WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump wants to cut nearly $1,700 from the maximum Pell Grant award as part of his fiscal 2026 budget request — a move that would leave the subsidy for low-income students at its lowest level in more than a decade.

The proposal would have a devastating effect on college affordability and drive up costs for states because they’d have to fill in the missing federal dollars, education advocates and experts say.

The request — part of the president’s wish list for appropriations in fiscal 2026 — faces steep odds in Congress, where key members of both parties responded to the proposal with alarm.

“I don’t want to cut the Pell Grant,” U.S. Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a West Virginia Republican and chair of the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Labor, Health and Human Services, Education, and Related Agencies, told States Newsroom.

“I’m concerned about that — I’m hoping that we’ll get that resolved,” she said.

Opposition from Capito, whose panel writes the annual bill to fund the Education Department, makes Trump’s wish unlikely to make its way into the upcoming legislation.

The Pell Grant is a government subsidy that helps low-income students pay for college and is the foundation of federal student aid in the United States.

Catherine Brown, senior policy and advocacy director at the National College Attainment Network, said the cut would be “absolutely devastating,” noting that “college is already out of reach for millions upon millions of low-income students.”

Funding gap

The Pell Grant program is seeing a projected budget shortfall of $2.7 billion heading into the next fiscal year, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office. The administration has cited the shortfall as a reason to decrease the maximum award.

The request calls for reducing the maximum Pell Grant for the 2026-2027 award year from $7,395 to $5,710. The last time the maximum award stood below this level was during the 2013-2014 award year, at $5,645.

Trump’s fiscal 2026 budget request includes $12 billion in total cuts to the Education Department as he and his administration seek to dismantle the agency and dramatically reshape the federal role in education.

Democrats: Cut would be ‘crazy’

Democrats have raised strong opposition, while even the Republican chair of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees Education Department funding was noncommittal about pursuing Pell Grant cuts.

“We want to make sure that (Pell Grants are) serving the people they need to,” Rep. Robert Aderholt of Alabama said when asked about any concerns he has on the proposed cut.

Aderholt said he’s hearing “a lot” from his constituents about the proposed reduction, and that it’s “certainly something we’re going to look at.”

Meanwhile, the leading Democrats on the House and Senate education spending panels were quick to blast the proposed cut.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro, ranking member of the full House Appropriations Committee and the education spending subcommittee, called the nearly $1,700 reduction “crazy.”

“People are not going to be able to do it, and that’s the tragedy of what they’re doing here is dismantling all of the constructs that are there to provide people particularly with public education and a pathway to success,” the Connecticut Democrat said.

“You take away Federal Work-Study, you lower the Pell Grant, that says to me, you want to destroy public education,” DeLauro said.

The budget request proposes slashing $980 million of Federal Work-Study funding and requiring employers to pay 75% of students’ hourly wages, with the government contributing 25%.

The program gives part-time employment to students with financial need in order to help cover the cost of college.

Sen. Tammy Baldwin, ranking member of the Senate subcommittee, said she “strongly” opposes the proposed reduction.

The Wisconsin Democrat said she also recognizes that “there’s a looming shortfall in Pell funding that we need to address.”

“I am hopeful that we’ll be able to work together to do that,” Baldwin said.

Advocates, experts weigh in

Higher education advocates and experts are also sounding the alarm on the proposed reduction, both over the harm to low-income students’ access to higher education and the impact on states and colleges.

“This would just much further exacerbate that gap and drive millions of students out of pursuing post-secondary education or set them on a different path,” Brown, with the National College Attainment Network, said.

Katharine Meyer, a governance studies fellow at the Brown Center on Education Policy at the nonpartisan Brookings Institution, described the proposed decline as “truly unprecedented.”

She added that when the Pell Grant is smaller, states have to spend more on higher education, creating a challenge for state officials potentially grappling with other cuts in federal support in the budget reconciliation package Republicans are scrambling to pass.

“States don’t necessarily have the flexibility to spend more money when they have budgets that they need to balance, and they’re facing other federal constraints, including potentially having to take on additional health care costs depending on what happens with health care negotiations in budget reconciliation,” she said.

Capito also said she thought a reduction to Pell Grants would ripple out to the state level.

At the institutional level, Meyer pointed out that if a state has a smaller bucket to allocate for higher education but wants to prioritize financial aid, it would “come at the cost of” the money appropriated to universities.

“Then institutions are not going to be able to spend as much on their operating funds,” she said. “They’re not going to be able to do capital improvement campaigns, which are often very necessary.”

Ties to reconciliation bill

House Republicans have also proposed major changes to Pell Grant eligibility as part of GOP lawmakers’ separate “big, beautiful bill.” The legislative package would slash billions of dollars in federal programs to offset the cost of other parts of Trump’s agenda, including extending the 2017 tax cuts and boosting border security funding.

GOP lawmakers are using the complex reconciliation process to move a package through Congress with simple majority votes in each chamber and avoid the Senate’s 60-vote threshold that generally requires bipartisanship.

The House narrowly passed its version of the reconciliation package in late May. That measure included a provision that would raise the minimum number of credit hours to qualify for the maximum Pell Grant award from 12 per semester to 15. The move would save $7.1 billion in federal spending over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimated.

That new eligibility requirement is not included in the draft proposal for the reconciliation package that Republicans on the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions released in June.

New Hampshire Bulletin is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Hampshire Bulletin maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Dana Wormald for questions: info@newhampshirebulletin.com.

WASHINGTON — A press conference by a dozen U.S. House Democrats outside the U.S. Department of Education took an unusual turn on Wednesday when the subject of their criticism — Education Secretary Linda McMahon — unexpectedly joined them.

The Democrats had met with the Trump administration appointee a few minutes earlier to press her about the sweeping shifts at the U.S. Department of Education, where she and President Donald Trump are seeking to dismantle the agency.

The lawmakers told reporters that at the scheduled meeting, they questioned McMahon on how the department could carry out its primary responsibilities when the agency continues to see dramatic changes. That includes mass layoffs that hit core units and an executive order from Trump calling on the secretary to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the department to the maximum extent she legally can.

Only Congress, which established the 45-year-old department, has the power to abolish it.

The Democrats said they were grateful that McMahon met with them but dissatisfied with and even alarmed by the secretary’s responses, especially on a timeline for closing the agency.

“It’s very apparent that the secretary is treating this as a corporate restructuring, and we want to be clear that the education of our children is not a corporate enterprise — it is how we move this country forward,” Rep. Melanie Stansbury of New Mexico said.

“It’s very clear that the (reduction in force), the firing of probationary staff, the so-called restructuring that’s happening — when we asked for a plan multiple times in this meeting, we were told there is not a plan yet,” she added.

The secretary arrives, and leaves

As the Democrats spoke, McMahon emerged from the building, accompanied by aides, and joined them at their lectern emblazoned with a U.S. House of Representatives logo.

She reiterated that “funding from the United States government will continue through the programs that have already been established” and said she looked forward to continuing to work with members of Congress on both sides of the aisle.

After her remarks, Rep. Mark Takano pressed McMahon on when she would close the department.

“Well, we’ve had our discussions already, so thank you all very, very much for coming,” McMahon replied, proceeding to walk back into the building.

“You see, she’s not answering the question when she’s going to shut down the department,” Takano, of California, said as the secretary walked away.

Barred from building

Wednesday’s meeting came after Takano and other Democratic lawmakers were blocked from entering the building in February while trying to meet with Denise Carter, acting Education secretary at the time, over Trump’s plans to dismantle the agency.

The California Democrat had led dozens of others in writing a letter to Carter and requesting a meeting over those efforts.

A day after Trump signed the executive order surrounding the department, he announced that special education services would be transferred to the Department of Health and Human Services and that the Small Business Administration would be handling the student loan portfolio.

The department has not taken any steps to move either — both of which would require acts of Congress and raise a slew of logistical questions.

Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland said “the idea of dismembering the department and then parceling it out to other agencies and departments does not give us a lot of confidence or hope in what’s happening.”

The lawmakers said McMahon repeatedly stressed during the meeting that she plans to abide by federal law and would look carefully at what she’s legally allowed to do before moving any functions of the department.

Yet Rep. Greg Casar of Texas said he and the group “became more and more alarmed as the meeting went on,” noting that “current law won by so many Americans in this democracy, is that all kids deserve a decent education, that the money goes to your kid if they’re in need, the money goes to your kid no matter their race or their background or their neighborhood, and they want to change that.”

The lawmakers who met with McMahon included: U.S. Reps. Terri Sewell of Alabama; Takano; Frederica Wilson of Florida; Raskin and Sarah Elfreth of Maryland; Maggie Goodlander of New Hampshire; Stansbury; Casar, Julie Johnson and Veronica Escobar of Texas; Don Beyer of Virginia; and Gwen Moore of Wisconsin.

Last updated 4:02 p.m., Apr. 2, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s recent executive order prohibiting transgender athletes from competing on women’s sports teams consistent with their gender identity raises complex questions about enforcement mechanisms and consequences for schools that do not comply.

The executive order, part of Trump’s broader anti-trans agenda, rescinds federal funds from “educational programs” if schools fail to adhere to the ban.

The administration is asking federal agencies to interpret Title IX — a federal civil rights law barring schools that receive federal funding from practicing sex-based discrimination — in a way that complies with the order.

“The war on women’s sports is over,” Trump said at a crowded Feb. 5 executive order signing ceremony in the White House.

“We’re putting every school receiving taxpayer dollars on notice that if you let men take over women’s sports teams or invade your locker rooms, you will be investigated for violations of Title IX and risk your federal funding — there will be no federal funding,” he said.

The order asks the secretary of Education to “take all appropriate action to affirmatively protect all-female athletic opportunities and all-female locker rooms” — going beyond just women’s sports teams and including locker rooms used for physical education classes.

Trump’s effort also came as an increasing number of states have passed laws banning trans students from participating in sports that align with their gender identity.

At least half of all states have enacted a law that bans trans students from taking part in sports that align with their gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, an independent think tank.

Many others, led by both Democrats and Republicans, have not taken that step.

The Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, has noted that there has been “considerable disinformation and misinformation about what the inclusion of transgender youth in sports entails” and that trans students’ sports participation “has been a non-issue; many states, athletic organizations, and governing bodies successfully balanced fairness, inclusion, and access to play without any problem.”

‘Extremely broad’

But lawyers and Title IX experts told States Newsroom it remains to be seen how exactly schools across the country will enforce the executive order and how the administration would rescind federal funds for any schools failing to adhere.

Shiwali Patel, a Title IX expert and senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, said the “blatantly discriminatory” order is “extremely broad” and raises “a lot of questions.”

“It touches educational institutions, it touches international competitions, it touches immigration of trans women athletes, it calls for these convenings, it calls for state attorneys general to identify some enforcement mechanisms,” Patel said.

The order asks the assistant to the president for domestic policy to bring together state attorneys general to “identify best practices” in enforcing the ban.

The assistant is also responsible for bringing together “representatives of major athletic organizations and governing bodies” to promote such policies regarding trans athletes’ participation in women’s sports.

Elana Redfield, a lawyer and federal policy director at the Williams Institute at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law, which focuses on laws and policies affecting LGBTQ+ people, pointed out that the executive order “contains kind of broad language, including addressing locker rooms.”

“So, it suggests that any kind of space … for example, PE classes or locker rooms for use in elementary and high school, middle schools as well — those kinds of spaces would be affected,” she said.

Kelli Rodriguez, assistant dean for academic affairs at Seattle University School of Law, said it’s going to be “really confusing for a while” and “a lot of waiting and seeing.”

Rodriguez, who is also the director of sports law at Seattle University School of Law, said “the one thing that’s different is that the executive order calls for, potentially, ramifications or punitive actions if institutions don’t comply.”

“I don’t know what that means yet, I think that’s one of the things that’s kind of outstanding — we’ll see what that means from an enforcement standpoint,” she said, noting that she thinks many schools right now are “very anxious” for what exactly those punitive actions would look like when it comes to federal funding.

Rodriguez also said she expects to see state attorneys general, individual athletes, parents of athletes and institutions challenge the executive order.

Breaking down Title IX

Redfield noted that Title IX is a spending clause type of legislation, which “gives the federal government enforcement power by giving grants to agencies, and then withholding those grants if the law is violated.”

“The Trump administration is sort of referencing things that are out there as a way to try to provide support for their position on the definition and meaning of Title IX, but ultimately, this is going to probably be decided by Congress or a court or both,” she added.

The House passed a measure in January that would bar trans students from participating on women’s school sports teams consistent with their gender identity.

The legislation would also amend Title IX so that “sex shall be recognized based solely on a person’s reproductive biology and genetics at birth.”

A similar measure from last session was reintroduced in the Senate in January, but the effort would likely need the backing of at least 60 senators to advance past the filibuster.

New investigations

Meanwhile, shortly after Trump signed the executive order, the Education Department announced investigations into two universities and an athletic association where they say “violations of Title IX have been reported.” Those under investigation include: San Jose State University in California; the University of Pennsylvania in Philadelphia; and the Massachusetts Interscholastic Athletic Association.

Following the executive order, the NCAA also announced last week that the organization would update its transgender student-athlete participation policy to limit “competition in women’s sports to student-athletes assigned female at birth only.”

Last updated 5:10 p.m., Feb. 10, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump said during a wide-ranging press conference at Mar-a-Lago on Tuesday he wanted to see the country’s debt limit addressed while cutting spending and would not rule out military force to expand U.S. territory.

Trump, who will take office Jan. 20 after lawmakers breezily certified the election results Monday, continued to place blame on outgoing Democratic President Joe Biden for what he will be left with in his second term as he dives into an ambitious GOP agenda.

“We are inheriting a difficult situation from the outgoing administration, and they’re trying everything they can to make it more difficult,” Trump said. “Inflation is continuing to rage and interest rates are far too high, and I’ve been disappointed to see the Biden administration’s attempt to block the reforms of the American people and that they voted for.”

Reconciliation

As Republicans look to use a complicated legislative process known as budget reconciliation to pass significant immigration, border security and tax policy changes, as well as address the country’s debt limit, Trump said Tuesday that he wanted to avoid defaulting on the nation’s debt.

“I just don’t want to see a default. That’s all I want,” he said. “Nobody knows what would happen if there was a default — it could be 1929, and it could be nothing.”

He added that raising or suspending the debt limit had no effect on his goal to lower federal spending.

Though Trump said he is OK if Republicans pass their policy goals through one reconciliation package, he noted that “if two is more certain, it does go a little bit quicker because you can do the immigration stuff early.”

Jan. 6 pardons

Meanwhile, the day after the fourth anniversary of the Jan. 6 insurrection on the U.S. Capitol, Trump echoed his campaign pledge that he would pardon those charged in connection with the Jan. 6 riot.

However, he did not specify whether he would pardon those who were charged with violent offenses, saying: “We’ll be looking at the whole thing, but I’ll be making major pardons.”

Foreign affairs

Trump also did not rule out using military force to take control of the Panama Canal and Greenland — two locations with critical implications for the transport of global commerce.

The Panamanian government was given full control of the canal in 1999. Denmark has sovereignty over Greenland, an autonomous territory. Greenland’s access to natural resources and implications to national security are increasingly important for the long-term interests of the United States.

“No, I can’t assure you on either of those two,” Trump said when asked if he could assure the world that he would not use military or economic coercion to take over both locations.

“But I can say this: We need them for economic security,” Trump said. “I’m not going to commit to that — it might be that you’ll have to do something.”

He also said “all hell will break out in the Middle East” if the hostages taken by Hamas are not released by the time he is back in the Oval Office.

Trump also announced that a Dubai-based company, DAMAC Properties, would be investing at least $20 billion in the United States to support “massive new data centers across the Midwest, the Sun Belt area and also to keep America on the cutting edge of technology and artificial intelligence.”

The president-elect said the first phase of the investment would be in Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Louisiana, Michigan, Ohio, Oklahoma and Texas.

He added that the Gulf of Mexico should be renamed the Gulf of America.

Offshore drilling

Trump slammed Biden’s decision earlier this week to prohibit future oil and gas drilling off the entire East and West coasts, the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the remaining portions of Alaska’s Northern Bering Sea, saying he would “reverse it immediately.”

It appears unlikely Trump can unilaterally reverse the protections. In the early months of his first term, he tried to undo protections placed by then-President Barack Obama, but a federal judge ruled that was beyond his authority.

“We will drill, baby, drill,” Trump said. “We’re going to be drilling in a lot of other locations, and the energy costs are going to come way down — they’ll be brought down to a very low level, and that’s going to bring everything else down.”

Trump also said he would end a “mandate” for electric vehicles. There is no federal electric vehicle mandate, but Trump has said he wants to end the $7,500 consumer tax incentive, and Republicans have sometimes characterized the Biden administration’s regulations tightening automotive emissions as an EV mandate.

Trump added that he wanted to move away from wind energy.

“We’re going to try and have a policy where no windmills are being built,” he said.

Last updated 6:01 p.m., Jan. 7, 2025

Ohio Capital Journal is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Ohio Capital Journal maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor David Dewitt for questions: info@ohiocapitaljournal.com.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump repeatedly said during the campaign that, if elected back to the White House, he would pursue a ban on transgender youth participating in school sports that align with their gender identity.

As he prepares to take office in January, experts and LGBTQ+ advocates told States Newsroom the effort would face significant delays and challenges as legal pushback from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups can be expected every step of the way.

Trump’s repeated vow to “keep men out of women’s sports” reflects his broader anti-trans agenda. Administration efforts would come as an increasing number of states have passed laws banning trans students from participating in sports that align with their gender identity.

The Trump-Vance transition team did not offer any concrete details when asked about specifics but shared a statement from spokesperson Karoline Leavitt.

“The American people re-elected President Trump by a resounding margin giving him a mandate to implement the promises he made on the campaign trail,” Leavitt wrote. “He will deliver.”

Reversing the final rule for Title IX

The U.S. Education Department, under President Joe Biden, released updated regulations to Title IX in April that strengthen federal protections for LGBTQ+ students. The final rule does not explicitly reference trans athletes’ sports participation — a separate decision the administration put on hold.

The Education Department late Friday said it was withdrawing a proposed rule that would have allowed schools to block some transgender athletes from competing on sports teams that match their gender identities while also preventing across-the-board bans.

Title IX is a landmark federal civil rights law that bars schools that receive federal funding from sex-based discrimination.

The president-elect has pledged, while speaking about trans students’ sports participation, to reverse the Biden administration’s final rule for Title IX on his first day back in office.

The Biden administration’s final rule was met with forceful pushback from GOP attorneys general. A series of legal challenges in states across the country have created a policy patchwork of the final rule and weakened the Biden administration’s vision for enforcement.

But if Trump were to try to reverse the final rule, experts say the effort would take an extended period and require adherence to the rulemaking process outlined in the Administrative Procedure Act, or APA.

The APA rules how federal agencies propose and roll out regulations. That process can take months, creating a barrier for a president seeking to undo a prior administration’s rule.

Cathryn Oakley, senior director of legal policy at the Human Rights Campaign, an LGBTQ+ advocacy group, said that while a subsequent administration can undo the current Title IX regulations, it would take “a tremendous amount of work because a regulation has the force of law … so long as the administration has complied with the APA.”

For the Trump administration to undo those regulations, it would need to start at the beginning, propose its own rules and go through the entire process.

“I think it seems fairly likely that that’s something that they’re going to pursue, but that’s not something that the president has the capability to do on day one,” she said.

Oakley noted that the updated regulations also have the force of law because they interpret a law that already exists — Title IX.

The Trump administration is “bound by Title IX, which in fact has these protections related to gender identity,” she said.

Preparing to push back

But any action from the Trump administration regarding trans athletes’ sports participation is sure to be met with legal challenges from LGBTQ+ advocacy groups.

Oakley said though “we have many real reasons to be concerned” about what the Trump administration would do when it comes to Title IX protections and in general for LGBTQ+ people, “we also need to be cautious that we do not concede anything either.”

“We need to be trying to ground ourselves in the actual legal reality that the president-elect will be facing when he comes into office and be able to fight with the tools that we have and not concede anything in advance.”

Biden rule does not address athletics

The U.S. Education Department under Biden never decided on a separate rule establishing new criteria regarding trans athletes.

Shiwali Patel, a Title IX lawyer and senior director of safe and inclusive schools at the National Women’s Law Center, said “we could see some sort of announcement about changing the Title IX rule to address athletics” under the Trump administration.

“Given the rhetoric that has come out of the Trump administration and this continued focus on trans athletes, I think we very well should and could expect to see something from the Trump administration on this, which is very harmful,” Patel told States Newsroom.

The Trump administration could also try to pursue a national ban via legislation in Congress.

The U.S. House approved a bill last year that would prohibit trans athletes from competing in sports that align with their gender identity. And in July, the chamber passed a measure that would reverse Biden’s final rule for Title IX.

But Patel said she could not see how any measure in Congress could get through the U.S. Senate’s filibuster, which requires at least 60 votes to pass most legislation. There will be 45 Democratic senators in the incoming Congress, though independent Sens. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont caucus with the Democrats.

Despite Washington soon entering a GOP trifecta in the U.S. House, Senate and White House, narrow margins could hinder any potential anti-trans legislation from the Trump administration.

Broader anti-trans legislation

Across the country, 25 states have enacted a law that bans trans students from participating in sports that align with their gender identity, according to the Movement Advancement Project, or MAP, an independent think tank.

Logan Casey, director of policy research at MAP, said proponents of these sports bans are using them as a starting point to enact a broader anti-trans agenda.

“In many cases, these sports bans have been one of the first anti-trans laws enacted in recent years in many states, but then states that enact one of these sports bans then go on to enact additional anti-trans or anti-LGBTQ laws,” Casey told States Newsroom.

Casey described any controversy around trans people playing sports as “entirely manufactured.”

“In just five years, we’ve gone from zero states to more than half the country having one of these bans on the books, and that’s really, really fast in the policy world,” he said.

In March 2020, Idaho became the first state to enact this type of ban.

Last updated 10:49 a.m., Dec. 21, 2024

Wisconsin Examiner is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Wisconsin Examiner maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Ruth Conniff for questions: info@wisconsinexaminer.com.

WASHINGTON — President-elect Donald Trump’s pledge to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education will be far easier said than done.

As Trump seeks to redefine U.S. education policy, the complex logistics, bipartisan congressional approval and redirection of federal programs required make dismantling the department a challenging — not impossible — feat.

It’s an effort that experts say is unlikely to gain traction in Congress and, if enacted, would create roadblocks for how Trump seeks to implement the rest of his wide-ranging education agenda.

“I struggle to wrap my mind around how you get such a bill through Congress that sort of defunds the agency or eliminates the agency,” Derek Black, an education law and policy expert and law professor at the University of South Carolina Joseph F. Rice School of Law, told States Newsroom.

“What you can see more easily is that maybe you give the agency less money, maybe you shrink its footprint, maybe we’ve got an (Office for Civil Rights) that still enforces all these laws, but instead of however many employees they have now, they have fewer employees,” Black, who directs the school’s Constitutional Law Center, added.

What does the department do?

Education is decentralized in the United States, and the federal Education Department has no say in the curriculum of public schools. Much of the funding and oversight of schools occurs at the state and local levels.

Still, the department has leverage through funding a variety of programs, such as for low-income school districts and special education, as well as administering federal student aid.

Axing the department would require those programs be unwound or assigned to other federal agencies to administer, according to Rachel Perera, a fellow in Governance Studies in the Brown Center on Education Policy at the Brookings Institution.

Perera, who studies inequality in K-12 education, expressed concern over whether other departments would get additional resources and staffing to take on significantly more portfolios of work if current Education Department programs were transferred to them.

Sen. Mike Rounds introduced a bill last week that seeks to abolish the department and transfer existing programs to other federal agencies.

In a statement, the South Dakota Republican said “the federal Department of Education has never educated a single student, and it’s long past time to end this bureaucratic Department that causes more harm than good.”

The Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 proposed a detailed plan on how the department could be dismantled through the reorganization of existing programs to other agencies and the elimination of the programs the project deems “ineffective or duplicative.”

Though Trump has repeatedly disavowed the conservative blueprint, some former members of his administration helped write it.

The agenda also calls for restoring state and local control over education funding, and notes that “as Washington begins to downsize its intervention in education, existing funding should be sent to states as grants over which they have full control, enabling states to put federal funding toward any lawful education purpose under state law.”

Title I, one of the major funding programs the department administers, provides billions of dollars to school districts with high percentages of students who come from low-income families.

Black pointed to an entire “regulatory regime” that’s built around these funds.

“That regime can’t just disappear unless Title I money also disappears, which could happen, but if you think about Title I money — our rural states, our red states — depend on that money just as much, if not more, than the other states,” he said. “The idea that we would take that money away from those schools — I don’t think there’s any actual political appetite for that.”

‘Inherent logical inconsistencies’

Trump recently tapped Linda McMahon — a co-chair of his transition team, Small Business Administration head during his first term and former World Wrestling Entertainment CEO — as his nominee for Education secretary.

If confirmed, she will play a crucial role in carrying out his education plans, which include promoting universal school choice and parental rights, moving education “back to the states” and ending “wokeness” in education.

Trump is threatening to cut federal funding for schools that teach “critical race theory,” “gender ideology” or “other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” according to his plan.

On the flip side, he wants to boost funding for states and school districts that adhere to certain policy directives.

That list includes districts that: adopt a “Parental Bill of Rights that includes complete curriculum transparency, and a form of universal school choice;” get rid of “teacher tenure” for grades K-12 and adopt “merit pay;” have parents hold the direct elections of school principals; and drastically reduce the number of school administrators.

But basing funding decisions on district-level policy choices would require the kind of federal involvement in education that Trump is pushing against.

Perera described seeing “inherent logical inconsistencies” in Trump’s education plan.

While he is talking about dismantling the department and sending education “back to the states,” he’s “also talking about leveraging the powers of the department to punish school districts for ‘political indoctrination,’” she said.

“He can’t do that if you are unwinding the federal role in K-12 schools,” she said.

Last updated 11:23 a.m., Nov. 25, 2024

NC Newsline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. NC Newsline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Rob Schofield for questions: info@ncnewsline.com. Follow NC Newsline on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — Republican U.S. Rep. Nancy Mace of South Carolina led a charge Monday to try to ban transgender women from using women’s restrooms in the U.S. Capitol and House office buildings, following the election of a transgender lawmaker.

The move, which the House Democratic leader characterized as attempting to “bully” another member, came as Democrat Sarah McBride of Delaware will soon be sworn in as the first openly transgender member of Congress. Republicans also have undertaken broader efforts to bar transgender people from using restrooms that align with their gender identity.

“Biological men do not belong in private women’s spaces,” Mace wrote in a post on X alongside the resolution she is pushing. “Period. Full stop. End of story.”

The resolution would prohibit members of Congress, officers and employees of the House from using “single-sex facilities” other than those corresponding to their “biological sex.”

It reads: “A Member, Delegate, Resident Commissioner, officer, or employee of the House may not use a single-sex facility (including a restroom, changing room, or locker room) in the Capitol or House Office Buildings, other than those corresponding to the biological sex of such individual.”

The House sergeant-at-arms would be tasked with enforcement, according to the resolution, so it appears it would apply only to bathrooms on the House side of the Capitol and not the Senate.

In a post on X Monday appearing to respond to Mace’s push, McBride said “every day Americans go to work with people who have life journeys different than their own and engage with them respectfully, I hope members of Congress can muster that same kindness.”

“This is a blatant attempt from far right-wing extremists to distract from the fact that they have no real solutions to what Americans are facing,” McBride added.

Meanwhile, U.S. Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene said Mace’s resolution “doesn’t go far enough” and “we need something more binding” while speaking to reporters Tuesday.

The Georgia Republican, who referred to McBride as a “biological man,” said “America’s fed up with the trans ideology being shoved into our face.”

Greene said she asked U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson at the House GOP conference meeting Tuesday “what the men in our leadership are going to do about this, because this has to be stopped.”

According to Greene, the Louisiana Republican committed to her that McBride “will not be using our restrooms.”

However, at a Tuesday press conference following that GOP meeting, Johnson would not specify how he would respond to Mace’s resolution.

“This is an issue that Congress has never had to address before,” Johnson said, while also noting that “it’s a command that we treat all persons with dignity and respect.”

“We’ll provide appropriate accommodation for every member of Congress,” he added.

House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries questioned House Republicans’ priorities Tuesday regarding Mace’s effort.

“This is your priority — that you want to bully a member of Congress as opposed to welcoming her to join this body so that all of us can work together to get things done and deliver real results for the American people?” said the New York Democrat at a Tuesday news conference.

Last updated 11:38 a.m., Nov. 19, 2024

Arizona Mirror is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arizona Mirror maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jim Small for questions: info@azmirror.com. Follow Arizona Mirror on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON — Calling the 2024 presidential campaign unprecedented might be an understatement.

A series of shocking events have rocked this presidential race as Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump sprint to the finish line in the hopes of securing the nation’s highest post.

Less than four months ago, Harris wasn’t even in the running.

And Trump, whose bid to return to the White House after a felony conviction in New York was already historic, survived two apparent assassination attempts.

The Democratic and Republican presidential candidates are closing out a neck-and-neck contest that could be decided by just a handful of voters in seven swing states.

On Election Day in the United States, here’s a glimpse into the highs — and lows — of the historic 2024 presidential campaign:

A Trump-Biden rematch

Trump and President Joe Biden, the then-Democratic presidential candidate, drew several challengers while vying for their respective parties’ nominations.

Trump certainly had a more competitive pool of primary challengers.

With the former president facing four separate prosecutions and the memory of the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol fresh in voters’ minds, a field including former U.N. ambassador and former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, former Vice President Mike Pence, entrepreneur Vivek Ramaswamy, South Carolina Sen. Tim Scott, former New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie, North Dakota Gov. Doug Burgum and former Arkansas Gov. Asa Hutchinson sought the Republican nomination.

Biden’s most serious challenger appeared at the primaries’ outset to be U.S. Rep. Dean Phillips, who was little known outside his Minnesota district. But the incumbent ultimately lost more votes to Democrats who chose “Uncommitted” rather than support Biden over his handling of the Israel-Hamas war.

After sweeping Super Tuesday victories in March, both Trump and Biden secured the number of delegates necessary to clinch their parties’ nominations.

Third-party hopefuls have also sought to make their mark during the 2024 presidential campaign, perhaps most notably Robert F. Kennedy Jr. — an environmental lawyer and anti-vaccine activist.

Kennedy suspended his independent presidential campaign in August and endorsed Trump.

Meanwhile, independent presidential candidate Cornel West and the Green Party nominee Jill Stein are both vying for the White House under third-party bids.

And amid the ongoing war in Gaza, pro-Palestinian organizers have put pressure on both the Biden administration and Harris, as she vies for the Oval Office, through the Uncommitted National Movement.

The movement has seen a wide swath of organizers who have protested Biden’s policies regarding the Israel-Hamas war and called for an arms embargo and ceasefire.

Biden bows out, Harris steps up

Following primaries in both parties, Biden and Trump were set for a rematch of the 2020 race and scheduled a general election debate for late June.

Biden’s disastrous performance, in which he spoke softly and appeared to lose his train of thought at times, prompted an outcry from Democratic lawmakers, who urged him to drop his White House bid.

Less than a month later while fighting a COVID-19 infection at home, Biden bowed out of the race and passed the torch to Harris.

The veep then embarked on an unprecedented and expedited presidential campaign. If elected, she would become the first woman president, the first president of South Asian descent and the second Black president.

The summer months also saw the formal nominations of Trump and Harris’ respective running mates — Ohio GOP Sen. J.D. Vance and Minnesota Democratic Gov. Tim Walz — as both parties revved up their supporters at their national conventions.

Assassination attempts against Trump

Trump survived an assassination attempt in July during a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, where officials say a would-be assassin killed one rallygoer, injured two others and shot the former president’s ear.

The attack prompted a slew of federal probes and a bipartisan congressional task force to investigate.

U.S. Secret Service Director Kimberly Cheatle, whose agency faced a deluge of scrutiny following the attack, resigned just days later.

In September, authorities responded to a second apparent assassination attempt against Trump while he was golfing at the Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, prompting even more questions regarding the former president’s safety and security.

Trump’s legal battles take center stage in campaign

Against the backdrop of his presidential bid, Trump has been mired in several legal battles and had to balance court appearances with his campaign schedule.

Trump was found guilty on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in May in a New York court. He is the first former U.S. president to be convicted of felony crimes.

He’s also been charged in a federal election interference case and a Georgia election interference case.

A federal classified documents case against him has been tossed out, at least for now.

His federal election interference case was put on pause for several months earlier this year while his claim of presidential immunity played out in the courts.

That argument made its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, which found that presidents are granted full immunity from criminal charges for any official “core constitutional” acts, though they have no immunity for any unofficial acts.

A White House win for Trump could greatly influence how the rest of his legal battles play out in the courts — and whether they continue at all.

Final stretch of 2024 presidential campaign

Harris and Trump sparred in a presidential debate in September, trading barbs while touting their own policy proposals.

As polling has repeatedly depicted Trump and Harris in a super-tight race in which neither has a measurable advantage, the two have spent the majority of their campaigns in the swing states of Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin.

The Trump campaign received backlash for comedian Tony Hinchcliffe’s racist and vulgar remarks during a late October rally at Madison Square Garden in New York City, including calling Puerto Rico “a floating island of garbage.”

And in what her campaign dubbed her “closing argument,” Harris called on voters last week to reject Trump’s “chaos and division.” She spoke to more than 75,000 spectators, according to campaign estimates.

She delivered her speech at the Ellipse in Washington, D.C. — the site where Trump held a rally on Jan. 6, 2021, before his supporters attacked the U.S. Capitol.

As the country reaches the end of an exhausting and winding presidential campaign, voters will soon determine whether Harris or Trump will be the next leader of the free world.

Last updated 6:30 a.m., Nov. 5, 2024

New Jersey Monitor is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. New Jersey Monitor maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Terrence T. McDonald for questions: info@newjerseymonitor.com. Follow New Jersey Monitor on Facebook and X.

WASHINGTON —As the United States continues to see election-related violence and lawsuits challenging voters’ eligibility, a democracy watchdog group is aiming to make sure voters are protected when casting their ballots.

A week ahead of the presidential election, in which Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump are vying for the Oval Office, the nonpartisan group Common Cause is gathering volunteers across the country to assist Americans in voting without obstruction.

“Right now, we’re seeing litigation ranging from challenging voters’ eligibility, to challenging their completed ballots, challenging long-standing rules around elections, trying to purge voter rolls,” said Sylvia Albert, democracy and representation policy counsel for Common Cause, during a Tuesday media briefing.

“I think most important to know is that this close to an election, individuals cannot rewrite laws by whim or remove people from the voter rolls — there is clear law to protect voters from these kinds of attacks,” she added.

Albert said the organization is keeping an eye on all of the cases where voters’ eligibility or their completed ballots are being challenged and is “working with partners to ensure that somebody is always at the table to protect voters.”

“But, really, the message that we want to get across is that every eligible American should have the freedom to vote and to have their voice heard, and voters should rest assured that they should cast their ballot and know that it will be counted,” she said.

Common Cause state leaders in Florida, as well as in the swing states of North Carolina, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania, also shared some election protection efforts and what they are witnessing in terms of early voter turnout.

Virginia Kase Solomón, president and CEO of Common Cause, cited thousands of election protection volunteers who have signed up and said more are joining daily. The organization co-leads the Election Protection coalition.

“Our coalition is operating field programs in 42 states for the 2024 election,” she said, adding that “our election protection hotlines are open, and they are already assisting voters.” That number is 866-OUR-VOTE.

More than 51.3 million early votes were documented as of Tuesday afternoon, according to the University of Florida Election Lab’s early voting tracker.

Meanwhile, as fears of election-related violence in the U.S. persist, two ballot drop boxes were set ablaze this week in Vancouver, Washington, and Portland, Oregon — destroying hundreds of ballots — and authorities believe the incidents are likely connected.

Suzanne Almeida, director of state operations for Common Cause, said “we have not seen a trend coming out of the fires that we saw earlier … that there are ongoing attacks on ballot drop boxes.”

Almeida noted that “vote by mail is still incredibly secure” and “ballot drop boxes are still an incredibly valid way to return your ballot.”

“In fact, at this point in the election cycle, I would not recommend putting your ballot in the mail,” she said, urging people to instead use a ballot drop box or other ballot return system.

Almeida also recommends that any voter in Washington or Oregon who believes their ballot was affected by the fires should track their ballot online at the websites for their local and state elections officials.

“You should reach out to those elections officials and get a reissued ballot,” Almeida said. “We are in no way too late to get those ballots … voted and counted.”

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com. Follow Minnesota Reformer on Facebook and X.

Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump will take the stage on Tuesday in the only planned debate between the respective Democratic and GOP presidential candidates between now and November.

It’s the first presidential debate since President Joe Biden bowed out of the race following his own disastrous debate performance in late June against Trump. Biden, who faced mounting calls to resign, passed the torch to Harris back in July.

The vice president has embarked on an unprecedented and expedited campaign as she and Trump vie for the Oval Office. The election is just two months away.

Though the Harris and Trump campaigns clashed over debate procedures in recent weeks, both candidates have agreed to the finalized rules. ABC News, host of the debate, released the rules.

When and where is the debate?

The debate will be Tuesday, Sept. 10, at 9 p.m. Eastern time at the National Constitution Center in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The debate will be 90 minutes long and include two commercial breaks, according to ABC.

The Keystone State — where both Harris and Trump have spent a lot of time campaigning — could determine the outcome of the presidential election. The battleground state has narrowly flip-flopped in recent elections, with Biden turning Pennsylvania blue in 2020 after Trump secured a red win in 2016.

How can I watch the debate?

The debate will air live on ABC News and will also be streaming on ABC News Live, Disney+ and Hulu.

ABC News’ David Muir and Linsey Davis will moderate the debate.

Harris and Trump will each have two minutes to answer questions and two minutes to give rebuttals. They will also be granted one additional minute to clarify or follow up on anything.

Will the mics be muted?

Microphones will be muted when it’s not a candidate’s turn to speak, just like the previous debate between Biden and Trump in June.

The candidates will not give opening statements. Trump won a coin flip to determine the order of closing statements and podium placement. Trump, who selected the statement order, will give the final closing statement.

Each closing statement will be two minutes long.

Harris and Trump are not allowed to bring any props or prewritten notes to the debate stage. They will each receive a pen, a pad of paper and a water bottle.

Will there be a live audience?

There will be no live audience at the National Constitution Center, as was the case in the last presidential debate.

Harris and Trump are not permitted to interact with their campaign staff during the two commercial breaks.

Trump slams ABC ahead of debate

Trump went on the attack over the details of the debate, telling Fox News’ Sean Hannity during an interview Wednesday in Pennsylvania that “ABC is the worst network in terms of fairness” and “the most dishonest network, the meanest, the nastiest.”

He accused the network of releasing poor polls on purpose ahead of a previous election to drive down voter turnout.

Trump also claimed, without evidence, that Harris would get the questions in advance of the debate. ABC’s debate rules state that no candidates or campaigns will receive any topics or questions ahead of the event.

Meanwhile, Democratic Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Ohio Republican Sen. J.D. Vance will battle it out at the vice presidential debate hosted by CBS News on Oct. 1 in New York City.

Oregon Capital Chronicle is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Oregon Capital Chronicle maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Lynne Terry for questions: info@oregoncapitalchronicle.com. Follow Oregon Capital Chronicle on Facebook and X.