Judge strikes down anti-DEI grant policy at Education Department
A federal judge ruled Thursday the Education Department cannot cut money to teacher training programs the Trump administration argues are focused on “divisive ideologies.” In February 2025, the department moved to slash around $600 million in grants it didn’t like under the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grant programs. District Judge Angel…
A federal judge ruled Thursday the Education Department cannot cut money to teacher training programs the Trump administration argues are focused on “divisive ideologies.”
In February 2025, the department moved to slash around $600 million in grants it didn’t like under the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grant programs.
District Judge Angel Kelley said the directive was “arbitrary and capricious” due to its failure to explain the switch in grants that previously encouraged diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs.
“Rather than confining the Directive to actions that are traditionally understood to constitute discrimination, the record instead reflects that Defendants terminated grants with topics such as ‘acknowledging … racism’ and ‘anti-racism’—activities expressly undertaken to oppose discrimination,” Kelley wrote.
She also objected to the directive due to the impact it would have on teacher preparation.
The Hill has reached out to the Education Department for comment.
The challenge to the move came from Democratic states, which previously had the directive halted by a federal judge, but the Supreme Court in April 2025 said the department could continue the cuts while the case proceeded in court.
In 2025, the Education Department said the slash in funds was directed towards programs focused on critical race theory, DEI, social justice, anti-racism, white privilege and white supremacy.
Examples of grant applications the department objected to included one with a description that required “practitioners to take personal and institutional responsibility for systemic inequities (e.g., racism) and critically reassess their own practices.”
Topics in this story
Gathered from external sources. Rights to this text belong to whoever originally published it.