Quick Hit:

President Donald Trump’s administration is cracking down on discriminatory DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs in public schools, warning that schools promoting race-based preferences could lose federal funding. However, several Democrat-led states—including Pennsylvania, Oregon, and Wisconsin—are rejecting the administration’s directive, dismissing the move as political and refusing to eliminate DEI initiatives despite the potential financial consequences.

Key Details:

• The Trump administration directed states to certify compliance with federal civil rights laws or risk losing federal Title I funds.

• Oregon and Wisconsin officials have flatly refused to comply with the directive, calling it political and unlawful.

• Pennsylvania acknowledged compliance with Title VI but told schools they do not need to alter any DEI practices.

Diving Deeper:

The Trump administration’s effort to roll back left-wing DEI programs in public education—policies that have been widely criticized for discriminating against certain racial groups—has triggered resistance from several Democrat-led states. On April 3, the U.S. Department of Education issued a letter requiring states to certify that their schools are in compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act or risk forfeiting federal education dollars.

Oregon Governor Tina Kotek quickly rejected the directive, calling it an “unlawful attempt to take away resources promised to Oregon students.” In defiance of the administration, she ordered the state’s education department to “hold the line” and continue DEI practices. Dr. Charlene Williams, director of Oregon’s Department of Education, echoed the same defiance, accusing the administration of using children’s resources as a “political tool.” Despite the federal government’s assertion that race-based discrimination violates civil rights law, Oregon officials claim they remain in full legal compliance and are committed to promoting DEI values.

Similarly, Wisconsin’s State Superintendent Jill Underly dismissed the Trump administration’s order as “redundant,” “intimidating,” and based on “political beliefs.” She argued that the threat to cut $216 million in Title I funds—critical support for low-income schools—was unwarranted and violated procedural norms. Underly called the federal requirement an overreach, stating that local school districts should retain control over what is best for their communities.

In Pennsylvania, the response was more restrained but still dismissive. The state certified compliance with federal civil rights law, but Acting Education Secretary Carrie Rowe told school districts they do not need to change any DEI practices. Rowe noted that the administration had failed to define “illegal DEI” and that neither federal nor state law outright prohibits DEI efforts. Pennsylvania’s letter stopped short of the combative tone used by Oregon and Wisconsin, yet still declined to take further action to eliminate DEI programs.

While blue states continue to defend DEI policies, the Trump administration’s position is clear: federally funded schools cannot promote programs that favor one racial group over another. The administration’s letter emphasized that too many schools are “using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another,” and it reaffirmed the need for compliance with Title VI, which bars racial discrimination in federally funded institutions.

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon praised Puerto Rico earlier this week for being the first to certify compliance. In a public statement, McMahon noted that “every state that wants to continue receiving federal funds should follow suit.” The administration also extended the compliance deadline to April 24 in order to give states time to respond—but early indications suggest that Democrat-led states intend to dig in.

While the political left insists that DEI initiatives promote fairness and inclusivity, the Trump administration is making it clear: policies that institutionalize racial preferences have no place in American public education. The battle lines are now drawn, and it remains to be seen whether these defiant states will face real consequences for prioritizing ideology over equality under the law.