Before Trump took office, the Education Department had 4,133 employees. After the mass layoffs, the department will have fewer than 2,200 staffers.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images | Matveev_Aleksandr and raweenuttapong/iStock/Getty Images
The Supreme Court gave Education Secretary Linda McMahon the go-ahead Monday to proceed in firing half the department’s staff and transferring certain responsibilities to other agencies.
The unsigned, one-paragraph order does not explain why a majority of justices decided to overturn a lower court injunction that an appeals court upheld. It did, however, explain that the injunction will remain blocked as lawsuits challenging mass layoffs at the department continue. The high court order represents a major step forward in President Donald Trump’s effort to dismantle the 45-year-old agency.
“Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies,” McMahon said in a statement about the decision. The department will now “promote efficiency and accountability and to ensure resources are directed where they matter most—-to students, parents, and teachers.”
The American Federation of Government Employees, the union representing the department’s staff, said the ruling was “deeply disappointing” and would allow the Trump administration to continue implementing an “anti-democratic” plan that is “misalign[ed] with the Constitution.” Sheria Smith, president of AFGE Local 252, added that just because McMahon can dismantle the department, that doesn’t mean she has to.
“Let’s be clear,” Smith wrote, “despite this decision, the Department of Education has a choice—a choice to recommit to providing critical services for the American people and reject political agendas. The agency doesn’t have to move forward with this callous act of eliminating services and terminating dedicated workers.”
The original ruling from a Maryland district judge required McMahon to reinstate more than 2,000 employees who were laid off in March. (As of July 8, 527 of those employees had already found other jobs.)
Higher education policy advocates and laid-off staffers warned that the department was already struggling to keep up with the overload of civil rights complaints and financial aid applications. With half the workforce, they said, fulfilling those statutory duties would be nearly impossible.
In addition to the layoffs, the lower court order prevented McMahon from carrying out Trump’s executive order to close the department to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.” Department officials later revealed in court filings that the order blocked a plan to send funding for career and technical education programs to the Department of Labor.
The departments reached an agreement in May regarding the CTE programs, but neither said anything about it publicly. CTE advocates worry that putting Labor in charge of about $2.7 billion in grants could sow confusion and diminish the quality of these secondary and postsecondary career-prep programs. Others see the shift as the beginning of the end of the Education Department. Democrats in Congress have objected to the plan, which can now move forward.
After news of the Supreme Court order dropped Monday, education policy experts sounded the alarm and took issue with the lack of explanation.
“The president can’t close down ED by fiat but Congress and SCOTUS sure can facilitate it,” Dominique Baker, an associate professor of education and public policy at the University of Delaware, wrote on BlueSky.
Daniel Collier, an assistant professor of higher education at the University of Memphis, also chimed in, asking, “Am I in the minority by believing that all SCOTUS rulings should have a well detailed and written rationale attached and there should be no exceptions?”
The Supreme Court’s order included a scathing 18-page dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor. Justices Ketanji Brown Jackson and Elena Kagan joined in full. Sotomayor noted that the department plays “a vital role” in the nation’s education system by “safeguarding equal access” and allocating billions of dollars in federal funding. Knowing this, she added, “only Congress has the power to abolish the department.”
“When the executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” Sotomayor wrote. “Two lower courts rose to the occasion, preliminarily enjoining the mass firings while the litigation remains ongoing. Rather than maintain the status quo, however, this court now intervenes, lifting the injunction and permitting the government to proceed with dismantling the department. That decision is indefensible.”
Others, however, said the Supreme Court made the right call.
“There is nothing unconstitutional about the executive branch trying to execute the law with fewer people, which is what the Trump administration is doing,” said Neal McCluskey, director of the Center for Educational Freedom at the Cato Institute, a libertarian think tank, who also contributed an opinion piece to Inside Higher Ed today. If the Trump administration wanted to eliminate the Department of Education unilaterally, he said, “It would have fired everyone. Not only did it not do that, but members of the administration have stated that it is ultimately Congress that must eliminate the department.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday allowed the Trump administration to proceed with laying off nearly half the U.S. Department of Education’s staff — a significant victory for the administration’s mission to dissolve the department to the greatest extent possible.
The decision in New York v. McMahongreen-lights the department’s reduction in force initiated in March as the original question of the layoffs’ legality works its way through the lower courts. The layoffs closed department offices and spurred concerns from public school advocates that the education system would descend into chaos with little federal oversight.
The Monday order allowing the reduction in force to continue was met with dissent from liberal justices Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, who called the majority’s decision “indefensible” in their 18-page dissent.
“When the Executive publicly announces its intent to break the law, and then executes on that promise, it is the Judiciary’s duty to check that lawlessness, not expedite it,” they said.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, who was tasked with shutting down the department to the greatest extent “permitted by law,” celebrated the decision.
“Today, the Supreme Court again confirmed the obvious: the President of the United States, as the head of the Executive Branch, has the ultimate authority to make decisions about staffing levels, administrative organization, and day-to-day operations of federal agencies,” McMahon said in a statement.
Until now, the department’s RIF had left staff — who were technically still employed but had been on administrative leave since March — in limbo. The Trump administration had planned to lay off employees June 9, but U.S. District Judge Myong Joun ruled in May that the layoffs left the department as “a shell of itself” and required that staff remain employed in a preliminary injunction.
The layoffs leave the department with only about 2,183 employees out of its previous approximately 4,133.
“A department without enough employees to perform statutorily mandated functions is not a department at all,” Joun wrote. In a separate case, the same judge last month also ordered that the department’s Office for Civil Rights be restored to its former self.
Joun’s May order required the department to routinely report to the district court the steps it was taking to restore its staff — which it did by sending out multiple surveys to employees on administrative leave as a way of “actively assessing how to reintegrate you back to the office in the most seamless way possible.” At the same time, the department was appealing its case to the Supreme Court, hoping its RIF would be allowed through.
The Monday order from the Supreme Court means those employees can be terminated even as the case over the legality of the layoffs proceeds in the lower court.
The Supreme Court’s decision to allowthe layoffs was preceded by another decision from the high court in April that also bolstered the Trump administration’s attempts to close the department. That ruling maintained a freeze on over $600 million in teacher training grants that the administration called “divisive.”
It also follows a Supreme Court decision last week allowing mass terminations to move forward across other federal agencies.
Are statutory obligations impacted?
The department argued that depleting its staff by almost half — including closing down civil rights offices and leaving only a handful of employees in the office that administers the National Assessment of Educational Progress — does not impact its statutory obligations. McMahon has told concerned lawmakers that NAEP is administered through contracts that remain in place.
In the meantime, however, former employees and Democratic lawmakers allege the department has already missed key deadlines on tasks that are required by law, and that no one remains in place to oversee the contracts and ensure the quality of the work.
The annual Condition of Education report, for example, was due to Congress by June 1 — an obligation that the department missed “for the first time ever,” according to Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash.
In place of fresh data analysis that the National Center for Education Statistics released each year on over 20 topics — including those relevant to current events such as the COVID-19 pandemic and school shootings — the department repurposed already-released analysis on a handful of topics, former NCES employees said.
The department said on its website it would be ”updating indicators on a rolling basis” due to its “emphasis on timeliness” and would determine “which indicators matter the most.” More than a month after the missed June 1 deadline, however, the report still only includes a highlights page with five topics linking to data tables.
Democratic lawmakers also sounded alarm bells over the agency’s delay in distributing grant funding, including Title I-A grant funds, saying it took three times as long to distribute the money than under the Biden administration’s fully staffed department.
The Title I-A program provides $18.4 billion by formula to more than 80% of the nation’s school districts.
As a result of the delay, lawmakers said, states and districts would have less time to allocate funds meant to help students experiencing homelessness and other underserved students.
Decision sparks outcry
The order sparked outcry on Monday from the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252, the union representing the more than 1,000 Education Department employees laid off.
“This effort from the Trump administration to dismantle the Department of Education is playing with the futures of millions of Americans, and after just four months, the consequences are already evident across our education system,” said Sheria Smith, the union’s president, in a statement. Smith called the Supreme Court decision “deeply disappointing.”
A union official said the decision could also negatively impact federal education funding and services, a concern shared by the American Federation of Teachers, which is part of a coalition of parties in the lawsuit challenging the layoffs.
“This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation,” the coalition said in a statement.
However, the U.S. Department of Education said in a Monday statement that it “will now deliver on its mandate to restore excellence in American education.”
“As we return education to the states, this Administration will continue to perform all statutory duties while empowering families and teachers by reducing education bureaucracy,” the department said.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
The Trump administration is tapping agencies other than the U.S. Department of Education to implement its agenda in schools, sometimes circumventing typical rulemaking procedures that would allow districts months to give feedback on and prepare for policy changes before they roll out.
The use of other agencies to set or enforce education policy marks a significant shift from typical K-12 policymaking, some education policy experts say.
“This is a paradigm shift on the part of how the federal government articulates and connects some of these tools to their education priorities,” said Kenneth Wong, a professor of education policy at Brown University. “So I think going forward, we might be seeing broader use of this wider range of policy tools in the area of education policy changes.”
This month, for example, a policy change from the U.S. Department of Energy could take effect that would undo some students’ protections related to sex discrimination under Title IX, disability discrimination under Section 504 and racial discrimination under Title VI.
The changes would only apply to schools receiving Energy Department funds, as opposed to public schools nationwide — which would have been the case had the rules come from the Education Department. The Energy Department distributed just over $160 million to 28 schools in fiscal year 2025, according to department spokesperson Ben Dietderich. The agency also provides over $2.5 billion annually to more than 300 colleges and universities to fund research.
As a result of the quietly proposed policy changes schools receiving Energy Department grants would no longer, among other things:
Be required to facilitate noncontact sports team tryouts for girls if there is no equivalent girls’ team. For example, if a school had a boys’ baseball team but no girls’ softball team, girls would no longer be guaranteed the opportunity to try out for a spot on the boys’ baseball team.
Be permitted to proactively “overcome the effects of conditions that resulted in limited participation therein by persons of a particular sex.” This would remove protections that allow schools to have gender-conscious after-school or college programs to provide women and girls opportunities they have historically been denied, such as in STEM fields and technical training, according to Shiwali Patel, senior director of Safe and Inclusive Schools at National Women’s Law Center and a Title IX attorney.
Be required to prevent systemic racial discrimination that may result from seemingly neutral policies, as a result of the department rescinding guardrails protecting against policies that cause a “disparate impact” on underserved students. Disparate impact investigations have previously addressed issues such as Black students being disciplined at higher rates than students of other races.
The policy changes were issued through a process called direct final rulemaking, which allows an agency to issue a rule without going through the rulemaking process twice to incorporate changes based on public feedback and publish a final version. The expedited process is usually used for noncontroversial changes and when an agency does not expect significant pushback.
The rules are to take effect July 15 as long as no “significant adverse comments” were received by June 16. Dietderich did not respond as to whether the agency received significant adverse comments.
However, a review of some publicly available comments show that the direct final rules — posted May 16 — have been controversial, with multiple civil rights organizations explicitly telling the Energy Department they are submitting “significant, adverse” comments for its review.
Other agencies launch civil rights investigations and enforcement
The Energy Department situation isn’t the first time the Trump administration has deployed agencies beyond the Education Department to set or enforce education policy. In fact, the administration has used the departments of Justice, Agriculture, and Health and Human Services over the past few months to investigate sex and race discrimination at schools and enforce compliance.
The administration notably used these agencies in an unprecedented investigation into the Maine Department of Education, spurred by a public disagreement between President Donald Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills, a Democrat, over the state’s athletic policy allowing transgender athletes on girls’ and women’s sports teams.
That dispute kicked off a string of Title IX investigations by several federal agencies that provide funds to Maine.
They included a four-day probe launched by HHS. And because HHS rather than the Education Department conducted the probe, it didn’t have to follow the standards spelled out in the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights case processing manual. That manual ensures the Education Department conducts investigations according to certain timelines, for example, allowing up to 90 calendar days for negotiations to take place and 10 days for schools or states to sign onto a resolution agreement.
In addition, the U.S. Department of Agriculture froze funds to some of the state’s schools over the Maine Department of Education’s alleged Title IX violations.
“USDA, alongside other federal agencies, will continue to pause and, where appropriate, terminate categories of education programming in Maine if these Title IX violations are not resolved to the satisfaction of the Federal Government,” said an April 2 letter from Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins to Mills.
A court order eventually overturned the USDA funding freeze as part of an agreement struck in May between Maine and the USDA.
These Title IX enforcement actions through HHS, USDA and the Education Department culminated in the Trump administration referring the cases to the Department of Justice, which announced a civil lawsuit against Maine over Title IX compliance in April.
Since then, the administration has used these agencies to initiate and enforce other investigations into schools and states — including over antisemitism under Title VI, — in states like California and Minnesota.
Sonja Trainor, executive director of the National School Attorneys Association, acknowledged that federal agencies have been setting and enforcing education policy outside of formal legal channels for many years.
But “what’s different now is the speed with which policy priorities are materializing into funding terminations and direct enforcement,” Trainor said in an email. “Of particular concern, of course, is funding and the prospect of being sued from many possible angles when policy shifts quickly.”
Wong said the Energy Department policy changes potentially taking effect next week could serve as a test case, as the Maine case did for civil rights investigations.
That means if the Energy Department’s changes went uncontested by districts concerning significant adverse effects, and thus go through in about 60 days as is usual for direct final rules, other agencies will also try setting education policy this way, Wong said.
“Basically every single school, in practically every single school district, has some grants from one of the many agencies in the federal government,” said Wong.
So while the immediate impact of the Energy Department changes would be limited to those that receive its funding, ultimately many more schools could be affected.
Policies related to diversity, equity and inclusion and Title IX are particularly susceptible here, said Wong. “I think there’s a whole bunch of standards that the current secretary of education is redefining, and so these other agencies are likely to provide a vehicle to kind of challenge the practice in the local school systems.”‘
I am not currently on a 12-step program of any kind, but recently I felt the need to seek forgiveness for a transgression committed 50 years ago. This summer is the 50th anniversary of the release of Jaws, the movie that redefined the definition of blockbuster and made a whole generation think twice before stepping into the ocean for a quick dip.
I took my little sister to see Jaws that summer, having already seen it. As big brothers do, I waited until the exact moment when the shark leaps out of the water while Roy Scheider is casually ladling chum into the ocean behind the boat and either grabbed or pinched her. All to make the movie-watching experience more realistic, of course.
A recent article in The Washington Post explored why, despite three sequels, Jaws never became a money-making franchise in the way that Star Wars or the Marvel movies have. The obvious reason is that Steven Spielberg elected not to be involved after the original movie. Thus, while I find myself humming John Williams’s simple but ominous theme music every time I read the latest news, the only thing I remember from any of the other three movies is the tagline for Jaws 2: “Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.”
I thought about that tagline from a college admission perspective last week when I learned that Cornell College (the one in Iowa, not the Ivy) has launched what is either an innovative financial aid initiative or a gimmick.
As detailed by severalotherpublications, Cornell College emailed 16,000 soon-to-be high school seniors in its inquiry pool. Nothing unusual about that. What was different about this email was that it included a link to a personalized estimated financial aid package. Sending out financial aid offers/estimates to students who haven’t applied for financial aid or admission is the new twist in what Cornell calls its “Save Your Seat” initiative.
If you are wondering how Cornell was able to send an estimated aid package to students who haven’t completed a FAFSA, the college started by mining ZIP code data for its inquiry pool. The nine-digit ZIP+4 code in student addresses provides precise information about where they live and allows Cornell to guesstimate a family’s economic circumstances. It might therefore be more accurate to say that the estimated financial aid package is individualized rather than personalized, because there is an element of geographic or ZIP code profiling taking place. The ZIP+4 information is supplemented by aggregated data provided by College Raptor, the consulting firm engaged by Cornell, along with historical internal data on financial aid packages.
There are some kinks to work out and questions to be considered, of course. How will Cornell factor in Pell Grants and other governmental financial aid? Will the college make up the difference if the student’s Student Aid Index turns out to be higher than Cornell’s estimate? Apparently Cornell did some testing using applicants from last year and found that the estimates were reliable in the vast majority of cases.
The Save Your Seat financial aid package for every student includes a $33,000 National Academic Scholarship covering nearly half of Cornell’s list price. To guarantee access to the aid, Cornell is asking students to apply by the end of this month and submit an enrollment deposit by Sept. 1. As The Chronicle of Higher Education explains, “students who apply by the end of July and submit a deposit by September 1 are guaranteed to receive the $33,000 scholarship, plus any institutional need-based grants for which they might qualify, based on their estimate. They will also get first dibs on housing and first-year seminars. (Those who deposit by November 8 will get the same deal, minus the guaranteed need-based grants and priority registration for the seminars.)”
So what should we make of Save Your Seat? Is Cornell College on to something, or is this another marketing gimmick intended to differentiate Cornell from the mass of small liberal arts colleges? (Its one-course-at-a-time curriculum already distinguishes it.)
I applaud Cornell for trying to introduce some transparency about cost up front. We know that affordability is both a major concern and a major impediment for many families in considering colleges, and particularly private colleges. Having a way to estimate cost early in the college search rather than at the very end is potentially a huge step forward for college admission. Cornell’s initiative might be thought of as an updated version of the net price calculator, with someone else doing the calculations for you. Save Your Seat might also be seen as the next iteration in the direct admission movement.
But let us stop for a moment to acknowledge that Cornell’s new initiative, while more transparent, isn’t truly transparent. It does nothing to illuminate the high-cost, high-discount model that higher education relies on.
There are good reasons for that. There have been several colleges that have tried to lead a movement to reset tuition, substantially reducing their sticker price but also substantially reducing discounts. They learned two things. The first was that they were willing to lead, but other colleges were not willing to follow.
The bigger issue is that they learned that families are more than happy to pay lower tuition but are not happy to lose their “merit” scholarships. As it turns out, merit scholarships are among the least transparent and most misunderstood contrivances in college admission—perhaps deliberately so.
Just last week, I spoke with someone who was surprised that a nephew had been admitted to college and then shocked when he received a merit scholarship. That conversation brought to mind a phone call I had with the mother of one of my students years ago. The son was a good kid but not a strong student, and he had just received merit scholarships to two different colleges. I finally figured out that the point of her call was to ask what was wrong with the two colleges that were awarding her son merit scholarships.
The $33,000 National Academic Scholarships offered to every Save Your Seat email recipient might be thought of as the higher education equivalent of Oprah’s “You get a merit scholarship! You get a merit scholarship!” Cornell is far from alone in giving a discount to most or all students, but the potential pickle in which it finds itself is a situation where it tells students they are not admitted after already telling them they have won a merit scholarship.
That is far from the biggest ethical issue raised by the new plan. If the move toward greater financial aid transparency, at least in theory, is a positive step, asking students to apply by the end of July and deposit by September is anything but.
When the National Association for College Admission Counseling was forced to abandon key aspects of its code of ethics as part of a consent decree with the antitrust division of the U.S. Department of Justice, there were fears that college admission might deteriorate into a lawless Wild West, with colleges coming up with new strategies and incentives to coerce vulnerable students into decisions they weren’t ready to make. Thankfully that hasn’t happened to the degree predicted.
Cornell’s decision to tie the Save Your Seat financial offers to an earlier application and enrollment deadline represents another leap forward in the acceleration of the college admission process. Who thinks that’s a good idea for students? It ignores the fact that many high school counseling offices are closed during the summer and won’t be able to send transcripts (perhaps Cornell will use self-reported grades). It is also significantly earlier than the provision in the now-defunct NACAC Statement of Principles of Good Practice prohibiting an application deadline before Oct. 15. Just when you thought it was safe to go back in the water.
It’s not clear to me why the earlier deadlines are necessary for the program to work. It’s clear that there are benefits for Cornell, but students should be allowed to choose where to go to college thoughtfully and freely, without coercion or manipulation. Whose seat is being saved here?
Jim Jump recently retired after 33 years as the academic dean and director of college counseling at St. Christopher’s School in Richmond, Va. He previously served as an admissions officer, philosophy instructor and women’s basketball coach at the college level and is a past president of the National Association for College Admission Counseling. He is the 2024 recipient of NACAC’s John B. Muir Excellence in Media Award.
In late June, House Republicans aired a promotional video about their budget reconciliation bill, the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, claiming it will “make the American dream accessible to all Americans again.” That dream—that anyone in this country can achieve prosperity and success through hard work and determination—is what leads people to come to America and stay. It’s no wonder that politicians invoke this promise as part of the reason for needed change.
Higher education has long been seen as one of the surest paths to economic security in America—it is one foundation that dream rests on. It feels consequential, therefore, that President Trump and congressional Republicans are looking to undercut this vision of the American dream. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act will reshape federal student aid in ways that transform access to higher education and shut everyday Americans out.
Forthcoming nationally representative survey data from New America, a nonpartisan think tank, shows Americans are clear-eyed about what it really takes to keep the dream alive: an affordable higher education. But they see college falling further out of reach. Nearly nine out of 10 believe college cost is the biggest factor that prevents families from attending college. And three-quarters of Americans agree that the federal government should spend more tax dollars on educational opportunities after high school to make them more affordable, including majorities of both Republicans and Democrats.
Americans also believe in accountability for this investment. They want a system that rewards effort, responsibility and outcomes—basic values that align with the American dream. Majorities from both parties say colleges and universities should lose access to taxpayer support if their students don’t earn more than a typical high school graduate or if they struggle to pay down their student loan debt.
Once enacted, the new law will trim the Pell Grant program, making some middle-income families ineligible who used to qualify for small amounts of the Pell Grant. Federal student loans will look vastly different, with big cuts to graduate, parent and lifetime borrowing limits and less generous repayment options for borrowers who fall on hard times. These changes will close one door for many low- and moderate-income Americans, the one that leads to an affordable associate or bachelor’s degree. At the same time, by expanding Pell Grants to short-term job training programs, the law opens another door to very short credentials as few as eight weeks long with little oversight and consumer protection. Our research has showntimeandagain that these very short credentials will not deliver economic stability nor improve employment prospects.
And while the law will take meaningful steps toward accountability and will cut off from federal loans associate, bachelor’s and graduate programs that fail to give students an earning boost, those measures exclude all undergraduate short-term certificate programs, which tend to have the worst outcomes. It will also allow programs to continue to operate, even if most of their students struggle to repay their loans.
While the president and congressional Republicans say these cuts are necessary under the auspices of extending tax cuts, improving fiscal responsibility and reforming higher education, the truth is this law will achieve none of this. It will add at least $3 trillion to our deficit by expanding tax cuts to wealthy Americans, all while stripping funding from critical programs everyday Americans rely on like Medicaid, SNAP and student aid. It does nothing to fix the underlying problems that drive college costs. It ignores targeted solutions that would promote affordability and expand accountability. That type of thoughtful reform would require bipartisan reauthorization of the Higher Education Act, which is more than a decade overdue.
Despite what Republicans in Washington say about making the American dream accessible again, this law will only put it further out of reach. The changes will fall hard on all students trying to obtain education after high school—from welders to electricians, nurses, teachers and medical doctors. These are not “elites,” but core constituents. They are working adults, veterans and parents looking to make a better life for their children, hoping that the American dream is still achievable. Instead, they will find that their own government has abandoned them.
In his inaugural address in January, President Trump said, “The American dream will soon be back and thriving like never before.” But, in truth, it is being suffocated. It’s too late to change this new law, but moving forward Congress and the Trump administration must center everyday Americans and act cautiously before making such seismic cuts. This is not a partisan issue, but a matter of national interest and prosperity. Failing to think about future legislation that makes meaningful student-centered reform to higher education will have political and generational consequences for years to come. It sends a message to future students that only familial wealth will bring college opportunities, and it won’t matter how much hard work they put in or determination they have.
Rachel Fishman is the director of the higher education program at New America.
It’s never too early, but it can be too late. This simple phrase has transformed our advising sessions with graduate students and postdocs, resonating deeply with those navigating the uncertain waters of career transitions. As career advising experts who have guided countless individuals through this journey, we have seen firsthand the power of early career planning and the pitfalls of procrastination.
Today’s graduate students and postdocs are navigating more than just personal uncertainty. They are facing a rapidly shifting professional landscape influenced by political and societal forces beyond their control. The value of advanced degrees is being questioned in public discourse; funding cuts, hiring freezes and massive layoffs are affecting job prospects; and visa restrictions continue to impact international scholars. These trends are unsettling, but they underscore the same truth: Proactive, flexible career planning is necessary.
The path from graduate school or a postdoctoral position to a fulfilling career is rarely a straight line. We understand; we both hold Ph.D.s and were postdocs ourselves. Yet, many students and early-career researchers delay thinking about their next steps, often until the pressure of impending graduation or the end of an appointment looms large. This delay can turn the exciting question of “What’s next?” into the anxiety-inducing “What now?”
One common fear we encounter in our advising sessions is the fear of the unknown, and now more than ever, our best advice remains the same: Start sooner rather than later. When harnessed properly, this fear can become a powerful motivator for early career planning. If you build in time to explore your options, test possibilities and develop a flexible plan, you will be far better equipped to navigate unforeseen changes.
Crucially, starting early does not mean locking yourself into one path. It means giving yourself enough time to adapt, explore and build a more informed and confident future, even if that future changes along the way.
Your Hidden Advantage
As graduate students or postdocs, you are in a unique position: You are essentially being paid to learn and become experts in your field. Beyond your specific area of study, you also have access to a wealth of resources at your research institutions designed to support your professional development. These resources include:
Career services: Do not wait until your final year to visit the career office. Start early and make regular appointments to discuss your evolving career goals and strategies. Career service professionals can help you save precious time and effort and remain advocates for you in your career-exploration journey. Many of us know exactly how you are feeling because we have been there, too!
Workshops and seminars: Attend professional and career-development workshops offered by your institution. These often cover crucial topics like résumé writing, interview preparation or networking strategies.
Alumni networks: Leverage your institution’s alumni network. Alumni can provide valuable insights into various career paths, and many are eager to help current graduate students and postdocs navigate the job search process.
Professional associations: Join relevant professional associations in your field. Many offer graduate students and postdocs memberships at reduced rates and provide access to job boards, conferences, networking events and leadership opportunities.
International student and scholar services: If you are on a visa, connect early with your institution’s international center. These offices can offer critical guidance on work authorization options, strategies for transitioning from an academic-sponsored visa to another type of professional visa (such as the H-1B visa) and long-term planning toward permanent residency. They can also connect you with immigration attorneys and employer resources to help you advocate for yourself throughout the process.
Now is the time to take action. This month, schedule an appointment with your institution’s career services office (trust us, we are excited to meet and help you) and/or attend a networking event or workshop outside your immediate field of study.
If your plan involves stepping beyond the academic landscape, do not underestimate the power of building your professional network, as referrals and recommendations play a growing role in hiring decisions. The relationships you build now, through informational interviews, mentorship and community engagement, can become invaluable sources of insight, opportunity and support throughout your career.
The Perils of Procrastination
Waiting until the final months of your program or position to begin your job search is a recipe for stress and missed opportunities. Early preparation not only reduces anxiety but also allows you to explore multiple career paths, build necessary skills and make meaningful connections.
As career professionals, we see the impact of procrastination all the time: rushed applications, unclear goals, missed deadlines and tremendous stress. In our own career-exploration journey, we have been fortunate to experience the opposite. Our approach to prepare early opened doors to valuable opportunities and reduced the pressure to find just any job at the end of our postdoc. That contrast is a big reason why we now advocate so strongly for starting career planning before urgency sets in, even if you are still figuring out where you want to go.
So what does early preparation look like?
If you already have a strong idea of your next career step, whether it is to become faculty at a R-1 institution or secure an R&D position in industry, you should begin preparing at least a year before your intended transition. This gives you time to identify target roles, network meaningfully, develop your application materials and be ready when opportunities arise.
If you are still unsure about what your next career step is, start your exploration journey as soon as possible. Identifying careers of interest, scheduling informational interviews, developing your professional network in the areas of interest and learning or building new skills take time. Remember that the earlier you begin, the more options you will be able to explore. Career planning is not just for people with a clear path—it is also how you find your path.
Another critical reason to start early? Networking. Building professional relationships is one of the most powerful tools in your career exploration and job search tool kit, but it takes time. The best networking conversations happen when you are genuinely curious and not urgently seeking a job. If you wait until you are in crisis mode, panicked, pressed for time and desperate for a position, that energy can unintentionally seep into your conversations and make them less effective. By starting to connect with people well before you are actively applying for jobs, you can ask better questions, get clearer insights and build authentic relationships that may open doors later on.
The International Perspective
International graduate students and postdocs are navigating career planning under especially difficult circumstances. The experience of working and building a life in another country already comes with challenges, what with being far from home, managing complex visa systems and building support networks from scratch. With the current increasing political scrutiny, shifting immigration policies and rising uncertainty around international education, the pressure has only grown.
We want to acknowledge that this is not just a logistical issue—it is also an emotional one. For many international scholars, the stress of career planning is compounded by fears about stability, belonging and being able to stay in the country to which you have contributed so much. These are not easy conversations, and they should not be faced alone.
That is why early, informed and strategic planning is especially important. With the right tools, guidance and support system, you can better navigate the uncertainty and advocate for your future.
Use your resources. Connect early and often with your university’s international student or scholar office. They can clarify visa timelines, regulations and documentation requirements.
Get legal support. Consult with a qualified immigration attorney who can help you understand your options and advocate for you.
Network with intention. Seek out events, professional associations and communities that are welcoming to international scholars. These relationships can lead to valuable advice, referrals or even job opportunities.
While visa policies and political rhetoric may be out of your control, the way you prepare and position yourself is not. Planning ahead can help you reduce uncertainty, take advantage of time-sensitive opportunities and build a support system to help you succeed wherever your career takes you.
Know Your Path to Success
Many students and postdocs have a clear vision of their desired career but lack understanding of how to get there. For example, many aspiring faculty underestimate how important it is to gain teaching experience or to have early conversations with their supervisor about which projects they can pursue independently for their future research statements. Similarly, those aiming for roles in industry or policy may overlook essential skills such as project management, stakeholder communication or regulatory knowledge until they begin applying and realize the gap.
Career paths are often shaped by more than just qualifications. They are influenced by relationships, timing, self-awareness and luck, but especially by the ability to recognize and act on opportunities when they arise. That is why we often reference “planned happenstance,” a career-development theory by John Krumboltz, which encourages people to remain open-minded, take action and position themselves to benefit from unexpected opportunities. It is not about having a rigid plan, but about preparing enough that you can pivot with purpose.
Here are three practical strategies to help you do just that:
Conduct informational interviews: Speak with professionals in your target roles for invaluable insights into their day-to-day realities and career paths. Ask about those hidden requirements—the transferable skills and experiences crucial for success, but not necessarily listed in job descriptions. Use this knowledge to identify and address skill gaps early in your academic journey.
Perform skill audits: Regularly assess your skills against job descriptions in your desired field and identify gaps you need to address through coursework, volunteer experiences or side projects.
Seek mentorship: A good mentor can provide guidance, open doors and help you avoid common pitfalls in your career journey. Consider building a network of mentors rather than relying on a single person; different mentors can support different aspects of your professional growth. Your career services office is a great place to start!
Early planning gives you the ability to shape your own narrative, develop key experiences intentionally and take advantage of unexpected opportunities. Do not wait to be ready to start; start now, and readiness will come.
Start Here: A Career Planning Checklist
Career planning does not have to be overwhelming. Small steps, taken consistently, can lead to powerful outcomes, whether you are in year one of a Ph.D. program or year four of a postdoc. Use this checklist to begin or re-energize your professional development journey.
This month, try to:
Schedule a career advising appointment—even if you’re “just exploring.”
Attend one workshop or seminar outside of your research area.
Reach out to someone for an informational interview (a colleague, alum or speaker whose path interests you).
Identify one skill you want to build in the coming months and one way to begin (e.g., take a course, volunteer, shadow someone).
Join or re-engage with a professional association or community.
By starting your career planning early, you are not just preparing for a job: You are laying the foundation for a fulfilling career. Small, consistent efforts can lead to significant results over time. The resources available to you as graduate students and postdocs are invaluable, but only effective if you use them. Do not wait for your future to happen; start building it today!
Ellen Dobson, G.C.D.F., is the postdoctoral and graduate program manager at the Morgridge Institute for Research, where she leads professional and career-development programming for early-career researchers. Drawing on her experience as a Ph.D., postdoc and staff scientist, she is dedicated to helping graduate students and postdocs explore fulfilling career paths through supportive, practical guidance.
Anne-Sophie Bohrer is the program manager for career and professional development in the Office of Postdoctoral Affairs at the University of Michigan. In this role, she leads the development of programs to support postdoctoral fellows from all disciplines.
By Derfel Owen, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine and Janice Kay, Higher Futures.
Generative AI and other new technologies create unprecedented challenges to some of the deepest and longest-held assumptions about how we educate and support students. We start from a position that rejects a defensive stance, attempting to protect current practice from the perceived threat of AI. Bans, restrictions and policies to limit AI use have emerged in an effort to uphold existing norms. Such approaches risk isolating and alienating students who are using AI anyway and will fail to address its broader implications. The point is that AI forces us to reconsider and recapitulate current ways of how we teach, how we help students to learn, how we assess and how we engage and support. Four areas of how we educate require a greater focus:
Critical Thinking and Problem-Solving: Teaching students to evaluate, analyse, and synthesise information while questioning AI-generated outputs.
Creativity and Innovation: Focusing on nurturing original ideas, divergent thinking, and the ability to combine concepts in novel ways.
Emotional Intelligence: Prioritising skills like empathy, communication, and collaboration, essential for leadership, teamwork, and human connection.
Ethical Reasoning: Training students to navigate ethical dilemmas and critically evaluate the ethical implications of AI use in society.
Here we set out some practical steps that can be taken to shift us in that direction.
1. Emphasise Lifelong Learning and Entrepreneurialism
Education should equip students with the ability to adapt throughout their lives to rapidly evolving technologies, professions and industries. Fostering the ability to learn, unlearn, and relearn quickly in response to changing demands is essential. A well-rounded education will combine new and established knowledge across subjects and disciplines, building in an assumption that progress is made through interdisciplinary connections and creating space to explore the unknown, what we might not know yet and how we go about finding it.
The transformation of traditional work through AI and automation necessitates that students are fully equipped to thrive in flexible and diverse job markets. Entrepreneurial thinking should be nurtured by teaching students to identify problems, design innovative solutions, and create value in ways that AI can support but not replicate. Leadership development should focus on fostering decision-making, adaptability, and team-building skills, emphasising the inherently human aspects of leadership.
We should be aware that jobs and job skills in an AI world are evolving faster than our curricula. As McKinsey estimates, AI will transform or replace up to 800 million jobs globally, and the stakes are too high for incremental change.
2. Promote Originality and Rigour though Collaboration
AI’s strength lies in the processing speed and the sheer breadth of existing data and knowledge that it can access. It can tell you at exceptional pace what might have taken hours, days or weeks to discover. This should be viewed as a way to augment human capabilities and not as a crutch. Incorporating project-based, collaborative learning with AI will empower students to collaborate to create, solve problems, and innovate while reinforcing their roles as innovators and decision-makers. Working together should be a means of fostering communication skills, but can also be strengthened to encourage, promote and reward creativity and divergent thinking that goes further than conventional knowledge. Students should be encouraged to pursue discovery through critical thinking and verification, exploring unique, self-designed research questions or projects that demand deep thought and personal engagement. These steps will build digital confidence, ensuring students can use AI with confidence and assuredness, are able to test and understand its limitations and can leverage it as a tool to accelerate and underpin their innovation. Examples include generating content for campaigns or portfolio outputs, using AI to synthesise original data, demonstrating Socratic dialogue with AI and its outputs, challenging and critiquing prompts.
3. Redesign Assessments
Traditional assessments, such as essays and multiple-choice tests, are increasingly vulnerable to AI interference, and the value they add is increasingly questionable. To counter this, education should focus on performance-based assessments, such as presentations, debates, and real-time problem-solving, which showcase students’ ability to think critically and adapt quickly. Educators have moved away from such assessment methods in recent years because evidence suggests that biases creep into oral examinations. This needs reevaluating to judge the balance of risk in light of AI advancements. Stereotyping and halo biases can be mitigated and can increase student engagement with the assessment and subject matter. What is the greater risk? Biases in oral assessment? Or generating cohorts of graduates with skills to complete unseen, closed-book exams that are likely to be of limited value in a world in which deep and complex information and instruction can be accessed in a fraction of the time through AI? We must revisit these norms and assumptions.
Collaborative assessments should also be prioritised, using group projects that emphasise teamwork, negotiation, and interpersonal skills. Furthermore, process-oriented evaluation methods should be implemented to assess the learning process itself, including drafts, reflections, and iterative improvements, rather than solely the final outputs. Authenticity in learning outputs can be assured through reflective practices such as journals, portfolios, and presentations that require self-expression and cannot be easily replicated by AI, especially when accompanied by opportunities for students to explain their journey and how their knowledge and approach to a topic have evolved as they learn.
Achieving such radical change will require a dramatic scaling back of the arms race in assessment, dramatic reductions in multiple, modularised snapshot assessments. Shifting the assessment workload for staff and students is required, toward formative and more authentic assessments with in-built points of reflection. Mitigating more labour-intensive assessments, programme-wide assessment should be considered.
4. Encourage understanding of the impact of AI on society, resilience and adaptability
AI will accentuate the societal impact of and concerns about issues such as bias, privacy, and accountability. Utilising AI in teaching and assessment must build an expectation that students and graduates have an enquiring and sceptical mindsets, ready to seek further validation and assurance about facts as they are presented and how they were reached, what data was accessed and how; students need to be prepared and ready to unlearn and rebuild. This will require resilience and the ability to cope with failure, uncertainty, and ambiguity. A growth mindset, valuing continuous learning over static achievement, will help by enhancing their ability to adapt to evolving circumstances. Simulated scenario planning for real-world application of learning will help equip students with the skills to navigate AI-disrupted workplaces and industries successfully.
The new kid on the block, DeepSeek, has the important feature that it is an open-source reasoning model, low cost (appearing to beat OpenAI o1 that is neither open-source nor free) with the benefit that it sets out its ‘thinking’ step-by-step, helpful for learning and demonstrating learning. It is not, however, able to access external reports critical of the Chinese state, de facto showing that Gen AI models are wholly dependent on the large language data on which they are trained. Students need fully to understand this and its implications.
Navigating these wide-ranging challenges demands robust support for those shaping the student experience—educators, mentors, and assessors. They remain the heart of higher learning, guiding students through an era of unprecedented change. Yet, bridging the gap between established and emerging practices requires more than just adaptation; it calls for a transformation in how we approach learning itself. To thrive in an AI-integrated future, educators must not only enhance their own AI literacy but also foster open, critical dialogues about its ethical and practical dimensions. In this evolving landscape, everyone—students and educators alike—must embrace a shared journey of learning. The traditional role of the academic as the sole expert must give way to a more collaborative, inquiry-driven model. Only by reimagining the way we teach and learn can we ensure that AI serves as a tool for empowerment rather than a force for division.
In a digitally-driven world, artificial intelligence (AI) has become the latest technology that either will save or doom the planet depending on who you speak with. Remember when telephones (the ones that hung on the wall) were dubbed as privacy invaders? Even the radio, television, and VHS tapes were feared at the beginning of their existence. Artificial intelligence is no different, but how can we ease the minds of those educators who have trouble embracing the newest innovation in emerging technologies? A shift in the fundamental mindset of educators and learners will be vitally important as AI becomes more and more commonplace. To guide this transformative learning process, critical thinking will become an invaluable commodity.
The critical thinking model developed by Dr. Richard Paul and Dr. Linda Elder is pragmatic and fosters the critical thinking skills needed to navigate AI. Critical thinking is defined by Paul and Elder as “the art of analyzing and evaluating thought processes with a view to improving them” (Paul and Elder 2020, 9). The key is to teach your students ways to improve their thinking and using the Paul and Elder model can be an effective tool.
Navigating the Disorienting Dilemma
As we reason through this innovative technology, we will question truth and reality. Teaching students to analyze critically the information generated from AI chatbots will become necessary for a progressing society. Determining fact from fiction will be a skill that dedicated educators will train their students to harness in the work they complete.
Mezirow (1994, 224) contended that a transformative learning experience starts with a disorienting dilemma that causes an individual to question their understanding of previous assumptions by critically reflecting, validating the critical reflection with insight, and acting upon the new information. I, like many I assume, believed that artificial intelligence was a far-fetched concept that would only be real in the movies; however, AI is here and large-language models, such as Chat-GPT and Gemini, are only going to get more sophisticated with time. I also realized that once I was exposed to the Paul and Elder model for critical thinking in grad school, I was ignorant. I had my transformative moment when I realized that critical thinking is more complex than I thought and that I would need to step up my thinking game if I wanted to become an advanced thinker. Artificial intelligence will challenge even the most confident thinkers. Determining fact from fiction will be the disorienting dilemma that will lead us on this transformative journey. As educators, three strategies that we can use to support this transformation with students are to step up our thinking game, model critical thinking, and use AI for our benefit.
Step Up Your Thinking Game
An advanced thinker not only poses questions to others but focuses within. Understanding the why behind reasoning, acknowledging personal biases and assumptions, and valuing other’s perspectives are key to developing critical thinking skills. The reason that you and your students choose to use AI should be clear and intentional. AI is a tool that produces instantaneous solutions. The resulting details from AI should be analyzed for accuracy, logic, and bias. Results should be compared with multiple sources to ensure that the information, the conclusions, and the implications are precise and complete. Practicing these strategies fosters the development of intellectual virtues, such as intellectual humility, intellectual autonomy, and intellectual integrity.
Model Critical Thinking
As educators, we serve as leaders. Ultimately, our students look up to us and use our guidance in their learning. By modeling critical thinking with students, you are leading the way to fostering intentional questioning, ethical principles, and reflective practices. A start is to change the focus of your teaching from the expectation that students regurgitate information to focusing on more challenging, thought-provoking content that fosters thinking. AI can be a helpful tool for coming up with ideas, helping to shape lesson plans, and designing activities, but the real work will come from designing authentic questions that students can be trained to ask regardless of what the AI generates, such as:
How can I verify the validity and accuracy of this information?
Does the response represent logical and in-depth details?
Is the information precise, significant, and relevant to the knowledge that I am seeking?
Are perspectives that differ from mine represented or can I recognize bias in the information?
What other questions could be asked to dive deeper and more concisely into the information?
Use AI for Your Benefit
Generating activity ideas or lesson plans, creating rubrics, and assisting with basic writing tasks are three ways to easily get started with an AI chatbot. If the output is not what you expected or is incomplete, continue to give the chatbot more information to drive the chatbot to produce the desired outcome. Once you begin practicing with an AI chatbot, achieving your desired outcomes will become second nature.
Using learning outcomes as the basis for an inquiry provides AI with the information needed to generate an activity or lesson plan in seconds with objectives, timed components, suggestions for implementation, a materials list, closing, and follow-up ideas for the activity. Try typing a statement into an AI chatbot, such as ChatGPT or Gemini, and be amazed at the magic. When formulating your inquiry, remember to start with the end goal in mind and describe to AI the output you want. For example, type “Use this learning outcome to create an activity: (add learning outcome)”. AI will generate a comprehensive activity with all the bells and whistles.
Rubric development can be a cumbersome process; therefore, using AI to generate a rubric for a project that you have poured sweat and tears into creating is a very simple and time-saving process. Ask AI to generate a rubric based on the information and directions that you give your students. If the generated rubric is not the right style or in the right format, simply refocus the AI chatbot by being more explicit in your instructions. For example, you may need to be as specific as “Create an analytic rubric with 100, 90, 80, 70, and 0 as the levels of performance using the following expectations for the assignment (paste directions and outcomes). As always, use your critical thinking skills to evaluate the rubric and edit it to best meet your needs before sharing it with students.
Use AI to assist you with generating clearer and more concise messages. When creating an email, giving student feedback, or writing in general, a quick and easy way to use AI to assist you is to give the command “make this sound better” and plop in your message. When teaching your students to use AI, have them question the output that was generated. For example, “Why is this statement more clear and concise than my original thought” or “What can I learn from how AI changed my verbiage?” Focusing on the “why” of the produced information will be the key to fostering critical thinking with your students.
AI is a resourceful and impactful, yet imperfect tool. Fostering critical thinking with your students will help them develop the skills needed to recognize bias, inaccuracies, and AI hallucinations. With the practice of creating specific instructions and questioning the outcome, students will learn to trust themselves to defend AI-generated information.
Dr. Tina Evans earned her Ed.D. in Adult Education from Capella University in 2024. With over 25 years of experience in the education field, she brings deep expertise in higher education curriculum design, technology integration, and evidence-based practices for adult learners. Driven by a passion for critical thinking and a genuine commitment to supporting others, Dr. Evans continues to make a meaningful impact in both her professional and personal spheres.
When a white teacher at Decatur High School used the n-word in class in 2022, students walked out and marched in protest. But Reyes Le wanted to do more.
Until he graduated from the Atlanta-area school this year, he co-led its equity team. He organized walking tours devoted to Decatur’s history as a thriving community of freed slaves after the Civil War. Stops included a statue of civil rights leader John Lewis, which replaced a Confederate monument, and a historical marker recognizing the site where Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. was jailed for driving with an out-of-state license.
Reyes Le, a Decatur High graduate, sits at the base of Celebration, a sculpture in the town’s central square that honors the city’s first Black commissioner and mayor. (Linda Jacobson/The 74)
But Le feared his efforts would collapse in the face of the Trump administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion. An existing state law against “divisive concepts” meant students already had to get parent permission to go on the tour. Then the district threw out two non-discrimination policies April 15.
“I felt that the work we were doing wouldn’t be approved going into the future,” Le said.
Decatur got snared by the U.S. Department of Education’s threat to pull millions of dollars in federal funding from states and districts that employed DEI policies. In response, several organizations sued the department, calling its guidance vague and in violation of constitutional provisions that favor local control. Within weeks, three federal judges, including one Trump appointee, blocked Education Secretary Linda McMahon from enforcing the directives, and Decatur promptly reinstated its policies.
The reversal offers a glimpse into the courts’ role in thwarting — or at least slowing down — the Trump education juggernaut. States, districts, unions, civil rights groups and parents sued McMahon, and multiple courts agreed the department skirted the law in slashing funding and staff. But some observers say the administration is playing a long game and may view such losses as temporary setbacks.
“The administration’s plan is to push on multiple fronts to test the boundaries of what they can get away with,” said Jeffrey Henig, a professor emeritus of political science and education at Teachers College, Columbia University. “Cut personnel, but if needed, add them back later. What’s gained? Possible intimidation of ‘deep state’ employees and a chance to hire people that will be ‘a better fit.’ ”
A recent example of boundary testing: The administration withheld nearly $7 billion for education the president already approved in March.
But the move is practically lifted from the pages of Project 2025, the right-wing blueprint for Trump’s second term. In that document, Russ Vought, now Trump’s director of the Office of Management and Budget, argues that presidents must “handcuff the bureaucracy” and that the Constitution never intended for the White House to spend everything Congress appropriated.
The administration blames Democrats for playing the courts. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller accused “radical rogue judges” of getting in the president’s way.
The end result is often administrative chaos, leaving many districts unable to make routine purchases and displaced staff unsure whether to move on with their lives.
While the outcome in the lower courts has been mixed, the Supreme Court — which has looked favorably on much of Trump’s agenda — is expected any day to weigh in on the president’s biggest prize: whether McMahon can permanently cut half the department’s staff.
In that case, 21 Democratic attorneys general and a Massachusetts school district sued to prevent the administration from taking a giant step toward eliminating the department.
“Everything about defunding and dismantling by the administration is in judicial limbo,” said Neal McCluskey, director of the libertarian Cato Institute’s Center for Educational Freedom. As a supporter of eliminating the department, he lamented the slow pace of change. “If the Supreme Court allows mass layoffs, though, I would expect more energy to return to shrinking the department.”
The odds of that increased last week when the court ruled that mass firings at other agencies could remain in effect as the parties argue the case in the lower courts.
While the lawsuits over the Education Department are separate, Johnathan Smith, chief of staff and general counsel at the National Center for Youth Law, said the ruling is “clearly not a good sign.” His case, filed in May, focuses on cuts specifically to the department’s Office for Civil Rights, but the argument is essentially the same: The administration overstepped its authority when it gutted the department without congressional approval.
Solicitor General John Sauer, in his brief to the Supreme Court, said the states had no grounds to sue and called any fears the department couldn’t make do with a smaller staff merely “speculative.”
Education Secretary Linda McMahon defended her cuts to programs and staff before a House education committee June 4. (Sha Hanting/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images)
Even if the Supreme Court rules in McMahon’s favor, its opinion won’t affect previous rulings and other lawsuits in progress against the department.
Here’s where some of those key legal battles stand:
COVID relief funds
McMahon stunned states in late March when she said they would no longer receive more than $2 billion in reimbursements for COVID-related expenses. States would have to make a fresh case for how their costs related to the pandemic, even though the department had already approved extensions for construction projects, summer learning and tutoring.
On June 3, a federal judge in Maryland blocked McMahon from pulling the funds.
Despite the judicial order, not all states have been paid.
The Maryland Department of Education still had more than $400 million to spend. Cherie Duvall-Jones, a spokeswoman, said the agency hasn’t received any reimbursements even though it provided the “necessary documentation and information” federal officials requested.
The cancellation forced Baltimore City schools to dip into a reserve account to avoid disrupting tutoring and summer school programs.
Madison Biedermann, a spokeswoman for the department, declined to comment on why it had yet to pay Maryland or how much the department has distributed to other states since June.
Mass firings
In the administration’s push to wind down the department, McMahon admits she still needs staff to complete what she calls her “final mission.” On May 21, she told a House appropriations subcommittee that she had rehired 74 people. Biedermann wouldn’t say whether that figure has grown, and referred a reporter to the hearing video.
“You hope that you’re just cutting fat,” McMahon testified. “Sometimes you cut a little in the muscle.”
The next day, a federal district court ordered her to also reinstate the more than 1,300 employees she fired in March, about half of the department’s workforce. Updating the court on progress, Chief of Staff Rachel Oglesby said in a July 8 filing that she’s still reviewing survey responses from laid off staffers and figuring out where they would work if they return.
Student protestors participate in the “Hands Off Our Schools” rally in front of the U.S. Department of Education on April 4 in Washington, D.C. (Getty Images)
But some call the department’s efforts to bring back employees lackluster, perhaps because it’s pinning its hopes on a victory before the Supreme Court.
“This is a court that’s been fairly aggressive in overturning lower court decisions,” said Smith, with the National Center for Youth Law.
His group’s lawsuit is one of two challenging cuts to the Office for Civil Rights, which lost nearly 250 staffers and seven regional offices. They argue the cuts have left the department unable to thoroughly investigate complaints. Of the 5,164 civil rights complaints since March, OCR has dismissed 3,625, Oglesby reported.
In a case brought by the Victim Rights Law Center, a Massachusetts-based advocacy organization, a federal district court judge ordered McMahon to reinstate OCR employees.
Even if the case is not reversed on appeal, there’s another potential problem: Not all former staffers are eager to return.
“I have applied for other jobs, but I’d prefer to have certainty about my employment with OCR before making a transition,” said Andy Artz, who was a supervising attorney in OCR’s New York City office until the layoffs. “I feel committed to the mission of the agency and I’d like to be part of maintaining it if reinstated.”
DEI
An aspect of that mission, nurtured under the Biden administration, was to discourage discipline policies that result in higher suspension and expulsion rates for minority students. A 2023 memo warned that discrimination in discipline could have “devastating long-term consequences on students and their future opportunities.”
But according to the department’s Feb. 14 guidance, efforts to reduce those gaps or raise achievement among Black and Hispanic students could fall under its definition of “impermissible” DEI practices. Officials demanded that states sign a form certifying compliance with their interpretation of the law. On April 24, three federal courts ruled that for now, the department can’t pull funding from states that didn’t sign. The department also had to temporarily shut down a website designed to gather public complaints about DEI practices.
The cases, which McMahon has asked the courts to dismiss, will continue through the summer. In court records, the administration’s lawyers say the groups’ arguments are weak and that districts like Decatur simply overreacted. In an example cited in a complaint brought by the NAACP, the Waterloo Community School District in Iowa responded to the federal guidance by pulling out of a statewide “read-In” for Black History Month. About 3,500 first graders were expected to participate in the virtual event featuring Black authors and illustrators.
The department said the move reflected a misunderstanding of the guidance. “Withdrawing all its students from the read-In event appears to have been a drastic overreaction by the school district and disconnected from a plain reading of the … documents,” the department said.
Desegregation
The administration’s DEI crackdown has left many schools confused about how to teach seminal issues of American history such as the Civil Rights era.
It was the Civil Rights Act of 1964 that established “desegregation centers” across the country to help districts implement court-ordered integration.
In 2022, the Biden administration awarded $33 million in grants to what are now called equity assistance centers. But Trump’s department views such work as inseparable from DEI. When it cancelled funding to the centers, it described them as “woke” and “divisive.”
Judge Paul Friedman of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, a Clinton appointee, disagreed. He blocked McMahon from pulling roughly $4 million from the Southern Education Foundation, which houses Equity Assistance Center-South and helped finance Brown v. Board of Education over 70 years ago. His order referenced President Dwight Eisenhower and southern judges who took the ruling seriously.
“They could hardly have imagined that some future presidential administration would hinder efforts by organizations like SEF — based on some misguided understanding of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ — to fulfill Brown’s constitutional promise to students across the country to eradicate the practice of racial segregation.”
He said the center is likely to win its argument that canceling the grant was “arbitrary and capricious.”
Raymond Pierce, Southern Education Foundation president and CEO, said when he applied for the grant to run one of the centers, he emphasized its historical significance.
“My family is from Mississippi, so I remember seeing a ‘colored’ entrance sign on the back of the building as we pulled into my mother’s hometown for the holidays,” Pierce said.
Trump’s Justice Department aims to dismiss many of the remaining 130 desegregation orders across the South. Harmeet Dhillon, assistant attorney general for civil rights, has said the orders force districts to spend money on monitoring and data collection and that it’s time to “let people off the hook” for past discrimination.
But Eshé Collins, director of Equity Assistance Center-South, said the centers are vital because their services are free to districts.
“Some of these cases haven’t had any movement,” she said. “Districts are like ‘Well, we can’t afford to do this work.’ That’s why the equity assistance center is so key.”
Eshé Collins, director of Equity Assistance Center-South and a member of the Atlanta City Council, read to students during a visit to a local school. (Courtesy of Eshé Collins)
Her center, for example, works with the Fayette County schools in Tennessee to recruit more Black teachers and ensure minority students get an equal chance to enroll in advanced classes. The system is still under a desegregation order from 1965, but is on track to meet the terms set by the court next year, Collins said. A week after Friedman issued the injunction in the foundation’s case, Ruth Ryder, the department’s deputy assistant secretary for policy and programs, told Collins she could once again access funds and her work resumed.
Research
As they entered the Department of Education in early February, one of the first moves made by staffers of the Department of Government Efficiency was to terminate nearly $900 million in research contracts awarded through the Institute for Education Sciences. Three lawsuits say the cuts seriously hinder efforts to conduct high-quality research on schools and students.
Kevin Gee from the University of California, Davis, was among those hit. He was in the middle of producing a practice guide for the nation on chronic absenteeism, which continues to exceed pre-pandemic levels in all states. In a recent report, the American Enterprise Institute’s Nat Malkus said the pandemic “took this crisis to unprecedented levels” that “warrant urgent and sustained attention.” Last year’s rate stood at nearly 24% nationally — still well above the 15% before the pandemic.
Gee was eager to fully grasp the impact of the pandemic on K-3 students. Even though young children didn’t experience school closures, many missed out on preschool and have shown delays in social and academic skills.
Westat, the contractor for the project, employed 350 staffers to collect data from more than 860 schools and conduct interviews with children about their experiences. But DOGE halted the data collection midstream — after the department had already invested about $44 million of a $100 million contract.
Kevin Gee, an education researcher at the University of California, Davis, had to stop his research work when the Trump administration cancelled grants. (Courtesy of Kevin Gee)
“The data would’ve helped us understand, for the first time, the educational well-being of our nation’s earliest learners on a nationwide scale in the aftermath of the pandemic,” he said.
The department has no plans to resurrect the project, according to a June court filing. But there are other signs it is walking back some of DOGE’s original cuts. For example, it intends to reissue contracts for regional education labs, which work with districts and states on school improvement.
“It feels like the legal pressure has succeeded, in the sense that the Department of Education is starting up some of this stuff again,” said Cara Jackson, a past president of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, which filed one of the lawsuits. “I think … there’s somebody at the department who is going through the legislation and saying, ‘Oh, we actually do need to do this.’ ”
Mental health grants
Amid the legal machinations, even some Republicans are losing patience with McMahon’s moves to freeze spending Congress already appropriated.
In April, she terminated $1 billion in mental health grants approved as part of a 2022 law that followed the mass school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The department told grantees, without elaboration, that the funding no longer aligns with the administration’s policy of “prioritizing merit, fairness and excellence in education” and undermines “the students these programs are intended to help.”
The secretary told Oregon Democratic Sen. Jeff Merkley in June that she would “rebid” the grants, but some schools don’t want to wait. Silver Consolidated Schools in New Mexico, which lost $6 million when the grant was discontinued, sued her on June 20th. Sixteen Democrat-led states filed a second suit later that month.
The funds, according to Silver Consolidated’s complaint, allowed it to hire seven mental health professionals and contract with two outside counseling organizations. With the extra resources, the district saw bullying reports decline by 30% and suspensions drop by a third, according to the district’s complaint. Almost 500 students used a mental health app funded by the grant.
A judge has yet to rule in either case, but Republican Rep. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and other members of a bipartisan task force are holding McMahon to her word that she’ll open a new competition for the funds.
“These funds were never intended to be a theoretical exercise — they were designed to confront an urgent crisis affecting millions of children,” Fitzpatrick said in a statement. “With youth mental health challenges at an all-time high, any disruption or diversion of resources threatens to reverse hard-won progress and leave communities without critical supports.”
