A US federal judge on Thursday has vacated a US Department of Education (DOE) internal policy directive to cancel grants that supported educator training and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) programs.
Under the directive, “Eliminating Discrimination and Fraud in Department Grant Awards,” the DOE canceled 104 of 109 grants in the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) programs. The canceled grants totaled about $600 million.
Judge Angel Kelley, US District Court District of Massachusetts, granted a permanent injunction against the policy, writing that it was, “arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” including the Administrative Procedure Act. She noted the government’s uncertainty about the definition of DEI, writing:
It is difficult to see how topics can be “anti-racis[t]” yet simultaneously fall within the Directive’s category of “discriminatory” activities. The record likewise shows that the Directive swept in topics as broad and amorphous as “Family and Community in the Classroom” and “social-emotional learning.” These topics do not, on their face, have any apparent connection to discrimination.
Then-acting DOE Secretary Denise Carter issued the directive in response to two executive orders from President Trump. Executive Order No. 14173, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” which was issued on January 21, 2015, required the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, to “excise references to DEI and DEIA principles” and terminate DEI grants.
Executive Order No. 14190, titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” which was issued on January 29, 2025, required the Secretary of Education and others to develop, within 90 days, a plan to eliminate “Federal funding or support for illegal and discriminatory treatment and indoctrination in K-12 schools.”
Judge Kelley cited examples of the programs that were harmed by the canceled grants. In California, TQP and SEED grants funded programs to train thousands of teachers for high-need rural and urban school districts and to retain educators. According to Judge Kelley, “The number of people completing traditional teacher preparation programs has dropped by 35% in the last decade and nearly 300,000 teachers leave the teaching profession each year.”
In Maryland, Frostburg State University received a five-year $3.2 million TQP grant for its Rural Educators for Appalachian Children program. In Massachusetts, the University of Massachusetts Amherst received a TQP grant in 2023 for approximately $2.3 million to create a program to train paraeducators to become licensed early childhood educators in two high-need districts.
On March 6, 2025, a coalition of eight states, led by New York, sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) to block the new DOE policy. On March 10, 2025, US Judge Myong J. Joun granted a TRO, effective until March 24, 2026, enjoining DOE from terminating any previously awarded TQP or SEED grants for recipients in the plaintiff states.
The Trump administration appealed the TRO, asking for a stay. On March 13, Judge Joun denied a stay. The Administration appealed to the US Court of Appeals for the First Circuit, which denied a stay on March 21.
New York Attorney General Letitia James responded, saying on X, “Kids in rural and underserved communities deserve access to qualified teachers and a quality education.”
Facts Only
* A US federal judge vacated a US Department of Education internal policy directive.
* The directive aimed to cancel grants supporting educator training and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) programs.
* The directive was titled “Eliminating Discrimination and Fraud in Department Grant Awards.”
* The DOE canceled 104 of 109 grants in the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) programs.
* The canceled grants totaled about $600 million.
* Judge Angel Kelley granted a permanent injunction against the policy, finding it “arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law.”
* The judge noted difficulty reconciling topics like “Family and Community in the Classroom” and “social-emotional learning” with the Directive's categorization of discriminatory activities.
* The directive followed two executive orders from President Trump: EO No. 14173 (ending DEI grants) and EO No. 14190 (eliminating funding for illegal/discriminatory treatment in K-12 schools).
* TQP and SEED grants funded teacher training programs, including those in California, Maryland, and Massachusetts.
* A coalition of eight states sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the policy on March 6, 2025.
* A US Judge granted a TRO effective until March 24, 2026.
Executive Summary
A US federal judge vacated a US Department of Education internal policy directive that sought to cancel grants supporting educator training and Diversity, Equity, Inclusion (DEI) programs. The directive, titled “Eliminating Discrimination and Fraud in Department Grant Awards,” led to the cancellation of 104 of 109 grants within the Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) and Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) programs, totaling approximately $600 million.
The judge granted a permanent injunction against the policy, citing that it was “arbitrary and capricious and not in accordance with law,” including the Administrative Procedure Act. The judge expressed difficulty reconciling the Directive’s use of terms like “discriminatory” with topics such as “Family and Community in the Classroom” and “social-emotional learning,” noting these topics lacked apparent direct connections to discrimination on their face.
The directive was issued by DOE Secretary Denise Carter in response to two executive orders from President Trump: Executive Order No. 14173, which required excising references to DEI and terminating DEI grants; and Executive Order No. 14190, which mandated a plan to eliminate federal funding for illegal and discriminatory treatment in K-12 schools.
The canceled grants supported programs that trained teachers for high-need districts and aimed to retain educators, including specific grants benefiting Frostburg State University in Maryland and the University of Massachusetts Amherst in Massachusetts. A coalition of eight states sought a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) against the policy, which was granted by a US Judge, effective until March 24, 2026.
Full Take
The conflict centers on the tension between executive directives aimed at removing specific terminology and funding mechanisms versus the execution of broader educational goals concerning teacher workforce stability and equity. The legal challenge hinges on the scope and definitional ambiguity within the directive itself; when government action attempts to categorize broad, non-explicitly discriminatory concepts (like social-emotional learning) under a mandate to eliminate discrimination, and when the resulting action substantially harms established educational initiatives, courts must scrutinize whether the process was arbitrary.
The pattern observed is an attempt by administrative policy, driven by executive mandates, to retroactively redefine educational focus through targeted funding withdrawal. The mechanism involves using broad policy language to achieve specific outcomes, which then triggers a judicial review of the underlying definitions. This dynamic raises questions about where the line is drawn between legitimate pedagogical efforts (training teachers and supporting diverse community engagement) and legally actionable discrimination, particularly when those efforts are tied to social concepts like DEI.
The practical implication touches on systemic resource allocation: the impact extends beyond the specific grant cancellations to the documented attrition of teachers in high-need areas mentioned by the judge. The resistance is not just about the $600 million; it is about the institutional calculus of what constitutes legitimate and actionable educational support versus perceived political objectives, forcing a confrontation between administrative authority and constitutional principles of due process and equitable opportunity for educators and students.
Bridge Questions: What independent, non-governmental standards should govern the definition of "discriminatory" in the context of K-12 education funding? How can regulatory bodies develop policies that address equity goals without relying on potentially contested or amorphous terminology? What are the long-term consequences when judicial review prioritizes process over policy intent in matters touching upon social and educational development?
Sentinel — Human
This text reads like a summary of a complex legal and policy dispute, characterized by specific dates and cited legal mechanisms, suggesting it originates from journalistic reporting rather than purely synthetic generation.