage classroom climate.

For their part, teachers value diversity in their ranks. In a national survey of K-12 teachers conducted for by the RAND Corp., 81% of participants said it is 鈥渋mportant or extremely important鈥� for students of color to be taught by teachers of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds, and 79% said it is 鈥渋mportant or extremely important鈥� to have colleagues of diverse racial and ethnic backgrounds.

Of course, subject matter expertise and effective teaching experience should be paramount in hiring decisions. And anyone who receives federal funds should comply with non-discrimination law. But the GSA announcement would put at risk diversity initiatives that are valuable in schools and would seemingly pass legal muster. 

It鈥檚 the latest administration move against diversity in education. Weeks into President Donald 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 second term, the Department of Education canceled hundreds of millions of dollars in grants awarded under the previous administration that had already been distributed and sought in part to increase educator diversity. 

Then, the department issued a that sought to eliminate DEI programs in school districts and institutions of higher education. It was subsequently struck down by the courts, and the department of Education dropped its appeal in January, only weeks before GSA鈥檚 proposal was released. This suggests that the administration is trying to achieve through administrative means what it failed to accomplish with last year鈥檚 letter. 

If the Trump administration wants to ensure appropriate enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in education, it has the tools to do so through the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the Department of Education鈥檚 Office for Civil Rights. Unfortunately, the administration last year downsized OCR dramatically, leading a federal court to the reinstatement of hundreds of staffers so the agency could fulfill its duties. And staffing levels at the EEOC are down more than since the end of fiscal year .

The resulting cutback in civil rights enforcement under the Trump administration has been dramatic. As of December, OCR had , compared with 16,500 at the end of the Biden administration. 

Rather than staffing the federal government to enforce civil rights laws, the administration seems to be trying to weaken diversity efforts in schools by intimidating state and local educators with the threat of lost funding, criminal prosecution or civil liability into preemptively complying with its priorities, as it with its Dear Colleague Letter last year. 

But that tactic not only contradicts research on the value of educator diversity; it takes authority over teaching and learning out of the hands of the very leaders McMahon says she wants to empower. 

It was the first-ever cancellation of grants for , a federal program that has helped disadvantaged students across the U.S. enter college and graduate since 1964. While a district court judge recently ruled the Trump administration鈥檚 move illegal, TRIO staff and advocates say the loss of funds is hindering thousands of students鈥� chances to have a successful future after high school.

More than at various colleges around the country shuttered after the Trump administration canceled in September. The , which represents 1,000 colleges and nonprofits that participate in TRIO, sued the government weeks later.

鈥淭RIO comes under existential threat about once every 10 to 15 years,鈥� said Kimberly Jones, the council鈥檚 president. 鈥淓ven during the first Trump administration, there were calls for cuts to the program. But this is the first time we’ve seen grants canceled within our programs and canceled without going through the due process that should be afforded to them.鈥�

In January, a district court judge of the council and the administration to reconsider the grants for colleges that joined the lawsuit. Jones said the government still needs to comply and that there鈥檚 no timeline for when funding might be restored. 

The Trump administration canceled funding for a variety of local TRIO , including Talent Search, which exposes students in grades 6-12 to colleges and future career options, and assists high schoolers with college entrance exams, financial counseling and tutoring. Funding for Upward Bound, which brings high schoolers to universities for intensive courses during the school year, was also halted. The other half of TRIO鈥檚 services are programs for college students, veterans and adult learners.

In 1980, TRIO was standardized in the and Congress mandated that two-thirds of participants come from low-income families in which neither parent graduated from college. The organization currently serves around 875,000 students in 3,500 programs.

Jones said the affected programs were targeted because of the federal government鈥檚 crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion. Some were flagged solely because staff worked from university DEI offices.

The University of California Berkeley鈥檚 Talent Search program closed last fall, affecting more than 1,500 students from 14 public schools.

鈥淢y team had already gone into schools, done introductory meetings, created workshops, and we had already started helping seniors with their college applications and everything,鈥� said Keyanna Hatcher, the university鈥檚 TRIO director. 鈥淭he immediate pause on the program was completely detrimental to everything that we had already established with our school sites and partnerships.鈥�

Seniors were in the middle of completing college applications when Talent Search shuttered. Low-income and first-generation students were suddenly without key resources before applications were due Nov. 30 鈥� the deadline for California state universities. 

Middle school students lost access to STEM projects and university visits. Ninth graders no longer have TRIO workshops on how to be competitive for college. Berkeley staffers who were a permanent fixture in local middle and high schools are gone. 

鈥淲e were actually helping to supplement school staff, because some of our schools have counselors with caseloads of 700 students,鈥� Hatcher said. 鈥淲e were taking some of that load off and were helping meet with students so that they actually get more individual attention.鈥�

The University of New Hampshire closed its Talent Search program in October after losing grant money, affecting more than 1,200 students from sixth to 12th grades in 29 schools. Close to a dozen staffers who worked with students in their schools were fired.

鈥淚t’s going to affect how many students are applying to colleges here in New Hampshire,鈥� said Jes Crowell, the university鈥檚 TRIO director. 鈥淭hey aren’t going to have the assistance from (the staff) who normally sit down with them and help them apply, help them with financial aid and scholarships. That’s just not going to be done.鈥�

Nearly 68% of Talent Search students enroll in college immediately after high school, compared with 56% of low-income students not in the program, according to a 2022 report. Upward Bound produces similar positive , with 74% of the 19,549 participants who graduated high school in 2022 enrolling in college. 

The report shows that nearly 43% of Upward Bound students in 2022 received a bachelor鈥檚 degree within six years, compared with 11% of low-income students not in the program.

Junior Angelina Dang said she had never imagined a future that included college until she joined Upward Bound two years ago through South Seattle College in Washington state. As a first-generation student, Dang figured she鈥檇 enter the workforce right after high school, like the rest of her family.

鈥淐oming from a low-income family, if I hear other low-income families are telling me that this is helping them, I’m obviously interested,鈥� she said. 鈥淲hen I first joined, I was like, 鈥楾his isn’t probably going to help me.鈥� But I’ve had so much support 鈥� I know what I want to do for my future. I know what I need to do for my future.鈥�

Dang said South Seattle College鈥檚 TRIO office has provided food that her family can鈥檛 buy, staff who support her through decisions about her college future and academic services that have improved her skills in the classroom. 

South Seattle College 鈥� which lost funding for its adult learner TRIO services 鈥� is where she takes dual-enrollment courses through Upward Bound. The program also helped her visit potential colleges. She plans to transfer to the University of Washington to pursue studies in wildlife biology.

鈥淭he support of being able to be at South Seattle College and also visit other schools 鈥� it was like, there’s a world outside of high school,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 don’t want to exaggerate, but I think if I never joined Upward Bound, I don’t know where I would be.鈥�

Anthony Bonner is facing looming uncertainty. A single dad living in Memphis, Tennessee, he fears he may soon no longer qualify for benefits through the  (SNAP)鈥攁id that can be used like cash to purchase groceries. 

Until now, Bonner has been able to receive SNAP aid for himself and his son regardless of whether he was working. New regulations, part of Donald 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 , are about to change that. 

Under the , parents with minor children   must work or volunteer at least 20 hours per week to receive SNAP. Bonner鈥檚 son, Braylon, turns 14 in late February. The typical 13-year-old boy, who plays the trumpet and enjoys basketball and Roblox, may soon be the only one in his two-person household to qualify for food aid.

As a self-employed barber, Bonner鈥檚 hours fluctuate, leaving him unsure whether he鈥檒l meet the 20-hour-a-week minimum. It鈥檚 a struggle acutely felt by single parents who are the sole earners in their household.

鈥淣obody should be worried about where the next meal is coming from,鈥� said Bonner, who is already anticipating changes to how he shops and how his family eats. 鈥淚 might have to really figure out how to stretch it,鈥� he added, referring to the limited funds he said he鈥檒l have for groceries.

With the new rules in place, around 2.4 million Americans could lose assistance within the next few years, according to estimates from the 

The new requirements fail to factor in people who don鈥檛 work in fields with consistent hours, said Ed Bolen of the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a nonpartisan research and policy institute.  鈥淚t can be a pretty harsh rule for people who work in jobs that don鈥檛 always have nice, solid, consistent 20 hours a week,鈥� he said. 

Leighton Ku, the director of the Center for Health Policy Research at George Washington University, told Prism, 鈥淭here鈥檚 this sort of presumption that people who are getting SNAP benefits are undeserving people, and that the way you show that you are deserving is that you work.鈥� 

It鈥檚 a perception familiar to Bonner.

鈥淚 get the sentiment that if you don鈥檛 work, you don鈥檛 eat. But our bodies need food. Our bodies need water, that鈥檚 a necessity,鈥� he said. 鈥淲hether a person works or not, people should be able to eat. Families should be able to eat.鈥�

In light of the new SNAP changes, Bonner recently took on a second job to boost his hours. As a community organizer for the nonprofit , he鈥檚 employed through a three-month pilot program. If his contract ends in March, he will likely no longer meet the SNAP work requirements.

Failure to meet new requirements for any three months in a three-year period will result in a loss of benefits for able-bodied adults without dependents under the age of 14.

About 1 in 8, or 41.7 million, Americans rely on SNAP, according to the latest figures from .

鈥淵ou鈥檙e taking the people who not only, in many cases, have the fewest skills and the most difficulty getting jobs, but who are probably the most reliant on food assistance, and you鈥檙e saying specifically you can鈥檛 get it,鈥� Ku said.

A  from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities found that among workers participating in SNAP, most have jobs with low wages. The study noted that low-paying jobs often have scheduling practices that contribute to workers鈥� unstable incomes.

Lauren Bauer, a fellow in economic studies at the Brookings Institution, a nonprofit public policy organization, said the documentation needed in order to prove the required work hours will also be a challenge for some. 鈥淭here鈥檚 a leap between being in compliance with this policy and proving that you are,鈥� Bauer said.

Bauer and Ku said that the SNAP program has long faced bureaucratic hurdles, with excessive paperwork and documentation often preventing people from accessing benefits even when they qualify.

Da鈥檍ion Lymore, a single father of a 6-year-old, knows this firsthand. After moving from Missouri to Georgia, he was forced to restart his SNAP application. As a self-employed multimedia specialist, verifying his income has been a challenge. Now, he鈥檚 stuck in limbo without any SNAP benefits, even though he technically qualifies.

As he waits for his benefits to come through, Lymore works hard to stretch every ingredient for his son. 

鈥淚 make sure I use everything,鈥� he said, 鈥渕aking sure he gets everything he needs, making sure he鈥檚 full with every meal. He鈥檚 a growing boy; some days it鈥檚 definitely surprising how much he eats.鈥�

Bonner had a message for lawmakers who voted to restrict benefits. 

鈥淟ook at your constituents. Really look at us. Stop looking at the numbers, look at the people,鈥� he said. 鈥淭he policy that you鈥檙e making is really hurting us.鈥�

Proponents of  for SNAP deny accusations of cruelty.  

鈥淭o me, work is not a punishment,鈥� said Angela Rachidi of the American Enterprise Institute, a right-leaning think tank. 鈥淚t鈥檚 sort of an expectation that we all have for ourselves and should have for the rest of society, if you鈥檙e able-bodied and don鈥檛 have caregiving responsibilities.鈥�

But a  from the Economic Policy Institute found that for low-income adults, the main barriers to work are economic conditions outside of their control, and that work requirements in the past have failed to boost work in significant ways. 

鈥淭hey have other barriers, like child care needs, and other problems in their lives that make it difficult to find work,鈥� Ku said. 

That argument doesn鈥檛 persuade Rachidi. 鈥淵ou could argue if high school-age kids even need caregiving,鈥� she said of the broadened work requirement for parents with children over the age of 14. 

Bonner is astonished by that assertion. 鈥淚t鈥檚 ridiculous to expect a child to be able to suffice by themselves,鈥� he said. 鈥淚f I left [my son] alone and said go ahead, go fend for yourself, he鈥檚 not gonna make it. No 14-year-old kid is prepared.鈥�

Rachidi predicted that tighter work requirements could expand to other safety net programs, such as housing assistance. 

Bonner, meanwhile, tries to talk to his son about how to best prepare for the uncertainty that lies ahead. 鈥淵ou may have to reach out and extend help to others,鈥� he tells Braylon, knowing that people in his community may be facing similar uncertainties. In Georgia, Lymore said his neighbors have come together through Facebook groups to organize a market stand where people can leave food for each other, such as fresh eggs, produce, and bread. 鈥淭he community definitely helps each other out in this time of need,鈥� he said, filling the gaps the government no longer meets.

When he declared in March 2025 that he wanted the Education Department 鈥渃losed immediately,鈥� it wasn鈥檛 just a sound bite. It was a promise. A promise to dismantle the one system meant to protect the children this country has always underserved: Black children. The ink on the Emancipation Proclamation might be old, but the mindset that fought it never really went away. It just put on another suit.

After emancipation, freed Black families built schools with their own hands. They hired teachers, scraped together funds and insisted that their children would learn to read even if they had to do so in secret. The backlash was swift and violent. White mobs , , and state lawmakers passed inequitable that kept Black students in crumbling classrooms with hand-me-down, tattered books.

By 1980, after decades of states proving they couldn鈥檛 or wouldn鈥檛 by Black and poor students, the federal government stepped in. President Jimmy Carter created the Education Department to make sure that every child, no matter where they lived or what color they were, had a fair shot at learning.

I think of my grandson, an autistic Black boy with an individualized education plan who depends on the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and other federal programs. Without these protections and funding that come from the federal level, the system will fail children like him. States don鈥檛 have an excellent track record of protecting students with disabilities, especially Black boys. When we remove federal oversight, we aren鈥檛 saving money. We鈥檙e sacrificing children.

As a former public school teacher, I鈥檝e seen firsthand what happens when education depends on ZIP codes rather than fairness: Wealthy, mostly white districts keep thriving. Meanwhile, schools that serve Black and brown kids are stuck under leaking ceilings, flipping through worn-out books older than their teachers.

And yet here we are in 2025, watching the federal government try to hand over the keys to the states. Thousands of education workers are out of work, civil rights offices are closed, and the Trump administration appointees have completely gutted oversight.

They鈥檝e shut down seven of the 12 regional offices for the department鈥檚 Office for Civil Rights and attempted to lay off employees, only to try to bring back some of those workers. All this chaos means fewer investigations into discrimination, fewer checks on racist discipline policies and fewer protections for Black children who are already suspended and expelled at rates than their white peers.

Now we are supposed to trust states to do the right thing? The same states shouting 鈥渓ocal control鈥� are banning DEI programs, censoring Black history and whitewashing textbooks. AP African American Studies. Texas once approved a curriculum that called enslaved people 鈥�.鈥� Local control isn鈥檛 reform. It鈥檚 cultural erasure disguised as policy.

Black children are the first to feel the sting. To this day, our kids attend schools with fewer resources, larger class sizes and outdated materials. Federal programs like Title I and IDEA keep those schools alive. Without them, special education funding dries up, class sizes balloon and talented teachers walk away. Take them away, and you widen that gap on purpose.

When you strip education from federal protection, you don鈥檛 get freedom, you get chaos. You get 50 different versions of what a child is worth, determined by 50 governors with 50 different agendas. We鈥檝e seen this movie before.

There is no shortage of credentials in the U.S. labor market. There is a shortage of matched skills and reliable pathways. Job openings remain despite cooling in some places. Even so, a persistent share of young adults are , signaling weak attachment to both employment and further training.

This gap is not a 2025 phenomenon. For decades, policymakers have invested in education while assuming that labor market integration would follow. The evidence suggests otherwise. The impacts of education by field, institution and completion status; and many credentials deliver little labor market value relative to their cost. Treating enrollment and completion as success metrics has obscured whether programs actually improve employment and earnings.

CTE was intended to create clearer routes into work. The shows positive effects on several high school outcomes, limited and uneven evidence on postsecondary and earnings outcomes, and large gaps in what has been rigorously evaluated.

Many CTE programs are well intentioned and well funded, yet weakly connected to labor demand. Program offerings frequently lag local employer needs. Credentials are not always portable across firms or regions. Accountability focuses on compliance and participation rather than job placement and earnings. Students complete programs without clear signals about whether those credentials will translate into work. Employers remain skeptical of what certificates represent.

These outcomes are not accidental. They reflect governance. The Department of Education was designed to administer grants, regulate institutions and ensure access. These are necessary functions, but they are not sufficient for building labor market pathways. Education agencies are not structured to continuously track employer demand, validate occupational skill standards or adjust programs based on employment outcomes. 

By contrast, the Department of Labor already operates systems that define success in labor market terms, including placement, earnings and retention under the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act.

Shifting CTE administration toward Labor aligns authority with objective. To ensure that this move is not just symbolic, policy should be governed by institutions that measure and manage those outcomes. The lesson for CTE is not ideological. It is operational. Here are three design choices.

First, employer leadership must be real, not advisory in name only. Employers should hold decision-making authority over occupational standards, credential validation and program relevance, with transparent governance and conflict of interest rules. Without employer control and input into the curriculum, pathways drift toward provider convenience.

Second, funding must be tied to outcomes that matter. Completion alone is insufficient. Programs should be evaluated on job placement, earnings, retention and progression, adjusted for local labor markets. Chronic underperformance should lead to canceling or revising programs.

Third, the system must allow for competition among multiple providers. Community colleges, employer consortia, nonprofits, high-schools and high quality private providers should operate on equal footing 鈥� even if they pursue the goals differently. 

Of course, pathway rules should be periodically reviewed and reauthorized, and the Labor Department is well-suited to provide review. Labor markets change faster than education systems. Sunset provisions force adaptation and prevent regulatory accumulation that freezes outdated models in place.

Critics often argue that tighter alignment with labor markets narrows education and reduces flexibility. The evidence suggests the opposite. The current system narrows options by steering students toward with uncertain payoffs while offering limited transparency about outcomes. expand choice by allowing students to compare pathways based on real consequences rather than marketing or tradition.

A well-designed pathway system does not lock individuals into a single occupation. It creates stackable credentials, portable skills and bridges to further education. It treats employment not as the endpoint of learning but as a core component of it.

The on education governance offers a cautionary lesson: Incentives matter. Systems respond to what is measured and rewarded. When accountability emphasizes inputs and compliance, organizations optimize for those metrics, even when outcomes suffer. 

The federal transition to Labor creates a rare policy opening. It acknowledges that education policy cannot substitute for labor market policy when the objective is work. Whether that acknowledgment leads to better outcomes depends on follow through. Structure matters. Incentives matter. Governance matters.

If CTE continues to be governed as education with different labels, results will not change. If it is governed as labor market infrastructure, it can finally function as intended.

The Trump administration says it鈥檚 planning to freeze about $10 billion in federal support for needy families in California and four other Democrat-run states, as the president .

The plans come on the heels of the Trump administration , citing fraud allegations against daycare centers in the state.

The state鈥檚 Democrat governor, Tim Walz 鈥� who ran for vice president against Donald 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 ticket in 2024 鈥� announced Monday he was dropping out of running for reelection. He pointed to fraud against the state, saying it鈥檚 a real issue while alleging Trump and his allies were 鈥渟eeking to take advantage of the crisis.鈥�

On Monday,  that the administration was expanding the funding freeze to include California and three other Democrat-led states, in addition to Minnesota. Unnamed federal officials cited 鈥渃oncerns that the benefits were fraudulently funneled to non-citizens,鈥� The Post reported.

Early Tuesday, President Trump alleged that corruption in California is worse than Minnesota and announced an investigation.

鈥淐alifornia, under Governor Gavin Newscum, is more corrupt than Minnesota, if that鈥檚 possible??? The Fraud Investigation of California has begun. Thank you for your attention to this matter! PRESIDENT DONALD J. TRUMP,鈥� the president wrote on his social media platform Truth Social.

He did not specify what alleged fraud was being examined in the Golden State.

LAist has reached out to the White House to ask what the president鈥檚 fraud concerns are in California and to request an interview with the president.

鈥淔or too long, Democrat-led states and governors have been complicit in allowing massive amounts of fraud to occur under their watch,鈥� said an emailed statement from Andrew Nixon, a spokesperson for U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, which administers the federal childcare funds.

鈥淯nder the Trump administration, we are ensuring that federal taxpayer dollars are being used for legitimate purposes. We will ensure these states are following the law and protecting hard-earned taxpayer money.鈥�

Gov. Gavin Newsom鈥檚 press office  on social media, arguing that since taking office, the governor has blocked $125 billion in fraud and arrested 鈥渃riminal parasites leaching off of taxpayers.鈥�

Criminal fraud cases in CA appear to be rare for this program

Defrauding federally funded programs is a crime 鈥� and one LAist has investigated, , which surrounded meal funds.

When it comes to the federal childcare funds that are being frozen, the dollar amount of fraud alleged in criminal cases appears to be a tiny fraction of the overall program鈥檚 spending in California.

A search of thousands of news releases by all four federal prosecutor offices in California, going back more than a decade, found a total of one criminal case where the press releases referenced childcare benefits.

, brought in 2023, alleged four men stole $3.7 million in federal childcare benefits through fraudulent requests to a San Diego organization that distributed the funds. All four pleaded guilty, with one defendant sentenced to 27 months in prison and others sentenced to other terms, according to authorities.

It appears to be equivalent to one one-hundredth of 1% of all the childcare funding California has received over the past decade-plus covered by the prosecution press release search.

Potential impact on California families

The plans call for California, Minnesota, New York, Illinois and Colorado to lose about $7 billion in cash assistance for households with children, almost $2.4 billion to care for children of working parents, and about $870 million for social services grants that mostly benefit children at risk, according to unnamed federal officials  and .

In the largest category of funding, California receives $3.7 billion per year. The program is known as Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF.

鈥娾�滻t’s very clear that a freeze of those funds would be very damaging to the children, families, and providers of California,鈥� said Stacy Lee, who oversees early childhood initiatives “at Children Now, an advocacy group for children in California.

鈥娾�滻t is a significant portion of our funds and will impact families and children and providers across the whole state,鈥� she added. 鈥淚t would be devastating, in no uncertain terms.鈥�

About 270,000 people are served by the TANF program in L.A. County 鈥� about 200,000 of whom are children, according to the county Department of Public Social Services.

鈥淎ny pause in funding for their cash benefits 鈥� which average $1000/month – would be devastating to these families,鈥� said DPSS chief of staff Nick Ippolito.

Ippolito said the department has a robust fraud prevention and 170-person investigations team, and takes allegations 鈥渧ery seriously.鈥�

It remains to be seen whether the funding freeze will end up in court. The state, as well as major cities and counties in California, has sued to ask judges to halt funding freezes or new requirements placed by the Trump administration. L.A. city officials  with that, including shielding more than $600 million in federal grant funding to the city last year.

A union representing California childcare workers said the funding freeze would harm low-income families.

鈥淭hese threats need to be called out for what they are: direct threats on working families of all backgrounds who rely on access to quality, affordable child care in their communities to go to work every day supporting, and growing our economy,鈥� said Max Arias, chairperson for the Child Care Providers United, which says it represents more than 70,000 child care workers across the state who care for kids in their homes.

鈥淔unding freezes, even when intended to be temporary, will be devastating 鈥� resulting in families losing access to care and working parents facing the devastating choice of keeping their children safe or paying their bills.鈥�

Federal officials planned to send letters to the affected states Monday about the planned funding pauses, the New York Post reported. As of 3 p.m. Tuesday, state officials said they haven鈥檛 gotten any official notification of the funding freeze plans.

鈥淭he California Department of Social Services administers child care programs that help working families afford safe, reliable care for their children 鈥� so parents can go to work, support their families, and contribute to their communities,鈥� said a statement from California Department of Social Services spokesperson Jason Montiel.

鈥淭hese funds are critical for working families across California. We take fraud seriously, and CDSS has received no information from the federal government indicating any freeze, pause, or suspension of federal child care funding.鈥�

This was originally published on .

This is being packaged as a way to streamline the department鈥檚 work. But out here in rural America, where I鈥檓 from, it’s clear that this kind of chaos will hurt the most vulnerable students first.

Under the plan, the Department of Labor will be responsible for overseeing K-12 programs. The Department of the Interior will run Native American education programs. The Department of Health and Human Services will 鈥嬧�媡ake over campus-based child care programs for college students. The State Department will assume international education and student-exchange functions, including programs that support global language and area-studies partnerships. And the administration has hinted that it will announce the transfer of additional programs in the coming months. 

There will be no clear authority, little technical assistance provided to districts like mine in rural areas, blurred accountability and conflicting priorities. This will interrupt funding and services that will wreak havoc on student outcomes.

Rural districts already operate with limited staff and underfunded central offices. In many places, one superintendent will be handling Title I, special education, federal grants, transportation, food service and student services all on their own 鈥� often while also overseeing district operations. Now, imagine telling that same superintendent that instead of leaning on the Department of Education for guidance, they must contact Labor for help with one set of programs, Interior for another, HHS for a third and the State Department for others. That鈥檚 not reform; it鈥檚 an obstacle course.

In addition, these agencies all use different payment systems, which only complicates the flow of funding to districts. I have extensive experience working with the G5 payment system, the Department of Education鈥檚 central online platform for managing grant funds. I鈥檝e used earlier versions under multiple administrations 鈥� Bush, Obama, Trump and Biden. While no system is perfect, G5 has been relatively straightforward and predictable. When issues arise, there鈥檚 a clear structure for technical assistance and problem-solving.

That predictability would be lost. Requiring districts to navigate multiple payment systems across different agencies will introduce unnecessary complexity, slow reimbursements and increase the risk of errors. Small rural districts don鈥檛 have the administrative capacity to manage multiple federal accounting systems, and even short delays can disrupt payroll, special education contracts and student services.

These delays mean postponing reading interventions, suspending behavioral health services for vulnerable students or holding off on hiring staff. Since the creation of the Small Rural School Achievement program in 2001, which provides grants essential to bridging rural funding gaps, I hadn鈥檛 experienced a single delay in federal education funding 鈥� until this year. This is clear evidence that instability in Washington quickly reaches rural communities.

The students who rely most on stable federal support are the ones most harmed when a system enters a period of chaos. These include children with disabilities, Indigenous students, English learners and kids from low-income families. They depend on programs that require consistency, not fragmentation. If the Trump administration’s plan proceeds, those services will be stalled and undermined and could even vanish into bureaucratic gaps. 

If the administration really wants to support states, there are common-sense steps that won鈥檛 plunge schools into chaos, such as streamlining federal grant applications, reducing duplicate reporting requirements, updating outdated data systems and expanding technical assistance. These are practical changes that could make life easier for school staff and families.

At the end of the day, rural America survives on stability. We know what happens when a barn collapses or a herd scatters 鈥� everyone suffers, and it takes much more effort to bring things back under control than it would have taken to fortify the structure in the first place.

The same principle is true here. Breaking up the Department of Education and scattering its shards throughout the federal government isn鈥檛 reform. It鈥檚 disruption. And rural schools, tribal communities and vulnerable students will be the ones who pay the steepest price. 

Colorado officials say money that helps 18,000 low-income families pay for child care could run out by Jan. 31 if federal officials don鈥檛 lift the freeze they鈥檝e imposed on funding for several safety net programs in five Democrat-led states.

If that happens, some children could go without care and some parents would have to stay home from work. State lawmakers could cover such a funding gap temporarily, though Colorado is facing a significant budget crunch.

The Trump administration announced the freeze on $10 billion in child care and social services funding for Colorado, California, Illinois, Minnesota, and New York in a press release Monday.

In letters sent to the two Colorado agencies that run the affected programs, federal officials said they have 鈥渞eason to believe that the State of Colorado is illicitly providing鈥� benefits funded with federal dollars to 鈥渋llegal aliens.鈥�

The letters didn鈥檛 cite evidence for that claim and a spokesperson for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services didn鈥檛 respond to questions from Chalkbeat about why federal officials are concerned about fraud in Colorado.

Spokespeople from both state departments said by email on Tuesday they鈥檙e not aware of any federal fraud investigations focused on the programs affected by the funding freeze.

The five-state funding freeze follows a federal crackdown in Minnesota after a right-wing YouTuber posted a video in late December alleging that Minneapolis child care centers run by Somali residents get federal funds but serve no children. It鈥檚 not clear why the other four states have gotten the same treatment as Minnesota, but all have Democratic governors who have clashed with President Donald Trump.

In a New Year鈥檚 Eve social media post, Trump called Colorado Gov. Jared Polis 鈥渢he Scumbag Governor鈥� and said Polis and another Colorado official should 鈥渞ot in hell鈥� for mistreating Tina Peters, a Trump supporter and former Mesa County clerk who鈥檚 serving a nine-year prison sentence for orchestrating a plot to breach election systems.

The federal freeze will affect three main funding streams in Colorado that together bring in about $317 million a year. They include $138 million for the Colorado Department of Early Childhood for child care subsidies for low-income families and a few other programs.

The subsidy program, known as the Colorado Child Care Assistance program, helps cover the cost of care for more than 27,000 children so parents can work or take classes. It鈥檚 mostly funded by the federal government with smaller contributions from states and counties.

The other two frozen funding streams go to the Colorado Department of Human Services and pay for Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, or TANF, and other programs.

In the letter to the Colorado Department of Early Childhood, federal officials outlined new fiscal requirements the state will have to follow before the funding freeze is lifted. They include attendance documentation 鈥� without names or other personal identifiers 鈥� for children in the child care subsidy program.

A state fact sheet issued in response to the funding freeze said funding for the child care subsidy program would be depleted by Jan. 31. It also outlined several measures already in place to prevent fraud or waste, including state audits, monthly case reviews by county officials, and efforts to recover funds if improper payments are made.

The state said it is exploring 鈥渁ll options, including legal avenues鈥� to keep the frozen funding flowing.

Six Democratic state lawmakers, most in leadership positions, released a statement Tuesday afternoon calling the funding freeze a callous move that will make life more expensive for working families.

鈥淲e stand ready to work with Governor Polis and partners in our federal delegation to resist this lawless effort to freeze funding, and we sincerely hope that our Republican colleagues will put politics aside, get serious about making life in Colorado more affordable, and put families first,鈥� the statement said in part.

The statement was from Speaker of the House Julie McCluskie; Senate President James Coleman; House Majority Leader Monica Duran; Senate Majority Leader Robert Rodriguez; Rep. Emily Sirota; and Sen. Judy Amabile.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

A jump in immigration enforcement arrests under the Trump administration is having a detrimental impact on America鈥檚 child care system, reducing the number of immigrant workers available and prompting mothers with young children to leave their jobs as they scramble for stable care.

That鈥檚 according to by the Better Life Lab at the nonprofit , which examined how increased arrests during the first half of the year by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has had a ripple effect on a women-led child care workforce where .

The report estimates there are roughly 39,000 fewer foreign-born child care workers since Trump took office in January. There are also 77,000 fewer American mothers of preschool-aged children in the workforce since that time, a result that researchers found is tied to the impact of ICE arrests. Mothers have already been .

鈥淚t鈥檚 not surprising that we find that disruptions to the child care market vis-脿-vis an increase in immigration enforcement has led to a decline in the number of foreign-born workers, and because of the disruptions in the child care market, this has led to spillovers in the labor market for mothers with kids more generally,鈥� said Chris M. Herbst, one of the authors of the report and a professor of public policy at Arizona State University whose research includes the economics of child care. 鈥淭hese kinds of immigration-induced disruptions have had negative labor market implications.鈥�

The group analyzed and newly compiled ICE arrest data between September 2023 and July 2025 and found that immigrant labor 鈥� both among foreign-born and U.S.-born child care workers 鈥� decreased as arrests spiked this year and workers tried to avoid being targeted by ICE agents. The report estimates ICE arrests rose more than threefold between December 2024 and June of this year 鈥� from just over 8,300 to more than 29,000.

The dynamics also appear to be shifting some workers away from formal center- and home-based employment settings toward private households in work as a babysitter, nanny or au pair. Those shifts may reduce the total number of spots a day care can offer.

鈥淧ay is often under the table, and there鈥檚 no formal regulation of this sector,鈥� Herbst said. 鈥淲e don鈥檛 know if it鈥檚 high quality, if it鈥檚 low quality, how good the pay is 鈥� but what it is is less visible, and workers may feel less vulnerable as a result.鈥�

The drop in foreign-born child care workers is most pronounced among highly educated immigrants and those from Mexico. There鈥檚 also a 30 percent decrease among Hispanic workers, particularly Mexican workers, born in the United States. ICE agents .

鈥淚CE arrests are having chilling effects on groups that are not eligible for deportation,鈥� Herbst said. 鈥淯.S.-born workers of any race or ethnicity are not eligible for deportation, and the fact that we鈥檙e seeing reductions in U.S.-born employment among Hispanics, in particular Mexicans, speaks potentially to this chilling effect that ICE is having on these workers.鈥�

Herbst said the administration sold mass deportations on the theory that they would unclog the labor market and create more job opportunities for Americans. That鈥檚 not what is playing out in the child care industry, which shows how immigrants and U.S. citizens don鈥檛 always compete for the same jobs.

鈥淲hen a foreign-born worker is not showing up to work anymore because they鈥檙e scared, it makes the U.S.-born worker in that program 鈥� it makes it more difficult for them to do their jobs because they are doing complementary tasks rather than serving as substitutes for one another.鈥�

The changes to the child care workforce are also impacting employment opportunities among U.S. mothers with preschool-aged children, especially White mothers and those who are highly educated.

鈥淧arents, mothers in particular, rely on having stable child care available in order to work. And 

when you increase instability in the child care market, essentially by ramping up immigration enforcement, you鈥檙e scaring the heck out of a lot of workers who are no longer going to show up,鈥� Herbst said. 鈥淏ecause of that, the nation’s ability to provide child care services has declined. Families can no longer find the needed child care to go to work, and as a result, we鈥檙e seeing in the data, there are fewer mothers employed.鈥�

This is not the first time researchers have examined the impact of immigration enforcement on child care. aimed at checking the immigration status of people arrested by local police and in effect between 2008 and 2013 also force and among American mothers with young children.

Trump has made mass immigrant deportation a central policy during his second term. The scope of related arrests and subsequent detentions has included people without criminal backgrounds, including and people, and reached into locations once deemed sensitive by the federal government like schools, hospitals and churches.

罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 policy decision to rescind 鈥渟ensitive location鈥� status for places like day cares has translated into more immigration enforcement arrests near centers. A recent arrest of a day care worker inside a Chicago area center as children watched .

Immigration arrests are expected to continue in the new year. Congress approved a massive tax law last summer that for immigration enforcement, including for detentions and deportations. Researchers believe as ICE hires more officers and ramps up arrests, the child care sector could be further harmed.

Herbst said he expects disruptions not just to the child care sector but to other industries that are immigrant intensive.

鈥淲hat I hope our paper does is start to get people thinking about the trade offs involved in this kind of immigration enforcement policy,鈥� he said. 鈥淚t鈥檚 been sold to us as a policy that鈥檚 going to be a boon for American workers, for U.S.-born workers. But I think what we鈥檙e finding is that there are trade offs.鈥�

was originally reported by Barbara Rodriguez of . .

There is a new cost to hiring an international worker to fill a vital but otherwise vacant position in a California classroom: $100,000.

In September, the Trump administration began requiring American employers to pay a $100,000 for new H-1B visas, on top of visa application fees that amount to $9,500 to $18,800, depending on various factors. These visas allow skilled and credentialed workers in multiple job sectors to stay in the U.S. On Dec. 12, California joined 19 other states in for instating the 鈥渦nlawful鈥� fee, according to Attorney General Rob Bonta鈥檚 office.

Most foreign workers on H-1Bs in California work in the tech sector. But California also relies on H-1B visas to address another issue: a nationwide teacher shortage and a for staff in dual-language education and special education in K-12 districts.

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

Data from the California Department of Education shows school districts filed more than 300 visa applications for the 2023-24 school year, double the amount from just two years earlier. Educators and school officials say its overseas workers on visas are highly skilled, instrumental in multilingual education, and fill positions in special education.

Now education leaders are sounding the alarm that the high additional fee for overseas workers will worsen the strain on California鈥檚 public education system.

International employees fill a much-needed gap for school districts

California continues to face an ongoing teacher shortage. In 2023, California K-12 schools staffed 46,982 positions with employees whose credentials did not align with their job assignments, according to from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. Another 22,012 educator positions were left vacant that year. Of total misassignments and vacancies, around 28% were in English language development and 11.9% were in special education.

California school districts have also resorted to hiring teachers who haven鈥檛 yet obtained certain credentials, according to a study by the nonprofit . Facing a need for teachers, school districts have found that trained professionals from other countries are willing 鈥� and qualified 鈥斅爐o take classroom jobs that would otherwise go unfilled.

In 2023, in the Bay Area east of San Francisco, West Contra Costa Unified School District had 381 misassigned positions and 711 vacancies, according to the commission. So the district turned to foreign educators, hiring about 88 teachers on H-1B visas 鈥� a majority from the Philippines, Spain and Mexico 鈥� to teach in mostly dual-language and special education programs, said Sylvia Greenwood, the assistant superintendent for human resources at the district.

鈥淲ith our shortages in special ed, they were a good fit for our district. And so, therefore, we kept that pipeline open and brought teachers here from the Philippines to support our students and our students with special needs,鈥� Greenwood said.

The decline in the number of credentialed special education teachers continues to worsen. Between 2020 and 2024, the number of credentials earned to teach special education decreased by almost 600 across California, according to from the California Commission on Teacher Credentialing. The number of temporary permits and waivers granted by the commission increased by about 300 during the same period.

Francisco Ortiz, the president of United Teachers of Richmond and a teacher at Ford Elementary School in West Contra Costa, said the workload for teachers in the district will increase if West Contra Costa Unified is unable to bring in new international teachers.

This would create 鈥済reater instability鈥� for students, he said, adding, 鈥淚t’s going to have a great impact in special education, which is already on fire.鈥�

California school district officials say they are unsure they can pay the new fee to fill hiring gaps with international employees. West Contra Costa officials said they do not know yet who will be responsible for paying the new fee: the district, international teachers themselves or another party.

鈥淲e are a district that is dealing with a structural deficit as well, and so that cost, in a lot of ways, is going to be very difficult for our district or really any school district, to be able to take that on,鈥� said Cheryl Cotton, the superintendent for West Contra Costa.

Pasadena Unified, in Southern California, filed about a dozen applications for H-1B visa sponsorships in 2024. Now the district, facing a $27 million , will require those applying for H-1B visas to pay for it themselves, according to district spokesperson Hilda Ramirez Horvath. She said foreign employees will also no longer receive other types of financial support, including legal or filing fees related to immigration processing.

Language programs benefit from international teachers

District officials are also worried about the cultural costs of losing international educators. Educators on H-1B visas make dual-language public schools possible, giving families in California a unique multicultural education that sticks with their children for life.

Kelleen Peckham, a mother to two children in West Contra Costa, said she chose to transfer her daughter to Washington Elementary School in Richmond because it has a dual-language immersion program that teaches students to speak and read Spanish.

Peckham also plans to send her son, who will start kindergarten next year, to the same school even though it takes the family an extra 15 minutes to drive there.

鈥淢y husband’s family is from Mexico, and so [their] grandmother, on one side, only speaks Spanish,鈥� Peckham said. 鈥淚t’s important for [them] to be able to communicate with [their] family and extended family.鈥�

She said if the dual-language immersion program at Washington Elementary doesn鈥檛 survive, she would consider transferring her children back to the school in their neighborhood.

Fee spells 鈥楰eep Out鈥� to foreign workers

Within weeks of the fee鈥檚 , a coalition of international worker groups, unions and religious organizations the Trump administration, alleging the fee would inhibit staffing in education, medicine and ministry services.

鈥淚t鈥檚 essentially a giant 鈥楰eep Out鈥� sign for prospective individuals looking to utilize the visa process to be able to come to the United States and fill these roles and provide these services,鈥� said Laura Flores-Perilla, an attorney with the Justice Action Center, a Los Angeles-based immigration litigation group representing the coalition in its lawsuit.

鈥淚t’s not just going to hurt these individuals who have this pathway to do this, but it’s also going to hurt employers within the United States,鈥� Flores-Perilla said.

Although the fee , many international teachers are feeling less welcomed to work and live in the states. A.F., an international elementary school teacher in the West Contra Costa Unified School District, said many teachers are still concerned the federal government will announce new policy changes that could force them to leave the U.S.

鈥淚 feel like it’s a form of discrimination to impose [a] $100,000 fee for teachers,鈥� A.F. said.

A.F., who is currently on an H-1B visa, asked to only give his initials because he fears speaking publicly will affect his ability to receive a green card in the future. He immigrated from the Philippines to California five years ago on a J-1 visa before transferring to an H-1B visa at the beginning of 2025. J-1 visas allow visitors to temporarily stay in the U.S. to participate in certain programs, including teaching, studying, conducting research and more, according to .

A.F. said the district previously paid for all of his immigration costs for his H-1B visa, which amounted to more than $3,700 for processing fees and an immigration attorney.

The future is uncertain for H-1B visa hopefuls

H.R., a physical education teacher in West Contra Costa who works on a short-term J-1 visa, said he moved his family from Mexico to the U.S. three years ago to work at one of the district鈥檚 high schools because he felt it would be safer to raise his daughter in the U.S. H.R. requested to use only his initials because he doesn鈥檛 want to jeopardize his ability to apply for the H-1B visa in the future.

鈥淢y biggest reason [for moving] is my daughter,鈥� he said. 鈥淢e and my wife decided that it would be a good chance for her [and] a big opportunity to learn the language and to grow up in a different environment.鈥�

H.R. can鈥檛 apply for the H-1B visa because he missed the deadline and West Contra Costa Unified is now unlikely to pay for his immigration fees. After his visa expires in June 2026, H.R. will move back to Mexico with his family and reapply for the J-1 visa in hopes of returning to California.

鈥淓verybody says here that they need teachers in California 鈥� but they don’t want to do anything to [help us stay] here,鈥� H.R. said.

At the Los Angeles Unified School District, spokesperson Christy Hagen said in an email to CalMatters that the recent visa changes have not yet impacted the school鈥檚 hiring of educators on H-1B visas. Hagen said the district鈥檚 immigration experts were 鈥渟till evaluating the effect of this order.鈥�

Maria Miranda, a representative for United Teachers Los Angeles 鈥� the union for Los Angeles Unified teachers 鈥� said the district had, as of mid-November, not provided any guidance to its educators or schools on how H-1B visa hopefuls would be supported.

Flores-Perilla, the attorney bringing the lawsuit against the Trump administration, says no hearings have been set in their case yet. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce has now also brought a over the $100,000 fee, arguing that the proclamation overrides provisions of the and harms U.S. employers.

For now, districts will have to wait on the results of either lawsuit to potentially see some relief in immigration costs.

鈥淚t’s absolutely unfeasible to be able to pay this fee [and] to be able to actually bring in prospective employees in their fields and industries, so it’s going to hurt everyone,鈥� Flores-Perilla said.

Sophie Sullivan and Alina Ta are contributors with the College Journalism Network, a collaboration between CalMatters and student journalists from across California. CalMatters higher education coverage is supported by a grant from the College Futures Foundation.

This article was and was republished under the license.

While the federal education bureaucracy has room for improvement, this move should alarm anyone 鈥� across party lines 鈥� who understands the central purpose of Title I: to mitigate the effects of poverty on learning and ensure that every child has a fair chance at a high-quality education.

Title I was not created to build workforce pipelines or meet short-term labor market needs. It was created to address inequities in schooling. Relocating it to the Department of Labor 鈥� an agency with little experience in K-12 education, little familiarity with school improvement or academic intervention, and no core mission related to teaching or learning 鈥� fundamentally undermines its purpose.

Title I administration relies on specialists who spend their careers understanding the complexities of school improvement, early literacy, bilingual education, assessment, family engagement, data reporting and civil rights enforcement. These professionals interpret federal law, develop guidance that districts depend on, monitor state implementation, help local leaders navigate compliance challenges and support research-based strategies that improve academic outcomes for children in poverty. Their work is rarely visible to the public, but their expertise is vital to the day-to-day functioning of thousands of schools.

When these positions are eliminated or scattered across agencies, the federal government loses not only staff but decades of institutional memory. Labor does not have personnel trained to advise districts on effective reading interventions, to monitor support for English learners, or to help states build equitable accountability systems.

Nor does it have the infrastructure to provide guidance on the complex interdependence of Title I with federal programs governing students with disabilities, teacher training or English learners. That expertise cannot be rebuilt quickly. And the predictable result will be confusion, inconsistency and weaker oversight.

Narrowing the federal role to workforce preparation overlooks the broader civic, academic, social and developmental purposes of schooling. A child鈥檚 education is not simply a supply-chain function of the labor market. Title I was created to provide additional resources to schools serving students with the fewest opportunities: resources that fund literacy coaches, paraprofessionals, after-school tutoring, community school coordinators, summer learning programs, bilingual aides and social workers.

These efforts help children succeed academically and thrive as full members of their communities. They cannot be replaced by job-readiness activities, nor should they be justified only through workforce logic.

The students most harmed by this shift live in every corner of the country. In rural communities, Title I dollars support small schools that would otherwise be unable to hire reading specialists or maintain adequate transportation. These schools often have only one or two central-office staff members to manage federal programs. When reporting requirements or compliance expectations shift suddenly to a new agency unfamiliar with school operations, rural districts have little capacity to absorb the confusion. That leaves teachers and students vulnerable.

In suburban districts, Title I is often the lifeline that enables supports for rapidly changing demographics. Many suburban schools now serve increasing numbers of multilingual learners, low-income families and students experiencing housing instability. Title I funds help these districts build systems of early intervention, family engagement and academic support that would otherwise not exist. When federal guidance becomes unclear or inconsistent, these districts struggle to maintain those programs.

Urban districts depend on Title I at an even larger scale. Large-city schools use these funds to support community school models, mental health services, after-school programs, restorative justice initiatives and partnerships with nonprofits. They also rely on clear federal guidance to ensure that high-poverty schools receive their fair allocation of state and local funds in addition to Title I dollars, a safeguard called 鈥渟upplement, not supplant.鈥� Because Labor lacks the expertise or commitment to enforce this rule, inequities within districts will widen and children in red, purple and blue districts will suffer.

As a child of a low-income, single-parent family, my brother and I benefited directly from Title I funding in the 13 public schools we attended. Title I paid for more teachers, for literacy programs, books in our classrooms, after-school programs, breakfast, free and reduced-price lunch and even band instruments that allowed us to participate until we could afford to purchase our own.

Both of us entered the workforce at young ages, taking part time jobs in middle and high school. Both of us continued to work through college. And both of us have Title I to thank for providing funding and accountability mechanisms to the local districts we attended. Despite the financial instability and numerous moves, public schools and the educators serving in them offered us resources, programs and stability we otherwise would not have experienced.

Those advocating for the elimination of the Education Department insist that because Title I funding will continue, nothing fundamental will change. But funding without coherent and responsible oversight is functionally weaker funding.

Dollars do not implement themselves.

They require an expert federal partner, capable state agencies and local leaders who understand how to use those funds wisely. When the federal partner is replaced by an agency without educational expertise, the quality and equity of implementation deteriorate. That deterioration will disproportionately impact the very communities and families Title I was created to support.

Improving the federal role in education is a worthy goal. Streamlining bureaucracy, clarifying guidance and eliminating redundancies can make federal programs more effective. But dispersing the Education Department鈥檚 core functions across agencies that lack expertise is not reform, it鈥檚 abandonment. The nation鈥檚 commitment to public schooling as the foundation for increasing educational access and economic opportunity is too important to place in the hands of a department ill-equipped to uphold it.

At issue: a working list of 鈥減rofessional鈥� programs that require advanced degrees and licenses. Circulated online last month, it amounts to just 11 fields, including doctors, dentists and attorneys, among others.

Left out are virtually all other professions that, in many cases, require advanced degrees and licenses. 

The proposed change is part of a GOP effort to trim not just student debt and federal spending but college costs more broadly. 

In practical terms, enrolling in a 鈥減rofessional鈥� program would give students the ability to borrow up to $50,000 per year in federal loans, or $200,000 over the course of their graduate school career. By contrast, programs that don鈥檛 fall into one of the 11 fields would give students access to just $20,500 a year, or $100,000 total. That often doesn鈥檛 cover the cost of a graduate education, advocates say, leaving students to rely on families or expensive private loans.

鈥淚t is a bad situation for a lot of professions,鈥� said Jonathan Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the , which represents college presidents. The council has over the list, saying the U.S. Department of Education should broaden it to include, among others, nurses, social workers and many kinds of teachers.

In a , the American Association of Colleges of Nursing said it was 鈥渄eeply concerned鈥� by the department鈥檚 proposed definition, saying it 鈥渆xcludes nursing and significantly limits student loan access.鈥�

In a statement, Education Department spokeswoman Ellen Keast blamed social media 鈥渕isinformation鈥� about the rule-making process for confusion about the administration鈥檚 moves. Much of the uproar has spread via videos on sites like and .

Keast said the plans are still in development, and that reducing lending limits will reduce students鈥� costs. 鈥淲e expect that institutions charging tuition rates well above market prices will consider lowering tuition thanks to these historic reforms,鈥� she said.

Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, told 社区黑料 the student debt crisis 鈥渨ill not be solved by making arbitrary judgements about which professions 鈥榙eserve鈥� support. Lifetime and annual borrowing caps hit career-changers and graduate students hardest, especially as the cost of higher education continues to rise.鈥�

AFT also represents nurses, librarians, higher education faculty and graduate students who teach and do research.

Dina Kastner, public policy and advocacy manager for the National Association of Social Workers, said federal loan limits 鈥渨ill really have an impact鈥� on social work students.

鈥淔or people who are going to graduate school 鈥� particularly in a profession like social work, where a graduate degree is needed for a lot of the work that social workers do 鈥� it’s definitely a problem,鈥� she said in an interview. 

The association has been hearing 鈥渃onsistently鈥� from members since details about the changes began trickling out, she said.

A consensus or a 鈥榮tranglehold鈥�?

While the effort is part of a broader one by Congress in President 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 to limit the burden of graduate student debt and cap federal borrowing, details of the two categories actually took shape as the Education Department initiated the rule-making process, said ACE鈥檚 Fansmith.

Department representatives proposed that instead of trying to figure out all of the programs that fit under the 鈥減rofessional鈥� category, they would rely on a list of 10 professions originally cited as 鈥渆xamples鈥� 鈥� and declared that those are eligible for the higher borrowing limits. 

鈥淵ou would think it’s an oversight, because the actual statutory language says these 10 are 鈥榚xamples,鈥欌�� Fansmith said. 鈥淓ssentially, what they said was, 鈥榃e are going to do the minimum possible,鈥� in part because they’re really trying to limit how much students can borrow.鈥� That, despite the fact that in several fields, such as education and nursing, employers are facing huge demands for highly trained workers, he said. 

After two weeks of talks, Fansmith said, negotiators agreed to add an 11th category to the 鈥減rofessional鈥� list: clinical psychology.

He called the process 鈥渃ompletely crazy鈥� and not what Congress intended for the lending program. 鈥淭his administration is kind of shooting ourselves in the foot and doing something that鈥檚 going to have really lasting harm until it’s overturned.鈥�

In its statement, the department did not directly address the process it followed, but in a 鈥淢yth vs. Fact鈥� , issued Nov. 24, it called the proposed limits on lending 鈥渃ommonsense鈥� and said a negotiating committee offered 鈥渁 consensus definition鈥� for the two categories 鈥� one that it says is now being bent out of shape by fear-mongering 鈥減rogressive voices.鈥�

The department said federal data indicates that 95% of nursing students borrow below the annual $100,000 loan limit 鈥渁nd therefore are not affected by the new caps.鈥�

It also noted that it 鈥渉as not prejudged the rulemaking process and may make changes in response to public comments鈥� over the next few months.

That hasn鈥檛 stopped professional groups from protesting in advance. The nurses鈥� association said that, as of 2022, more than one in four RNs planned to leave nursing or retire over the next five years. One in five holds a master’s degree or higher, it said, and demand for nurses with advanced degrees 鈥� in clinical specialties, teaching and research 鈥� 鈥渇ar outstrips the supply.鈥�

鈥楧rowning in debt鈥�

The move to limit lending comes, in part, from a conservative belief that expanding financial aid via big federal loans not only creates a debt problem for students 鈥� it also allows universities to quietly inflate costs as many students borrow the entire amount needed to attend.

The idea is sometimes called , after former U.S. Education Secretary William Bennett. In 1987, he wrote that increases in federal aid had 鈥渆nabled colleges and universities blithely to raise their tuitions, confident that Federal loan subsidies would help cushion the increase.鈥�

Nearly 40 years later, the idea lives on: In 2023 when Republicans in Congress to lower college costs, Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-La., said, 鈥淥ur federal higher education financing system contributes more to the problem than the solution. Colleges and universities using the availability of federal loans to increase their tuitions have left too many students drowning in debt without a path for success.鈥�

Preston Cooper, a senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, in October said Congress鈥檚 budget bill, which will Grad PLUS loans as of July 2026, has bring costs down. As an example, he said Santa Clara University School of Law next fall will give incoming full-time students a guaranteed $16,000 tuition scholarship, renewable for up to three years, the duration of the program. That amounts to an effective $16,000 cut in net tuition, he said.

The relationship between credit availability and tuition rates is difficult to track directly, but a few studies have found a connection. In 2015, economist David O. Lucca and colleagues changes in subsidized loan maximums had an effect on tuition, especially for 鈥渕ore expensive degrees, those offered by private institutions, and for two-year or vocational programs.鈥� Other studies have found the effect more pronounced in .

By contrast, in 2017, , who studies college costs at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, law school tuition rates and found 鈥渇ar less evidence for the Bennett Hypothesis than I expected to see.鈥� 

He offered several explanations, among them that law schools that raise tuition by more than competitors may see declines in applicants and revenue, and that greater availability of federal loans simply shifts students鈥� debt out of private banks and into the public system: In 2003, he noted, 36% of law students took out private loans. By 2011, five years after Grad PLUS loans debuted, it was just 5%.

Kastner of the social workers鈥� association said limiting how much graduate students can borrow, combined with the of Grad PLUS loans, is 鈥渁 double whammy鈥� for students. As a result, many will be forced to rely once again on private banks, which demand higher interest rates and offer fewer protections if they can鈥檛 pay loans back.

Asked if she had sympathy for the effort to lower students鈥� debt burden by restricting graduate borrowing, Kastner replied, 鈥淚 don’t see it that way. I think it’s just making things more difficult for students.鈥�

Kastner herself struggled to get her degree in the mid-1990s. By the time she began her social work career in Chicago in 1997, her debt amounted to about $40,000. Her monthly payment: $600, the equivalent one semi-monthly paycheck. 

She eventually got help from her parents to pay back her loans, but said squeezing new professionals will present 鈥渁 real challenge,鈥� especially for first-generation students 鈥渨ho may not have the family resources to really help them bridge that gap.鈥�

ACE鈥檚 Fansmith said the department should be considering policies, such as income- based repayment and long-term loan forgiveness, that could actually address budgetary and student debt problems 鈥渨ithout simply saying, 鈥榊ou can’t access the education.鈥欌��

He noted that the final rules, slated to take effect in July, won鈥檛 be written until early next year. In the meantime, he anticipates heated public comments from nurses, social workers, educators and other professions. 

鈥淚t wouldn’t be shocking to see Congress step in,鈥� said Fansmith. 鈥淣urses are, understandably and appropriately, a really sympathetic group.鈥� And everyone sees the need for more of them, he said. 鈥淪o these kinds of decisions that are really harmful for our country, honestly, might get re-evaluated.鈥�

New international students enrolling at U.S. colleges declined sharply this fall, a concerning development for universities that rely on those students for research, tuition revenue and the diversity they bring to campus culture. It could, however, create more space for U.S. residents at those campuses.

Enrollments of new international students were down 17% compared to fall 2024, according to a report released Monday by the Institute of International Education, which surveyed more than 800 colleges about their fall 2025 enrollments. The institute, a nonprofit organization based in New York, publishes an annual report that examines the enrollment of international students. 

The fall data was not broken down by state, so the scale of decline in California is unclear. At USC, which enrolls more international students than any other California college, overall enrollment of international students is down 3% this fall, according to a campus spokesperson. That includes returning and first-time students, so the drop could be much higher for new arrivals. USC this fall enrolls about 12,000 international students, or 26% of its total student population, according to the college. About half of those students are from China. 

The declines come amid a changing landscape for international students under the Trump administration, which has delayed visa processing, created travel restrictions and pressured some campuses to recruit and admit fewer students from other countries. The colleges surveyed this fall by the institute cited visa application concerns and travel restrictions as top factors in the decline. 

鈥淲e are confronting major headwinds with what I would say are poor policy decisions that the administration is taking. And that is creating a climate for international students that signals that you鈥檙e not welcome here,鈥� said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, a nonprofit for international education and exchange.

President Donald Trump has said that he wants to lower the number of international students at U.S. colleges to leave more room at those campuses for U.S. students. 鈥淚t鈥檚 too much because we have Americans that want to go there and to other places, and they can鈥檛 go there,鈥� he said earlier this year, referencing the number of international students at Harvard and other universities.

For the full 2024-25 academic year, new international student enrollments were down by 7%, driven by a 15% drop among new international graduate students, compared to 2023-24. However, the number of new undergraduates was up by 5%. Trump took office in January, just before the start of the spring semester at most colleges. 

In the U.S., students from India were the largest group of international students, accounting for 30.8% of all international students, followed by students from China, with 22.6% of enrollments.

In the 2024-25 academic year in California, the largest share of international students were from China, and they made up 35.4% of enrollments, followed by students from India at 20.9%. Overall enrollment of international students in California was down 1.1% in 2024-25. 

USC enrolled the most international students of any California university, followed by four University of California campuses: Berkeley, Los Angeles, San Diego and Irvine. According to the report, the total number of enrolled international students were: 12,020 at Berkeley, 10,769 at UCLA, 10,545 at San Diego, and 7,638 at Irvine.

Across the state, international students make up about 7% of enrollments at four-year colleges, . They make up a large share of graduate students, accounting for 31% of graduate students at UC campuses, 15% at private nonprofit universities, and 12% at California State University campuses. 

Freya Vijay, 20, a third-year student from Canada studying business administration at USC, said she always planned to come to the United States for college. 

鈥淚n terms of business and just the economy, you have Wall Street, you have New York, Chicago, L.A., and San Francisco, all these big cities that dominate what鈥檚 going on in the world,鈥� she said. 鈥淪o immediately, in terms of opportunity, my mind was set on the States.鈥� 

In addition to visa and travel restrictions, the Trump administration has directly requested 鈥� or threatened, as some have called it 鈥� California campuses to limit enrollments of international students. The administration鈥檚 compact offer to USC last month would have forced the university to cap international enrollment at 15% for undergraduates and limit enrollment from any one country to 5%.

, which also would have required the university to make a number of other changes, including committing to 鈥渢ransforming or abolishing institutional units that purposefully punish, belittle and even spark violence against conservative ideas.鈥� 

Separately, in a settlement proposal to UCLA, the Trump administration calls on the campus to ensure that 鈥渇oreign students likely to engage in anti-Western, anti-American, or antisemitic disruptions or harassment鈥� are not admitted. UCLA is still in negotiations with the administration and has not yet reached a deal. The Trump administration has charged the campus with antisemitism and civil rights violations. 

Even amid the turmoil, experts say they expect California universities to continue recruiting international students. Julie Posselt, a professor of education at USC鈥檚 Rossier School of Education, noted that at research universities, much of the research is being carried out by international graduate students. 

鈥淓specially in STEM fields, international students are really central to the research functions of universities,鈥� Posselt said. 鈥淓nrolling international students is not optional. It is absolutely a part of the fabric of what makes universities great.鈥� 

On top of that, colleges have financial incentives to enroll international students. That鈥檚 especially true at UC campuses, which charge international students and students from other states much higher rates of tuition than California residents. In the 2026-27 academic year, new international and out-of-state undergraduates at UC will pay nearly $52,000 in tuition, more than triple what in-state students will be charged. Nonresidents in graduate programs also generally pay higher rates than residents.

Facing pressure from the state Legislature to make more room for California residents, UC in 2017 passed a policy to cap nonresident enrollment at 18%, with a higher percentage allowed for campuses that were already above that mark. But the system still gets significant tuition revenue from nonresidents, including international students, which UC says supports the system鈥檚 core operations and helps to lower the cost of attendance for California residents.  

In a Nov. 10 interview with Fox News, Trump seemed to acknowledge the importance of international students, saying colleges might 鈥済o out of business鈥� without them.

鈥淵ou don鈥檛 want to cut half of the people, half of the students from all over the world that are coming into our country 鈥� destroy our entire university and college system 鈥� I don鈥檛 want to do that,鈥� he said. 

International students also bring diverse perspectives and 鈥渁 richness to the campus culture,鈥� said Stett Holbrook, a spokesperson for the University of California system. 鈥淭hat鈥檚 something we really appreciate and try to cultivate.鈥�

At USC, the presence of international students from more than 130 countries means there are 鈥渋nnumerable opportunities at USC to encounter different perspectives鈥� and 鈥渆xperience new cultures,鈥� a spokesperson said in a statement. 

Vijay, the USC student from Canada, said she regularly boasts about USC to friends, adding that she hopes attending remains an option for other international students. 

鈥淚 always think it鈥檚 just such a great opportunity and that no international student should ever take it for granted,鈥� she said. 鈥淚 wish other internationals could experience it.鈥�

This was originally published on .

As a disabled American, it鈥檚 hard to express how profoundly this piece of legislation has impacted my life. Without it, I would likely be living in an , deprived of the rights and opportunities I have now. As the IDEA turns 50 this month, attacks from the Trump administration threaten to undermine the protections it provides millions of Americans like me.

The IDEA stems from the Supreme Court鈥檚 decision, which quashed the racist 鈥渟eparate but equal鈥� doctrine and heralded the desegregation of American public schools, with Chief Justice Earl Warren segregation as a 鈥渄enial of the equal protection of the laws.鈥�

Disability advocates took notice of the decision, arguing that segregation based on disability is also inherently unequal. This led to a case called Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Children (PARC) v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in 1972, where a federal court ruled that disabled children have a right to education. Three years later, the IDEA was passed.

Thanks to the new law, I attended public school from pre-K through 12th grade, receiving vital services that prepared me for college and a robust career. Each year, my parents and I met with teachers and other specialists to carefully negotiate services and develop an individualized education plan, or IEP, that ensured my experience at school remained equitable.

It wasn鈥檛 until high school that I realized how important these meetings really were. From accessible buses to physical therapy to participating on my high school track team, the IDEA funded services so that I could continue learning alongside my non-disabled peers. It even ensured that I received adaptive driver鈥檚 education training during my junior year. Without the support these services provided me during my formative school years, I have no doubt I鈥檇 be in a much different place today.

Alarmingly, the Trump administration is now trying to eliminate the protections and services that the IDEA guarantees. For example, racial minority students with disabilities are often when they鈥檙e young and in later years, leading them to miss out on key early interventions. This can lead to Black and brown disabled students being placed in segregated classrooms and receiving punishment at higher rates.

In 2016, the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation Services finalized a rule requiring states to follow procedures to improve monitoring of schools that are disproportionately identifying and punishing disabled racial minority students. In August 2025, the Trump administration’s Department of Education to reverse that rule. If successful, it would likely mean a spike in educational discrimination against disabled Black and brown students who are already struggling.

The current administration is also attempting to eliminate IDEA funding by consolidating funding with other programs in a block grant and letting states decide how to spend those dollars.

Obtaining IDEA evaluations and services is already difficult, since it often requires parents to fight on behalf of their children. My parents spent countless hours pushing schools to provide the right services so that I could attend and fully participate in school and after-school activities. I was lucky enough that my parents had the resources and knowledge to fight for my rights under the IDEA.

Many don鈥檛 have the time, resources, or knowledge to successfully negotiate with schools, which leaves many disabled students to navigate their education through significant barriers.

My education led me to become the senior director at a policy think-tank in Washington, D.C. I鈥檝e had the privilege of speaking before Congress and even a vice president to advocate for disabled people. But I fear the opportunities afforded to me may vanish for the next generation of disabled students in the U.S.Disabled people are already twice as likely to be and live in than non-disabled people. Obtaining an education is ways to help disabled people secure a stable income鈥攁nd by weakening the IDEA, the Trump administration is trying to take those opportunities away. As the rates of rise, it鈥檚 more important than ever for us to protect and fund this essential civil rights law.

Do we really need to worry about elementary and secondary schools anyway? They can simply get tossed into the Department of Labor. Those who work on special education? Plop them over there in Health and Human Services. 

In this vision of dismemberment, the word 鈥渆ducation鈥� is scrubbed from any U.S.-led effort to improve our country. The concept of teaching and learning is not important enough to garner federal attention anymore. 

Instead, it鈥檚 about kids envisioned as workers, with a little bit of health care sprinkled in to make sure their bodies can do the work needed once they grow into adults. This not only acts against Congressional will and statute, it is disastrous for America鈥檚 competitiveness and our standing in the world. It is disrespectful to America鈥檚 families. And it is catastrophic for our kids and the generation behind them.

Today鈥檚 students are facing a future that demands new wells of knowledge, skills and ingenuity to address the unknowns of an AI-infused and climate-changed world. Today鈥檚 parents worry that their children will never get the education they need to compete with AI, get good jobs and feel fulfilled in their work. Many of today鈥檚 teachers are coping with classrooms of children experiencing fear and trauma while also under pressure to use new technologies and become AI-literate as soon as possible.

Take reading. We have all heard how so many of today鈥檚 children are struggling to achieve proficiency in reading, as scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress are in troubling decline. In an AI-driven world, schools need to help students overcome these reading challenges and build traditional literacy skills and powers of comprehension. And they need to help students acquire digital literacy skills so they can not only read what ChatGPT spits out but also know how to vet it. 

This is a combination that only comes with well-prepared teachers given training and resources to support students at different levels, with different needs. This is not about sitting kids at a desk and telling them to read 鈥淗op on Pop鈥� so they someday can read instructions for a low-wage job. 

To say that states can do it all on their own is folly. Imagine 50 states with 50 different agencies, many of which are held together by small numbers of people, all trying to manage thousands of school districts without guidance. District and state leaders need and want help to apply best practices for funding early literacy specialists in districts, helping English learners read and respond to complex texts, responding to parent inquiries and protecting students鈥� rights. 

There are now decades of scientific research 鈥� much of it led by great American minds 鈥� on what it takes to build school, home and informal learning environments that engage kids and spark learning. Educators are eager to learn effective strategies for stimulating the deeper thinking that comes with a quality education and is needed to succeed in a complicated world. Other countries, from China to Germany to Paraguay, are using that research on effective teaching and learning to equip their young people for the challenges ahead. The U.S. should be leading in education, not ceding ground.

The materials distributed in the Department of Education鈥檚 Tuesday talk about 鈥渋nteragency agreements鈥� as if this is as easy as moving someone to a new cubicle. The truth is anything but, and the cost and inefficiencies across funding streams, accountability and new workloads are easy to see. 

It is not hard to predict chaos and confusion for the next several years as government officials try to figure out how these interagency agreements will work. That is time that should be used instead to strengthen our education system and help states and localities with all the guidance and assistance and funding they need. That is time to ensure that we aren鈥檛 leaving out students who may happen to have a disability, who have been discriminated against, or who happen to live in a low-income school district. 

Think about it: Do we really want to be a country without a Department of Education in the 21st century?

For the 29th time so far this year, Arizona is suing the Trump administration, this time to block the U.S. Department of Education from cancelling public service student loan forgiveness for employees of government agencies and organizations that help undocumented immigrants, promote diversity, equity and inclusion or take part in political protest.

鈥淧ublic service should never be weaponized for political games,鈥� Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said in a statement. 鈥淭his rule undermines the very spirit of the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program and threatens workers who dedicate their careers to public service. I鈥檓 proud to join my fellow attorneys general in suing to block it.鈥�

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for 社区黑料 Newsletter

On Monday, Mayes joined a coalition of 21 other Democratic attorneys general challenging the new rules from the U.S. Department of Education. The states asked a federal judge in Massachusetts to declare the rule unlawful and block the department from implementing it.

The rule, finalized Oct. 31, allows the department itself to decide that agencies or organizations are ineligible for student loan forgiveness if the Trump administration says they have a 鈥渟ubstantial illegal purpose.鈥� The rule is scheduled to go into effect in July 2026.

But the Department of Education鈥檚 description of an illegal purpose is based on its own ideological agenda, the attorneys general wrote.

鈥淚n seeking to crack down on specific activities disfavored by this Administration, the true intent behind the Rule is clear,鈥� the attorneys general wrote. 鈥淭he Department seeks to chill the activities of public service employers by discouraging their employees from what it deems objectionable forms of public service.鈥�

The Public Service Loan Forgiveness program was created by Congress in 2007 to encourage professionals to go into public service careers with lower pay than private sector jobs, where they might not otherwise be able to pay off their student loan debt. After 10 years of regular payments while working in public service, the federal government forgives remaining student loan debt for those in the program.

鈥淥ver the years, (the program) has enabled more than one million public servants to pursue careers that might have otherwise been out of reach,鈥� Mayes鈥� office wrote in a statement. 鈥淔or state governments, (the program) is a critical tool to recruit and retain qualified professionals in vital fields like education, health care, and law enforcement.鈥�

In addition to the lawsuit from the attorneys general, a group of more than a dozen cities, labor unions and nonprofit organizations from across the country in federal court in Massachusetts on Monday seeking 鈥渢o restore the promise that a bipartisan Congress made to public-service workers and their employers in establishing the Public Service Loan Forgiveness program nearly 20 years ago.鈥�

The Arizona Education Association, the largest teachers union in the state, was unavailable for comment, but its parent organization, the National Education Association, joined in the suit alongside other labor unions.

鈥淭he new rule imposes harsh and illegal restrictions, makes repayment less affordable, and silences the voices of educators and other beneficiaries of the programs,鈥� NEA President Becky Pringle said in a statement. 鈥淲e refuse to stand by while politicians trap dedicated educators in generations of debt.鈥�

Congress was clear, the attorneys general wrote in their lawsuit, that all government employees 鈥� except for elected members of Congress 鈥� were eligible for public service student loan forgiveness.

The states have benefited greatly from the loan forgiveness program, Mayes and the other attorneys general argued, because it helped them to recruit 鈥渇irst responders, early childhood educators, librarians, nurses, public defenders, and public prosecutors鈥� who might otherwise have gone to work in the private sector to ensure they could pay off their student loans.

鈥淩esidents and State employees have planned their lives and careers around receiving (federal student loan) forgiveness,鈥� the attorneys general wrote.

The loan forgiveness program applies to a wide range of workers beyond those employed by state government and municipalities, including those who work for some nonprofit organizations.

鈥淭o be clear, (the public service loan forgiveness program) is not merely a convenient recruitment tool for State employers,鈥� the attorneys general wrote. 鈥淔or many employees with debt loads that reach into the tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, (the program) is the only reason they can afford to work in public service in the first place.鈥�

In March, Trump issued an executive order instructing the U.S. Department of Education to change eligibility rules for the public service loan forgiveness program based on the administration鈥檚 view of 鈥渟ubstantial illegal purpose.鈥� The new rule disqualifies employees of government entities or organizations that 鈥渁id and abet鈥� violations of federal immigration law, support protests against the Trump administration or back gender-affirming care for transgender youth. (The administration denigrated health care for trans children as聽 the 鈥渃hemical and surgical castration or mutilation of children or the trafficking of children to so-called transgender sanctuary States for 鈥榩urposes of emancipation from their lawful parents.鈥欌��)

The attorneys general argue that 罢谤耻尘辫鈥檚 executive order and the Department of Education rule attempt to give power to the department that has not been conferred to it by Congress.

鈥淭he Department redefines 鈥榪ualifying employer鈥� in a sharp departure from the corresponding definition of 鈥榩ublic service job鈥� that Congress put in place in 2007 鈥� and that has remained substantively intact since then 鈥� but provides no adequate justification for this grant of unfettered discretion,鈥� the AGs wrote.

The rule also targets state government entities while exempting federal government entities, without explanation, the attorneys general claimed.

鈥淧ut simply, the Final Rule is nothing more than a laundry list of this Administration鈥檚 policy priorities designed to attack lawful conduct it does not agree with,鈥� the attorneys general wrote.

is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com.