Several U.S. states are pushing back against the Trump administration’s demand to certify compliance with new anti-DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion) standards by April 24 or risk losing federal education funding.
This move has sparked a national debate on civil rights enforcement and state-level control over school policies.
On April 3, the U.S. Department of Education sent letters to K-12 state education agencies. The letter states to confirm they comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race or sex, and with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ended affirmative action in college admissions.
The department stated that any DEI efforts could violate these federal laws and hinted that schools found non-compliant could face investigations or lose federal funding.
Initially, states had ten days to respond, but the deadline was extended to April 24. Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the Department of Education, emphasized that this wasn’t a new law but a reinforcement of existing civil rights rules.
“We are merely asking states to certify their compliance with federal antidiscrimination law, which is a condition of their federal funding,” she said.
While some states quickly complied, others showed strong resistance. States and territories, including Arkansas, Idaho, Montana, North Dakota, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Texas, American Samoa, Guam, and Puerto Rico, submitted the certification and were praised by Education Secretary Linda McMahon. Puerto Rico was recognized as the first to confirm compliance, stating that it does not allow race-preferencing in its classrooms.
Indiana said it would comply and is working with local districts to collect necessary signatures, following an executive order from Governor Mike Braun. Similarly, New Hampshire’s education department created a public tracker to ensure all local educational agencies submitted their certifications by April 17, earning praise from the federal department for transparency.
However, not all states agreed. New York became the first to publicly reject the certification. States like Colorado, Washington, Minnesota, Oregon, Wisconsin, and Vermont also declined to sign, citing their ongoing support for DEI initiatives.
Surprisingly, Republican-led states like Utah and Vermont also refused, stating that their existing laws already align with federal anti-discrimination requirements, but did not accept the language targeting DEI.
Massachusetts went further, with its education commissioner outright rejecting the demand and stating that promoting diversity improves education outcomes. Oregon echoed this view, saying DEI helps enhance student learning.
Leaders in Michigan, California, Delaware, and Illinois also refused to sign, explaining that they already comply with existing federal civil rights laws and found the recertification request unnecessary.
Many state officials criticized the certification as vague, claiming it did not define what practices count as “illegal DEI” and warned that it could limit inclusive policies that help marginalized students. Pennsylvania’s Acting Secretary of Education Carrie Rowe mentioned the lack of clarity and said the letter did not provide a legal basis to prohibit DEI practices. New York’s Department of Education stated there’s no federal law banning DEI principles.
The Trump administration, however, argues that its request simply ensures civil rights compliance tied to funding.
Craig Trainor, acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, said some states treat certification as a checkbox rather than ensuring policies are aligned with Title VI. He emphasized the legal responsibility of states receiving federal funds to actively comply with anti-discrimination laws.
Civil rights groups like the NAACP and the Legal Defense Fund have pushed back, filing lawsuits against the administration. They argue that the federal interpretation of Title VI is flawed and that the certification effort threatens long-standing equity programs in schools.
The potential funding impact is not small.
According to the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, while federal funding makes up only about 14% of K-12 education budgets, it plays a crucial role, especially for disadvantaged students.
In fiscal year 2024, the Education Department allocated nearly $18.8 billion for programs aiding low-income and at-risk students and provided an additional $55 billion in pandemic-related grants to schools, as reported by Pew Research.
If states lose access to these funds for non-compliance, they may be forced to make difficult budget cuts during the 2025-2026 school year. The situation remains fluid, with courts, lawmakers, and school districts all involved in the outcome.