Judge Strikes Down Trump’s Anti-DEI Teacher Grant Policy

Court says Education Department failed to adequately explain why it canceled more than $600 million in teacher-training grants

The Trump administration can change federal education policy. But it still has to explain what it is doing and follow the law. That is the basic message from a federal judge who struck down a U.S. Department of Education policy used to cancel more than $600 million in teacher-training grants.

U.S. District Judge Angel Kelley ruled Thursday that the department’s February 2025 directive violated the Administrative Procedure Act because the agency failed to adequately explain its policy change, define how it was identifying prohibited diversity, equity and inclusion activities, or account for the consequences of canceling grants that schools and educators were already relying upon.

What happened?

Soon after President Donald Trump returned to office, the Education Department began eliminating grants it said supported DEI and other activities inconsistent with the administration’s priorities.

The cuts affected two programs, the Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development programs. More than 90% of their grants were terminated, representing more than $600 million in funding.

Eight Democratic-led states challenged the policy in court. Iowa AG Brenna Bird declined to participate. The case ultimately came down to something simpler than the larger political argument over DEI. Did the Education Department follow the rules when it changed the rules?

Kelley concluded that it did not.

What was wrong with the policy?

One problem was remarkably basic, which was the definition of DEI.

According to the ruling, the department did not provide clear criteria for determining which programs would be considered DEI-related and therefore subject to cancellation. The judge also found that the department did not adequately explain its change in policy or consider the effects on schools, teachers and people already working their way through teacher-training programs.

A new president does not have to keep the previous administration’s policies. But federal agencies cannot simply change course without following the requirements of administrative law. When making significant policy changes, agencies generally must explain their reasoning and consider important consequences of their decisions.

The court found that the Education Department fell short of those requirements.

What happens now?

Kelley vacated the department’s policy, but that does not automatically return all of the canceled money. The judge said individual claims seeking recovery of grant funds must be brought before the U.S. Court of Federal Claims.

The case also does not decide whether DEI programs themselves are good or bad policy. Instead, it answers a narrower question about how government works.

An administration can change policy. But it still has to explain the policy, establish understandable rules for carrying it out, and follow the law when it does so.