Since his return to the presidency, Donald Trump has wasted no time in making sweeping changes that seek to reshape education in America.
Even with restrictions that limit federal influence over K-12 education, he is driving an agenda focused on expanding school choice and tackling what he calls “radical indoctrination” in academic programs.
Executive Orders for School Choice and Indoctrination
On Wednesday, he announced two executive orders instructing federal agencies to investigate ways to enhance school choice and formulate strategies against what he perceives as indoctrination in the classroom.
Though these actions aim to tie federal funding to Trump’s educational agenda, existing laws restrict the federal government’s direct control over school curriculums or the ability to withdraw funding from specific schools or programs.
Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina specializing in constitutional law and public education, remarked that despite the hurdles, this initiative marks a significant change from Trump’s previous tenure.
Notably, the executive orders show Trump’s intention to steer federal agencies in ways that are atypical for a sitting president, leaning towards transparency rather than private discussions.
This approach may be viewed as an attempt to rally urgency and focus on his educational priorities.
Focus on ‘Radical Indoctrination’
One of the executive orders calls on federal officials to create plans that could lead to the withdrawal of federal funds from schools accused of promoting what Trump considers “radical indoctrination,” particularly regarding “gender ideology” and “discriminatory equity ideology.”
Moreover, the order seeks to revive Trump’s earlier initiative, the 1776 Commission, which aimed to establish a “patriotic education” framework after it was dismantled by former President Joe Biden.
Trump’s arguments against “radical indoctrination” center on two primary ideas: “discriminatory equity ideology” and “gender ideology.” He criticizes the former as a viewpoint that groups individuals based on shared identities, undermining personal merit and agency.
For example, he takes issue with characterizations that label certain racial or national groups as inherently superior.
Regarding “gender ideology,” Trump defines this as a departure from the traditional binary understanding of biological sex, suggesting that students are being led to question their biological identities and develop negative feelings towards their parents.
Yet, contrary to Trump’s assertions, evidence indicates that critical race theory has seen limited integration in school curricula.
Research shows that a relatively small number of teachers actively engage with this concept in their teaching.
In reality, many educators aim to foster critical thinking skills rather than push specific ideological positions.
Additionally, studies emphasize the challenges faced by transgender students, underlining the necessity for supportive educational environments.
Funding Consequences and Legislative Support
While the order does not lead to immediate funding cuts, it establishes a framework that requires several federal agencies—including Education, Defense, and Health and Human Services—to develop plans within three months.
These agencies must identify federal funding sources for K-12 education that may be classified as “discriminatory” under Trump’s criteria.
Experts, including Derek Black, caution that the federal government lacks the unilateral authority to rescind funding.
Any action would require investigations into actual violations, as well as a process allowing schools to contest funding terminations.
Laws against discrimination place significant restrictions on the types of funds that can be withdrawn.
In another aspect of his directive, Trump instructs federal agencies to look into reallocating existing funds to support families who want to enroll in private or charter schools.
Leaders in various agencies are expected to report back with recommendations in the coming months, outlining possible implementations for the upcoming academic year.
While this directive does not dramatically alter the criteria for accessing school choice funding, it paves the way for potential future initiatives designed to broaden access.
The U.S. Department of Education is tasked with guiding states on utilizing federal funds for school choice effectively.
The order also emphasizes the need for specific agencies, such as the Department of Defense—responsible for certain educational institutions—to start planning to roll out expanded options by fall.
Although the idea of reallocating existing funds for school vouchers is on the table, experts express doubt regarding its legal feasibility.
Any efforts to modify established funding frameworks could encounter substantial obstacles, as previous experiences during Trump’s first term have shown.
At the same time, Republican lawmakers are introducing legislation that aligns with Trump’s executive initiatives.
Under consideration in both houses of Congress is a proposal to establish a federal tax-credit scholarship program aimed at enhancing school choice.
If this legislation passes, it could allocate around $10 billion annually in tax credits to encourage donations for scholarship programs, helping students from low-income families access private education.
These legislative efforts tightly align with the President’s executive actions, signaling a united front from both the executive and legislative branches in pursuing reforms in education.
Source: Edweek