By Morgan Craven, J.D. • IDRA Federal Education Law and Policy Update • February 28, 2025 •
Executive actions, which include executive orders, can be used by U.S. presidents to enforce policies and laws and shape the behaviors of executive branch officials and agencies. Importantly, presidents cannot use these tools to create new laws or fundamentally change laws that Congress has passed if doing so is outside of the president’s constitutional authority.
Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has issued many executive orders that impact schools and students across the country, including the ones detailed below. Some of these executive orders may be blocked if deemed outside of the President’s power to enact and/or based on readings of the law that are incorrect. Many actions have been, and will continue to be, challenged in court.
Executive Orders Challenge Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Accessibility Initiatives
In the executive order entitled, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-based Opportunity,” the Trump administration asserts – incorrectly – that policies and programs that support diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility (DEIA) in government agencies, schools and businesses violate federal civil rights laws. Additionally, it claims that these programs threaten the safety of people in this country by emphasizing diversity over individual merit and aptitude.
In reality, these programs are intended to ensure that all highly-qualified individuals – including women, people of color and people with disabilities – are able to access and succeed in the educational programs, jobs and other opportunities where they have been disadvantaged or excluded.
The executive order directs all executive departments and agencies to eliminate programs, policies, regulations and other activities that are designed to promote diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility and to identify ways to “combat illegal private-sector” diversity, equity and inclusion programs. The order also ends a 1965 executive order that protects equal employment opportunity for federal employees and contractors.
In a similar executive order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” the administration directs the federal Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to terminate all diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility and environmental justice programs and activities in the federal government. Through this directive, the administration seeks to end grants and contracts to individuals and organizations that serve vulnerable communities across the country. The OMB released a memo to advance the executive order, which was subsequently challenged in court and rescinded (see explanation on funding freezes below).
Both executive orders are being challenged in federal court. On February 21, a judge in Maryland issued a nationwide preliminary injunction to stop the orders from going into effect while a lawsuit, filed by Democracy Forward on behalf of university professors, restaurant workers and the City of Baltimore, moves forward.
Another lawsuit was filed by the Legal Defense Fund and Lambda Legal on behalf of the National Urban League, the National Fair Housing Alliance, and the AIDS Foundation of Chicago. The plaintiffs claim the executive orders would prohibit them from serving vulnerable people across the country, are unconstitutionally vague (creating uncertainty about enforcement), violate their First Amendment right to free speech, and discriminate against people of color, women and LGBTQ+ people in violation of the Fifth Amendment’s equal protection guarantees.
Executive Orders and Agency Directives Threaten the Safety of Immigrant Students and Communities
Among the first executive orders filed at the start of the Trump administration were several designed to impact immigrant communities. These orders provide a roadmap for how the administration plans to implement its immigration agenda, including by tracking and deporting people and blocking their entrance into the United States.
Additionally, the administration ended an existing policy–often referred to as the “sensitive locations” or “protected areas” policy – that prohibited immigration enforcement actions (including raids, interviews and arrests) in certain sensitive areas. These protected areas included schools, churches, playgrounds, hospitals, weddings, and funerals, among others.
The original sensitive locations policy was designed to ensure all people were able to receive the care they need, go to school, attend religious ceremonies, and generally access important health, civil and social services without fear of law enforcement intervention and deportation.
Access to public school is guaranteed by the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment, which the U.S. Supreme Court, in Plyler v. Doe, said ensures all children may attend public schools, regardless of immigration status.
With the orders and sensitive locations policy rescission, we have begun to see a chilling effect on school attendance and family involvement in schools. We are hearing from teachers and families that some parents are afraid to take their children to school or access other important services.
Several groups have sued to block the administration from acting on its rescission of the sensitive locations policy.
On February 24, a judge in Maryland issued an order to block the policy change from going into effect in, specifically in houses of worship and specifically for the plaintiffs, a group of Baptist, Sikh, and Quaker organizations, represented by Democracy Forward.
Another suit was filed by the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection at Georgetown Law School on behalf of more than two dozen religious organizations. The organizations claim that, because their faiths mandate welcoming and serving immigrant people, a policy that forces them to admit immigration enforcement into places of worship violates First Amendment and other federal protections.
A school-focused lawsuit filed by Denver Public Schools claims the school district will experience difficulty fulfilling its mandate to educate students if it must spend time and resources protecting against immigration enforcement actions. The district claims the sensitive locations policy rescission was arbitrary and the new enforcement policy is unclear.
For more information about protecting access to education for immigrant students, see IDRA’s resources here.
Executive Orders Push Federal Voucher Programs that Harm U.S. Public Education
Through the executive order, “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families,” the administration attempts to advance its federal voucher agenda. It seeks to expand programs that divert money away from public funds, directing dollars instead to families to use for private school, faith-based schools, home school and other individual learning expenses.
Vouchers harm students in a number of ways. They compromise much-needed funding for the public schools that serve the vast majority of students in this country. Vouchers funnel money toward private schools that do not have the same transparency and accountability requirements as public schools. And voucher programs threaten anti-discrimination protections for diverse students who may not be accepted or well-served by private institutions.
The order directs the U.S. Secretary of Education to issue guidance to states on how to use federal funds for private school voucher programs, including through grants that currently support public schools and vulnerable children and families. A federal voucher program could expand the reach of many state voucher programs, even though those programs have not been shown to improve student outcomes or benefit most families. And a federal program could create conflicts in states that have not enacted a voucher program.
For more information about the harms of vouchers on students, see IDRA’s resources here.
Across issues, these executive orders seek to redefine concepts of discrimination, fairness and who deserves the protection of our laws. Fortunately, there are young people, families, teachers, advocates and lawyers willing to push back against them. We will continue to share updates about these actions and the efforts to challenge them.
Morgan Craven, J.D., is the IDRA national director of policy, advocacy and community engagement. Comments and questions may be directed to her via email at morgan.craven@idra.org.
[© 2025, IDRA. Permission to reproduce this article is granted provided the article is reprinted in its entirety and proper credit is given to IDRA and the author.]
Recent Podcasts 