The shrinking Department of Education just issues a notice to state leaders across the country reminding them that public schools are dependent on federal funds and those funds are dependent on compliance with civil rights law, specifically the elimination of DEI programs.

As a condition for receiving federal money, the Trump administration is ordering K-12 schools to certify that they are following federal civil rights laws and eliminating diversity, equity and inclusion practices...

“Federal financial assistance is a privilege, not a right,” Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in a statement. He said many schools have flouted their legal obligations, “including by using DEI programs to discriminate against one group of Americans to favor another.”

The notice states the administration's objections to DEI.

In Students for Fair Admissions v. President and Fellows of Harvard College (“SFFA v. Harvard”), 600 U.S. 181 (2023), the Supreme Court held that the race-based affirmative action programs at Harvard and the University of North Carolina were illegal because they violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment (for state schools like North Carolina), as well as Title VI (for state and private schools that receive federal funding like Harvard). The Court explained that the Equal Protection Clause “represent[s] a foundational principle—the absolute equality of all citizens of the United States politically and civilly before their own laws.” Id. at 201 (internal quotation marks omitted). It “‘forbids discrimination by the General Government, or by the States, against any citizen because of his race.’” Id. at 205 (alterations omitted; quoting Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 499 (1954)). Put simply, the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI prohibit race-based action, with only the narrowest of exceptions...

Given the text of Title VI and the assurances you have already given, any violation of Title VI—including the use of Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (“DEI”) programs to advantage one’s race over another—is impermissible. The use of certain DEI practices can violate federal law.

If all of this sounds vaguely familiar, that's because the Trump administration issued a very similar letter back in February.

This letter was sent to the departments of education in all 50 states, notifying them they have 14 days to remove all DEI programming in all public schools. Institutions which fail to comply may face a loss of federal funding. https://t.co/IufnJMln20

— Department of Government Efficiency (@DOGE) February 15, 2025

The response to that earlier letter was a mixed bag. There were reports that some states were scrambling to eliminate mentions of DEI while others were flatly refusing to comply. Now it appears the Trump Education Department has decided to give this a second try. States have 10 days to certify compliance, which means those that refuse could see some major funding cuts.

The memo included a certification letter that state and local school officials must sign and return to the department within 10 days, even as the administration has struggled to define which programs would violate its interpretation of civil rights laws...

Programs aimed at recognizing historical events and contributions and promoting awareness would not violate the law “so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination,” the department wrote.

“However, schools must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending, either by excluding or discouraging students of a particular race or races, or by creating hostile environments based on race for students who do participate,” the Education Department said.

Federal money is only a fraction of the total money spent on schools but it still amounts to billions of dollars per year for some states. Cutting those funds would result in severe problems and the need for layoffs or closing schools. 

Back in February, some states might have concluded Trump would never do anything even if they refused to comply. But after the cuts at Columbia and other universities, they may see it differently. In short, the states have a lot of reasons to comply with this rather than attempt to resist it.