&w=3840&q=100)
'President's priorities': Trump administration holds back $7 bn school funds meant for learning, training
The Trump administration has withheld nearly $7 billion in federal education funding that supports after-school and summer programmes, English language learning, teacher training, and other essential services.
According to The New York Times report, the funds were expected to be released by Tuesday.
However, in an email sent on Monday, the US Department of Education informed states that the money would not be made available as scheduled, added the report.
The administration offered minimal explanation, saying only that the funding is under review.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
No timeline was provided for when, or if, the funds would be released. A brief statement said the administration is 'committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the president's priorities,' reported NYT.
The frozen funds are not connected to the domestic policy bill that narrowly passed the Senate on Tuesday, which includes separate cuts to various programmes.
Move likely to face legal challenges
'It's catastrophic,' NYT quoted Jodi Grant, executive director of the Afterschool Alliance, a group that works to expand after-school services for students, as saying.
She estimated that the roughly $1.3 billion in federal funding for after-school and summer programmes each year supports around 1.4 million students, primarily from low-income families, accounting for about 20% of all students enrolled in such programmes nationwide.
According to the report, the decision is likely to face legal challenges and has already drawn sharp criticism from Democrats and teachers' unions, who argue it is unlawful.
They note that the funds were appropriated by Congress and signed into law by President Trump in March as part of a larger funding package.
'This is lawless,' NYT quoted Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, as saying.
The Trump administration has aggressively sought to shrink the federal role in education, even proposing to eliminate the Education Department, though only Congress has the power to do so.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
In the meantime, it has slashed staffing and funding across the board.
Permanent cut in funds?
Officials have hinted at plans to permanently eliminate the nearly $7 billion in frozen education funds, reported NYT.
During a Senate hearing last week, White House budget director Russell Vought said the administration is exploring a process called 'rescission' to formally request Congress revoke the funds. Even without a congressional vote, the request would freeze the money until it eventually expires.
'No decision has been made,' Vought was quoted as saying.
The freeze on education funds has left school districts scrambling just weeks before classes resume. The uncertainty threatens after-school programmes, support for English learners, teacher training, and mental health services.
According to NYT report, in rural Umatilla, Oregon, Superintendent Heidi Sipe warned parents to make backup plans, noting her federally funded after-school programme runs until 5:30 pm but has no local alternatives.
In Omaha, Nicole Everingham of Collective for Youth said reduced funding would force cuts in after-school slots and staffing across 42 public schools.
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Even a delayed release of funds could disrupt hiring and planning, leaving working families in limbo. 'It completely puts us in flux,' NYT quoted Everingham as saying.
Districts like Oxnard, California, also rely on federal dollars to support non-English-speaking families. 'Without this outreach, families… could be cut off from schools,' Superintendent Ana DeGenna told NYT.
Many of the affected programmes, like the 21st Century Community Learning Centers and Student Support and Academic Enrichment grants, have enjoyed bipartisan support for decades.
Still, most criticism of the freeze has come from Democrats.
'Every day that this funding is held up is a day that school districts are forced to worry about whether they'll have to cut back on after-school programs or lay off teachers instead of worrying about how to make sure our kids can succeed,' Senator Patty Murray, a Democrat who is the vice chairwoman of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said in a statement.
With inputs from agencies
STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Mint
18 minutes ago
- Mint
Vietnam trade deal takes aim at back door for Chinese goods
SINGAPORE—A tariff agreement with Vietnam emphasizes one of the White House's top priorities in this frantic round of dealmaking over global trade: Slamming shut any back door routes for Chinese goods to enter the U.S. A key provision of the Vietnam deal announced by President Trump Wednesday is that goods 'transshipped" to the U.S. through Vietnam would be subject to a punitive 40% tariff, twice the 20% rate Trump said he is applying to regular imports from Vietnam. The president didn't mention China explicitly and the exact details of how such rerouting will be defined and policed are unclear. Nevertheless, analysts say the measure appears squarely aimed at making it harder for firms to use the southeast Asian nation as a staging post to ship goods to the U.S. from China while sidestepping the steep levies that Chinese imports would typically face. These provisions of the Vietnam deal show that China remains the central focus of U.S. trade policy even after Washington and Beijing reached a shaky trade truce and discussions with other partners over trade drag on. The agreement implies that other countries will also be expected to limit China's presence in their economies if they want to keep selling to the U.S. The U.S. and U.K. agreed to provisions in their recent trade pact that require the U.K. to strengthen supply-chain security, which were similarly interpreted as targeting China. 'There does appear to be a more strategic intent here by the U.S. to essentially restrict Chinese exports entering the U.S. market via the backdoor," said Frederic Neumann, chief Asia economist at HSBC in Hong Kong. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning on Thursday reiterated Beijing's displeasure at the U.S. approach when asked about the pact, saying trade 'negotiations and agreements should not target or harm the interests of third parties." Vietnam was one of the main beneficiaries of the reordering of global supply chains in the wake of Trump's first term and the tumult of the Covid-19 pandemic. Factories mushroomed around Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City as Chinese and Western firms looked for ways to diversify their production base amid the strains of the pandemic and increasing geopolitical rivalry between Washington and Beijing. For U.S. consumers, Vietnam's entry into the top rank of exporting nations brought a bounty of affordable goods, as companies including Nike and Apple expanded production in the country. Shares of both companies rose Thursday after Trump said the trade pact was agreed. Michel Bertsch, who runs a factory in Vietnam that sells baby furniture such as cribs to the U.S. and other Western countries, said the 20% tariffs will inevitably translate into higher prices for American consumers. Still, he said he thought that Vietnam would remain a top destination for manufacturing. U.S. imports from China are subject to an average tariff of 40% to 50%, giving Vietnam an edge even with a 20% tariff, though whether it can keep that advantage depends on where tariff rates settle for alternative bases such as India or Indonesia. 'We need to wait and see what tariffs will be imposed on other countries but we don't think that we will lose competitiveness," Bertsch said. As recently as 2018, the U.S. deficit in goods trade with Vietnam was smaller than its deficit with Japan or Germany and a 10th the size of its deficit with China. By the end of last year, the U.S. deficit with Vietnam had ballooned to more than $120 billion, putting Vietnam behind only China and Mexico in its share of the U.S.'s $1.2 trillion goods trade deficit. Vietnam's rise up the rankings in U.S. trade has also drawn scrutiny from the U.S. as a hub for simply rerouting China-made goods bound for the U.S. for firms wanting to dodge tariffs. Chinese exports to the U.S. were about 10% lower in the first five months of the year than the same period a year earlier as tariffs bit into direct trade between the two economic superpowers, Chinese customs data show. Over the same period, however, Vietnamese imports from China were up 28% year over year, Vietnamese data show, while Vietnamese exports to the U.S. rose 26%. Deepali Bhargava, regional head of research for Asia-Pacific at investment bank ING, said in a report Thursday there are 'strong signs of transshipment" in sectors including machinery, electrical products and insulated wires and cables. Vietnam has taken steps to crack down on such trade rerouting through tougher policing of rules of origin certification, which give customs authorities detailed information about where a product and its components were made to levy the appropriate duties. Many different types of goods made in Vietnam, including clothing, furniture and electronics, use components made in China. Exactly how the U.S. plans to determine whether a product from Vietnam would qualify for a 20% tariff or a 40% tariff isn't clear. Still, 'these provisions send a clear message to global firms: the recent fall in tariffs between the U.S. and China doesn't weaken the argument for building supply chains outside China," Capital Economics economists Mark Williams and Gareth Leather said in a report Thursday. Write to Jason Douglas at and Jon Emont at
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
Donald Trump's ‘Big, Beautiful Bill' heads for final vote — major relief for NRIs as India remittance tax cut to 1%
The US House of Representatives is expected to hold a final vote on President Donald Trump's flagship tax-and-spending legislation, known as the 'One Big, Beautiful Bill.' This comprehensive bill, central to Trump's second-term economic plans, has faced a challenging journey through Congress. Despite initial approval in May, the bill returns to the lower chamber after narrowly passing the Senate on Tuesday with a one-vote margin. Although introduced by the Republican president, the bill has attracted criticism from several lawmakers within his own party. Concerns raised include the projected $3 trillion increase in national debt and significant cuts to social welfare programs. Major relief for Indian remitters in final draft One of the most notable revisions in the final draft of the bill, released on June 27, involves a substantial reduction in the proposed tax on international remittances. Originally set at 5 percent, the tax was first reduced to 3.5 percent and now stands at just 1 percent. This change comes as a relief to many Indian professionals and non-resident Indians (NRIs) in the US who regularly send money back home. The provision will benefit nearly 4.5 million Indians living in the US, including 3.2 million persons of Indian origin. It applies to US residents who are not citizens—such as Green Card holders, temporary visa holders like H-1B and H-2A workers, and international students. According to the latest version of the bill, 'There is hereby imposed on any remittance transfer a tax equal to 1 per cent of the amount of such transfer… paid by the sender.' Specific transfers exempt from tax The bill also outlines specific exemptions. Transfers made from accounts held by financial institutions and those funded via US-issued debit or credit cards will not be taxed under this provision. Cash transfers, money orders, and cashier's checks will fall under the 1 percent tax rate. This final version of the bill reflects efforts to balance domestic economic concerns with the financial realities of millions of immigrants working in the United States, particularly those from India. As the House prepares for a conclusive vote, all eyes remain on how this high-stakes legislation will shape Trump's economic legacy.
The Print
23 minutes ago
- The Print
Amit Shah's attack on English will club him with Jyoti Basu in West Bengal
While the praise for Indian languages and their rich diversity is indeed commendable, this unprovoked attack on the English language from the man who holds the second-most powerful office in the country was uncalled for. It disincentivises students from being proficient in English and seriously hampers their future job prospects, while making Amit Shah sound like former West Bengal chief minister Jyoti Basu, a comparison, one is inclined to believe, Shah would not be happy with. Shah called for a renewed effort across the country to reclaim India's linguistic heritage , and said English would be frowned upon as a symbol of colonial slavery across the world. Jyoti Basu had robbed an entire generation of Bengalis of the opportunities that come with English language education. Fifteen years after his death on 17 January 2010, Amit Shah is threatening to do the same. Last month at a book launch event, the Union Home Minister said: 'In this country, those who speak English will soon feel ashamed — the creation of such a society is not far away. I believe that the languages of our country are the jewels of our culture. Without our languages, we cease to be truly Indian.' English vinglish When Prime Minister Narendra Modi came to power in 2014, a big chunk of the Right-wing ecosystem launched a scathing attack on Indians who had a certain proficiency for the English language and were considered socially liberal. Citizens who presumably did not vote for the BJP and were Left-liberal in their socio-political outlook were dubbed the 'Khan Market gang' (a pejorative term invented for a small slice of English-educated, privileged citizenry who were regular visitors to a posh shopping centre originally built to house refugees in the heart of New Delhi). It is another matter that not only were many vocal Right-wingers regular visitors at Khan Market, the rise of Modi saw a whole host of writers, economists, historians produce critically-acclaimed books from topline publishing houses written in English. The term, though, served its political purpose as Modi went on to win two more elections at the Centre with the government's hard push, among other issues, for vernacularity that yielded rich electoral dividends. A few recent events should have deterred the government, if not the Right-wing ecosystem, from attacking the need for English language proficiency. One of the government's all-party delegations formed for India's global outreach on Operation Sindoor was fronted by Congressman Shashi Tharoor, who brings to the table not just his diplomatese but also his command over the English language. But more importantly, a NITI Aayog report published this February said that the lack of English proficiency was a key barrier to state university graduates getting jobs. 'In many states, the talent pool and resources employed in local industries predominantly originate from outside the state. A significant contributing factor to this trend is the inadequate English language proficiency among local youth,' the report said. The report stated that there was a pressing need to enhance the employability skills of students, by encouraging them to remain within the state and contribute to its growth and development, not only at a regional but also at a national level. And to tackle the issue, the NITI Aayog recommended partnering with international language organisations to impart English and other foreign language proficiency programmes for students. Then there is the point about political optics. Ideologically, the Left has been the arch enemy of the Right globally, with India being no exception. In the run-up to the 2021 Assembly election in West Bengal, a senior RSS functionary told me during an interview for my book Bengal 2021: An Election Diary that the main enemy for the Right in Bengal was not Mamata Banerjee, but the Left. 'The Left is not just a small band of political parties but a foreign, disruptive ideology that has entered the very bloodstream of the country,' he said. Given such animosity between the Left and the Right, should Amit Shah push for the exclusion of English that Jyoti Basu, who was the sixth and longest–serving chief minister of West Bengal from 1977 to 2000, implemented during his tenure? Also read: English is now code for 'Khan Market Gang'. BJP is fighting a phantom enemy Bengal's lost years In 1983, barely six years after coming to power, the Left Front government under Jyoti Basu banned the teaching of English till Class 6. The government justified the ban by citing a recommendation of the Himangshu Bimal Mazumdar Commission constituted during the Congress government in 1975 that had said that the teaching of two languages to children till Class 6 would be 'tortuous and unscientific'. The Left had also justified the move by saying that one of the primary intentions of abolishing English was to increase enrolment of students in primary classes in state-aided schools in rural districts. Increasing the success rate in Madhyamik (Class 10 board examination conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education) was another motive behind keeping English teaching out of state-aided schools. As the move robbed a generation of students of English proficiency, even global media sat up and took notice. 'The Marxist government in India's eastern state of West Bengal has decided to drop English as a compulsory language for primary students despite protests from intellectuals. Writers and poets have taken to the streets and courted arrest to protest the decision that English will not be taught until fifth grade in government schools and government-supported institutions,' The New York Times wrote on 5 April 1981. Outside West Bengal, in Uttar Pradesh, English had become not just a language, but a goddess, with a two-feet tall bronze statue modelled after the Statue of Liberty. Few members of the Dalit community in Banka village had begun to worship this goddess of the English language, which they believed would let them climb up the socio-economic ladder. 'She is the symbol of Dalit renaissance,' Dalit activist and writer Chandra Bhan Prasad, who had come up with the idea of the goddess of English, had told BBC. 'In her left hand, she holds a book which is the constitution of India which gave Dalits equal rights. She stands on top of a computer which means we will use English to rise up the ladder and become free for ever,' he had argued. The English language, thus, is not just a means to improve job prospects, but a vehicle for social mobility for India's traditionally disadvantaged social blocks. In West Bengal, it would take Basu's successor, Buddhadeb Bhattacharya, to undo his blunder and reintroduce English into primary schools in 2007. But who could have compensated for the lost years of Bengali job seekers without English proficiency. What Jyoti Basu had done to a generation of Bengalis, Amit Shah should not do to Indians. Deep Halder is an author and journalist. He tweets @deepscribble. Views are personal. (Edited by Aamaan Alam Khan)
