The first year of the second Trump administration marked a radical break with 60 years of federal interventions in education. It inaugurated a new theory of American educational governance, and it scrapped, wholesale, the orienting ideological vision that had guided education policy since the Johnson administration—a vision focused on equal access for all children to human capital development in the interest of social equality and national competitiveness.

Citing the importance of institutional alignment with “Presidential priorities,” the Trump administration has supercharged the use of executive orders and other prerogatives within the executive branch to govern educational institutions. With the compliance of a quiescent Congress and Supreme Court, the administration has demanded radical changes to policies regarding, among other areas, antidiscrimination violations, the disbursement of Congressionally approved support for school districts, and research contracts with universities.

Yet, notably absent from the flurry of executive actions over the course of 2025 is any unifying vision of what American education is supposed to do, and for what purposes. The Johnsonian vision that animated education policy for decades has been replaced by a patchwork of contradictory impulses. One part of that patchwork significantly invests in “parental choice” through additional federal money for charter school programs and the creation of the first federal tax-credit scholarship program. Another part involves efforts to combat grade inflation and restrict leftist activism on college campuses. Yet another part wants to dismantle federal capacity to support educational research and collect educational data. But most sweepingly, there is a reinterpretation of Equal Protection jurisprudence and of Title VI and Title IX guidance and enforcement—via an expansive reading of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action decision. The administration is using these anti-discrimination laws to prevent school districts and universities from continuing initiatives designed to assist minoritized racial and ethnic groups and other vulnerable populations. It is also targeting what administration officials describe as efforts to “indoctrinate” children in “radical ideologies” regarding American values, American history, or theories of gender. And the administration is requiring the decision-making of educational institutions to be grounded only in what it considers to be “merit,” thereby excluding consideration of structural inequalities and discrimination.

The upshot is that the daily work of educational institutions has gotten much harder. Continuing to use inclusionary practices and curricula is inviting a federal investigation. Duly appropriated federal funds can be frozen or withheld for any reason or for no reason, seemingly according to whim. Resources to support K–12 education are now more diluted across the private and public sectors than ever. And looming over it all is this most fundamental and radical proposition: that the executive branch has a de facto veto power over the decisions of any educational institution unlucky enough to wind up on its radar.

Educational institutions find themselves in a period of arbitrary rule. Protecting schools’ mission-driven work under these conditions will require new institutional efforts at engaging local constituencies, from civil-society and business organizations to ordinary citizens and voters. Federal power over schools comes from two basic sources: funding provision and investigation authority. Federal power over schools has always broken, to the extent that it has, on the reefs of state and local opposition. It is therefore crucial in this political moment for state education agency (SEA) and local education agency (LEA) officials to cultivate the faith of their constituents. Successful pushback and alternative visions require that faith and support. That means engaging those constituents more deeply and holistically in order to maintain popular support through responsiveness and alignment. For state and local officials, that can mean adopting participatory budgeting processes. For LEA officials, it can mean conducting and responding to regular stakeholder engagement surveys. Whether the federal government threatens funding or legal action, the goodwill of the citizenry is necessary to weather the storm.

Recommendations

My analysis leads to the recommendations for cultivating this support:

Local Educational and State Educational Officials: 

• Emphasize—through ongoing community collaboration and official communications—the holistic educational mission, including academic and career planning, dual-enrollment strategies, youth apprenticeship programs, etc., which can help remind people of schooling’s place in maintaining economic and community life.

Local Educational Officials:

• Conduct and respond to engagement surveys of stakeholders—students, staff, parents, and community members—in order to maintain alignment between schools and community values.

• Invite the public into the practices of school governance through participatory budgeting, and standing superintendents’ advisory councils that will build and maintain institutional trust.