Detroit Schools Have Highest Cuts to Federal Funding in Michigan
Detroit schools are facing some of the deepest cuts to federal funding in the country as The White House withholds $6.2 billion of funds nationwide.
The appropriations were already approved by Congress and signed into law by President Donald Trump.
But the administration informed states that they would be withholding the funding for five programs that support educator development, student enrichment programs, migrant education, English learners and 21st-century learning centers.
Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter
While data isn't available for the program supporting migrant education, federal data organized by New America shows that Michigan stands to lose $81.6 million across the other four programs – accounting for more than $65 per student in the state.
The deepest cuts are in areas represented in Congress by Democrats, with those school districts facing a loss of $45 million compared to nearly $36.6 million in areas represented by a Republican.
That's an average of $7.5 million per school district in Democratic areas compared to $5.2 million per district in Republican areas.
Michigan's seven Republican members of Congress represent 713,666 students, while the six Democrats in Michigan's congressional delegation represent 530,785 students.
On average, school districts represented by a Democrat would lose about $84 per student, while school districts represented by Republicans would lose about $51 per student.
That's a reversal from the national trend, where the average school district represented by a Republican would lose 1.6 times as much funding per pupil than those represented by a Democrat.
That's in part because while 91 of the 100 school districts nationwide facing the deepest cuts are in Republican congressional districts, Detroit is one of the ten districts with the most funding at risk.
They would lose the third most funding nationwide for student support and enrichment programs and the sixth most funding for education development.
In total, the district has more than $16 million on the line.
U.S. Rep. Shri Thanedar (D-Detroit) represents the hardest hit congressional district, which stands to lose about $210 per student, followed by U.S. Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Detroit) at about $87 per pupil.
The school district has the highest poverty rate across the 46 states for which data was available at 46.9%.
Detroit Public Schools Superintendent Nikolai Vitti could not be reached for comment.
Zahava Stadler is the project director of the Education Funding Equity Initiative in the Education Policy Program at New America.
She told Michigan Advance that highly impoverished districts are likely to face significant cuts since poverty rates are a consideration for some federal grants.
'Higher poverty districts are going to be hit again and again and again as the federal government dithers over whether or not to release all of these individual funding streams to which school districts are legally entitled,' Stadler said.
The federal government withholding the already-allocated funding has made it even more difficult for schools to plan their budgets after the Republican-led Michigan House of Representatives failed to pass a budget by their deadline of July 1.
Even if school districts are able to maintain the programs through other funding sources, Stadler said they wouldn't be able to then reimburse those funds later on if the federal funds came through.
'Money can't just get moved around at will,' Stadler said. 'Federal dollars have rules. And the administration is throwing districts into chaos as they are rapidly approaching a new school year.'
Beyond the programs themselves having an impact on students, Stadler said the fight over funding also symbolizes the wrong message for the students who benefit from them.
'The message that these kids are getting is that their country doesn't want to invest in them, their schools aren't able to invest in them,' Stadler said. 'And that is a really difficult and tragic thing to hear as a young person who is just trying to grow and thrive in a community of which they're a member.'
Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
25 minutes ago
- Yahoo
How Trump became the new master of the Senate
The most eventful week to date in the midterm battle for the Senate just came to a close. The field in one of the marquee races of 2026 finally took shape in North Carolina, the lead architect of Project 2025 launched a primary challenge against South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham, Rep. Mike Collins joined the Georgia GOP Senate primary, appointed Florida Sen. Ashley Moody continued on her special election glide path when her most serious Democratic challenger dropped out, and we got a little more insight into Nebraska. But don't lose sight of the larger narrative. Whatever else is happening in these races from week to week, the single most important factor determining the outcome of the 2026 Senate election cycle is President Donald Trump. Nothing else is even close. His approval ratings are part of this equation. Trump is famously rangebound in the polls, with a low ceiling and a high floor, but his popularity next year will matter — midterm history shows there is a correlation between a president's ratings and his party's fate. But Trump's unique ability to unleash the forces of electoral chaos is what really makes him the single most influential character. No one — not Mitch McConnell, not the National Republican Senatorial Committee, not Majority Leader John Thune nor anyone else — has done as much as Trump to directly shape the Senate GOP Conference over the past decade. Since taking office in 2017, he's hounded a handful of members out of office, been the proximate cause of lost Senate seats in Georgia and blown opportunities elsewhere (just Google McConnell and 'candidate quality'). By elevating JD Vance and Marco Rubio from their Senate seats into his administration, Trump created two more new Republican senators. Most recently, Trump upended the landscape in North Carolina. The traditional presidential play would have been to cut GOP Sen. Thom Tillis some slack, recognizing the complexity of the terrain and the party's need to maximize Tillis' chances of holding his seat. Instead, Trump became the catalyst for his retirement, enhancing Democratic chances of flipping the seat in one of the most competitive states in the nation. So far, Trump has been unusually disciplined when it comes to the Senate — by his standards, at least. Surrounded by the most capable political team he's ever assembled — and tempered by the bracing experience of two unsuccessful midterm elections — the president has judiciously dished out endorsements to incumbents and strategically withheld them. He's also largely avoided trashing wayward Senate Republicans. Until now. Whether it's the pressure from the Jeffrey Epstein saga or a reversion to the mean, the cracks are beginning to show. The gravitational pull toward chaos is overtaking his strategic imperatives. In the last week alone, Trump has publicly whacked three Senate Republicans — Josh Hawley (R-Mo.), Susan Collins (R-Maine) and 91-year-old Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the longest-serving member of the Senate — for largely minor political offenses. [Here's a thought exercise: Try imagining Barack Obama lighting up Robert Byrd for respecting an informal Senate practice, or George W. Bush torching Strom Thurmond. The missile aimed at Collins, who has consistently vexed the president, was predictable, though not particularly productive. Dragging one of the most vulnerable GOP incumbents doesn't advance the goal of holding a Senate majority. The dig at Grassley — especially after the Senate Judiciary chair and champion of whistle-blowers fell in line on the Emil Bove nomination — was simply gratuitous. The Iowan's GOP bona fides date back to the Eisenhower era; his ticket's been punched in the Iowa Legislature, the House and nearly a half-century in the Senate. To suggest Grassley lacks political courage, or is a RINO, or that the president carried him to reelection in 2022, is to play cat's paw with him. It also served no discernable purpose, other than to remind Grassley and everyone else of Trump's dominion over the Senate, which isn't really in question anymore. Grassley's meek response was revealing: he said he was 'offended' and 'disappointed' by the insult. Welp. Trump can't seem to help himself: He delights in taking down members of the world's most exclusive club. Counting his Truth Social posts aimed at Chuck Schumer and four other Senate Democrats ('SLEAZEBAGS ALL') Trump leveled public attacks on eight different senators in recent days. The equal-opportunity disparagement helps explain his deep connection with the base of an increasingly populist GOP: The grassroots appreciates the fact that, when it comes to Trump, everyone in a position of power — senators, foreign leaders, former presidents, billionaires and Fortune 500 CEOs — is fair game. The GOP begins with a structural advantage on the 2026 Senate map: Nearly all of the Republican seats up for election are in states Trump carried easily last year, while Democrats must defend at least four seats that are more precariously perched. While the midterm political winds typically blow against the party in power, to win back the majority Democrats have to flip four Republican seats, while not losing any they currently control. It's a daunting task, but Trump looms as the great equalizer. It wouldn't take more than a few impulsive, undisciplined moves — such as endorsing slavishly loyal but unelectable candidates in key races, or creating messy primaries by torpedoing shaky GOP incumbents — to create just enough opportunities for Democrats to compete on what is otherwise an unforgiving Senate map.
CNN
25 minutes ago
- CNN
The Trump administration takes a very Orwellian turn
Back in March, President Donald Trump signed an executive order targeted at the Smithsonian Institution that began as follows: 'Over the past decade, Americans have witnessed a concerted and widespread effort to rewrite our Nation's history, replacing objective facts with a distorted narrative driven by ideology rather than truth.' Despite the high-minded rhetoric, many worried the order was instead a thinly veiled effort to rewrite history more to Trump's liking. The order, for example, cited a desire to remove 'improper ideology' – an ominous phrase, if there ever was one – from properties like the Smithsonian. Those concerns were certainly bolstered this week. We learned that some historical information that recently vanished from the Smithsonian just so happens to have been objective history that Trump really dislikes: a reference to his two impeachments. The Smithsonian said that a board containing the information was removed from the National Museum of American History last month after a review of the museum's 'legacy content.' The board had been placed in front of an existing impeachment exhibit in September 2021. Just to drive this home: The exhibit itself is about 'Limits of Presidential Power.' And suddenly examples of the biggest efforts by Congress to limit Trump's were gone. It wasn't immediately clear that the board was removed pursuant to Trump's executive order. The Washington Post, which broke the news, reported that a source said the content review came after pressure from the White House to remove an art museum director. In other words, we don't know all the details of precisely how this went down – including whether the removal was specifically requested, or whether museum officials decided it might be a good way to placate Trump amid pressure. The Smithsonian says an updated version of the exhibit will ultimately mention all impeachment efforts, including Trump's. But it's all pretty Orwellian. And it's not the only example. Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people who would serve as impartial referees of the current narrative. But this week has taken things to another level. On Friday, Trump fired the commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics. This came just hours after that agency delivered Trump some very bad news: the worst non-Covid three-month jobs numbers since 2010. Some Trump allies have attempted to put a good face on this, arguing that Dr. Erika McEntarfer's removal was warranted because large revisions in the job numbers betrayed shoddy work. But as he did with the firing of then-FBI Director James B. Comey eight years ago, Trump quickly undermined all that. He told Newsmax that 'we fired her because we didn't believe the numbers today.' To the extent Trump did lay out an actual evidence-based case for firing McEntarfer, that evidence was conspiratorial and wrong, as CNN's Daniel Dale documented Friday. And even some Republican senators acknowledged this might be precisely as draconian and self-serving as it looked. Sen. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, for one, called it 'kind of impetuous' to fire the BLS head before finding out whether the new numbers were actually wrong. 'It's not the statistician's fault if the numbers are accurate and that they're not what the president had hoped for,' said Lummis, who is not often a Trump critic. Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina added that if Trump 'just did it because they didn't like the numbers, they ought to grow up.' Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska both worried that Trump's move would make it so people can't trust the data the administration is putting out. And that's the real problem here. It's not so much that Trump appears to be firing someone as retaliation; it's the message it sends to everyone else in a similar position. The message is that you might want that data and those conclusions to be to Trump's liking, or else. It's a recipe for getting plenty of unreliable data and conclusions. And even to the extent that information is solid, it will seed suspicions about the books having been cooked – both among regular Americans and, crucially, among those making key decisions that impact the economy. What happens if the next jobs report is great? Will the markets believe it? We've certainly seen plenty of rather blunt Trump efforts to control such narratives and rewrite history before. A sampling: He engaged in a yearslong effort to make Jan. 6 defendants who attacked the Capitol in his name out to be sympathetic patriots, even calling them 'hostages,' before pardoning them. His administration's efforts to weed out diversity, equity and inclusion from the government often ensnared things that merely celebrated Black people and women. He and his administration have at times taken rather dim views of the free speech rights of those who disagree with them, including talking about mere protests – i.e. not necessarily violence – as being 'illegal.' A loyalist US attorney at one point threatened to pursue people who criticized then-Trump ally Elon Musk even for non-criminal behavior. Trump has repeatedly suggested criticism of judges he likes should be illegal, despite regularly attacking judges he doesn't like. His term began with the portraits of military leaders who clashed with him being removed from the Pentagon. It also began with a massive purge of independent inspectors general charged with holding the administration to account. All of it reinforces the idea that Trump is trying to consolidate power by pursuing rather heavy-handed and blatant tactics. But if there's a week that really drove home how blunt these efforts can be, it might be this one.
The Hill
26 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump's plan for White House ballroom sparks outrage from his critics
President Trump's plans to add a massive $200 million ballroom to the White House is angering critics, who see him moving forward with the long-sought project as part of his desire to leave a lasting mark not only on the office of the presidency but the first house as well. The construction of the ballroom, the cost of which the White House says will be covered by Trump and other donors, will begin in September. Trump is also paving the White House Rose Garden (though the rose bushes will be saved), which the White House says is necessary so people can walk more easily for events held in the space. And he's added his personal gold touch to the Oval Office. Trump says he sees the ballroom as a way to add to his legacy. And while detractors say his decorative and more substantial changes are out of touch and ostentatious, he says they are necessary. 'I always said I was going to do something about the ballroom because they should have one,' he told reporters Thursday. 'So we'll be leaving it, it will be a great legacy project. And, I think it will be special.' When asked if any government funds will be used to construct the 90,000 square foot facility, Trump replied, 'no government dollars, no.' The White House said the sprawling event space will be built adjacent to the White House where the East Wing sits. The goal is to complete construction before the end of Trump's term in January 2029. Trump's vision is for a space where he and future presidents can host state dinners, large gatherings with business leaders and other ritzy parties or functions. 'We've been planning it for a long time,' Trump said. 'They've wanted a ballroom at the White House for more than 150 years. There's never been a president that was good at ballrooms. I'm really good.' Democrats and regular Trump critics offered a sharp pushback on his plans. 'This is what DOGE was all about, folks,' Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said in a video posted to social media hours after the White House announcement, referring to the president's Department of Government Efficiency. 'Cutting things from you, and giving it not to some place that needed it, giving it to the big shots who run the show, Donald Trump at the top of the list.' Others suggested Trump and his White House were planting an intentional distraction. 'You gotta hand it to MAGAs, for about a week they really did have everyone convinced they cared about kids and The Epstein Files,' journalist and pundit Seth Abramson wrote on social platform X. 'On to more important things! Did you hear Trump is building a $200M ballroom at the White House? Wowee!' The White House pushed back on those criticisms in a Friday statement to The Hill, saying 'as President Trump has said, for over 150 years, many presidents, administrations, and staff have all wanted a ballroom, and now we have a president who will accomplish building it.' 'President Trump is the best builder and developer in the entire world and the American people can rest well knowing that this project is in his hands,' a West Wing spokesperson said. 'Many future presidents and American citizens will enjoy it for generations to come.' The president, a longtime real estate mogul who is known for a hands-on approach in the design and construction of his resorts, golf courses and skyscraper office buildings, has long lamented the lack of sufficient event space at the White House. 'When it rains it's a disaster, and the tent's 100 yards, that's more than a football field away from the main entrance,' Trump said as part of his remarks to the press about the project. 'And people are shlopping down to the tent; it's not a pretty sight. The women with their lovely evening gowns, their hair all done, and they're a mess by the time they get [there].' There is longstanding precedent for presidents and first ladies putting their spin on the White House and its grounds. President Harry Truman oversaw a massive renovation from 1948 to 1952 that required he and his wife to move into the Blair House at the time and saw the White House completely gutted. Former first lady Jackie Kennedy, however, championed the historic preservation of the home and advocated that extreme renovations require oversight from the Committee for the Preservation of the White House. 'Every president and first family does make a mark on the White House — they already are a part of history and that snapshot in time,' said Anita McBride, former chief of staff to then-first lady Laura Bush. 'Since the cornerstone was laid, there have been additions, there have been changes that, at the time those happened, raised concerns.' The White House Historical Association welcomed Trump's planned ballroom. 'The history of the White House has evolved over 233 years since the cornerstone was laid in 1792. The South Portico, the North Portico, the East Wing, the West Wing, and the Truman Balcony all raised concerns at the time — but today, we can't imagine the White House without these iconic elements,' Stewart D. McLaurin, president of the association, told The Hill. He added, 'Since our founding by First Lady Jacqueline Kennedy in 1961, we have supported and partnered with every president and first lady caring for and adding to the White House and its Collection. We work to preserve the history of this remarkable museum, home, and office for generations to come.' Some agree with the president that a bigger events space at the White House is long overdue. 'I can understand why someone who thinks on a grand scale, as obviously President Trump does, would want this ballroom added,' said Barbara Perry, a presidential historian and co-chair of the Presidential Oral History Program at the University of Virginia's Miller Center. 'That being said, the optics for people who disagree with this president, it will probably have an impact on how they view this.' McBride agreed that the tents on the lawn, which have been constructed during more recent administrations, are not ideal. 'That doesn't come without challenges, putting up staging, putting up a covered structure, getting people to the actual location; dealing with inclement weather. And you're not really having your event in the White House,' she said. 'So you can see where that makes sense.' There are lingering questions about what the new ballroom location will mean for the staffers who work in the East Wing, which is where first lady's staff works. The East Wing is also where tours of the White House for the public are conducted. 'Betty Ford always called the East Wing the 'heart' of the White House,' McBride said. 'All the business and policy gets done in the West Wing, that's critically important. But the heart of the White House is the East Wing. And so what, what will be the new East Wing?' Others see the construction of an opulent addition to the president's residence as a matter of bad timing and poor optics given sluggish jobs reports and fears about how global tariffs might hurt the U.S. economy. 'This isn't something that's going to make or break another election, but it does add another page to the catalog of hypocrisy that these people read from when they want to lecture Americans about fiscal responsibility,' said Antjuan Seawright, a Democratic political strategist. 'It's a visible middle finger to working class Americans, many of whom voted for him.'
