
Rural schools feel the pinch from Trump administration's cuts to mental health grants
WASHINGTON (AP) -- In parts of rural upstate New York, schools have more than 1,100 students for every mental health provider. In a far-flung region with little public transportation, those few school counselors often are the only mental health professionals available to students.
Hennessey Lustica has been overseeing grant-funded efforts to train and hire more school psychologists, counselors and social workers in the Finger Lakes region, but those efforts may soon come to end -- a casualty of the Trump administration's decision to cancel school mental health grants around the country.
"Cutting this funding is just going to devastate kids," said Lustica, project director of the Wellness Workforce Collaborative in the Seneca Falls Central School District. "The workforce that we're developing, just in my 21 school districts it's over 20,000 kids that are going to be impacted by this and not have the mental health support that they need."
The $1 billion in grants for school-based mental health programs were part of a sweeping gun violence bill signed by President Joe Biden in 2022 in response to the school shooting in Uvalde, Texas. The grants were meant to help schools hire more psychologists, counselors and other mental health workers, especially in rural areas.
Under the Biden administration, the department prioritized applicants who showed how they would increase the number of providers from diverse backgrounds, or from communities directly served by the school district. But President Donald Trump's administration took issue with aspects of the grant programs that touched on race, saying they were harmful to students.
"We owe it to American families to ensure that taxpayer dollars are supporting evidence-based practices that are truly focused on improving students' mental health," Education Department spokesperson Madi Biedermann said.
School districts around the US cut off training and retention programs
Lustica learned of her grant's cancellation in April in a two-page letter from the Education Department, which said the government found that her work violated civil rights law. It did not specify how.
Lustica is planning to appeal the decision. She rejected the letter's characterization of her work, saying she and her colleagues abide by a code of ethics that honors each person's individuality, regardless of race, gender or identity.
"The rhetoric is just false," Lustica said. "I don't know how else to say it. I think if you looked at these programs and looked at the impact that these programs have in our rural school districts, and the stories that kids will tell you about the mental health professionals that are in their schools, it has helped them because of this program."
The grants supported programs in districts across the country. In California, West Contra Costa Unified School District will lose nearly $4 million in funding. In Alabama, Birmingham City Schools was notified it would not receive the rest of a $15 million grant it was using to train, hire and retain mental health staff.
In Wisconsin, the state's Department of Public Instruction will lose $8 million allocated for the next four years. The state had used the money to boost retention and expand programs to encourage high schoolers to pursue careers in school-based mental health.
"At a time when communities are urgently asking for help serving mental health needs, this decision is indefensible," state superintendent Jill Underly said in a statement.
In recent House and Senate hearings, Democrats pressed Education Secretary Linda McMahon on the end of the grants and the impact on students. McMahon told them mental health is a priority and the grants would be rebid and reissued.
"Anyone who works or spends time with kids knows these grants were funding desperately needed access to mental health care services," American Federation of Teachers president Randi Weingarten said in a statement. "Canceling the funding now is a cruel, reckless act that puts millions of children at risk."
Grant programs put more mental health specialists in schools
The strains on youth mental health are acute in many rural school districts.
In one upstate New York district, half the students have had to move due to economic hardship in the last five years, creating instability that can affect their mental health, Lustica said. In a survey of students from sixth through 12th grade in one county, nearly half reported feeling sad or depressed most of the time; one in three said their lives lacked clear purpose or meaning.
"We've got huge amounts of depression, huge amounts of anxiety, lots of trauma and not enough providers," Lustica said. "School is the place where kids are getting a lot of the services they need."
Some families in the region are unable to afford private counseling or are unable to get their children to appointments given transportation challenges, said Danielle Legg, a graduate student who did an internship as a school social worker with funding from the grant program.
"Their access to mental health care truly is limited to when they're in school and there's a provider there that can see them, and it's vital," Legg said.
In the past three years, 176 students completed their mental health training through the program Lustica oversees, and 85% of them were hired into shortage areas, she said.
The program that offered training to graduate students at schools helped address staffing needs and inspired many to pursue careers in educational settings, said Susan McGowan, a school social worker who supervised graduate students in Geneva City School District.
"It just feels, to me, really catastrophic," McGowan said of the grant cancellation. "These positions are difficult to fill, so when you get grad students who are willing to work hand in hand with other professionals in their building, you're actually building your capacity as far as staffing goes and you're supporting teachers."
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Yomiuri Shimbun
22 minutes ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Supreme Court Limits Nationwide Injunctions, but Fate of Trump Birthright Citizenship Order Unclear
WASHINGTON (AP) — A united conservative majority of the Supreme Court ruled Friday that federal judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear whether President Donald Trump's restrictions on birthright citizenship could soon take effect in parts of the country. The outcome represented a victory for Trump, who has complained about judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda. Nationwide, or universal, injunctions had emerged as an important check on the Republican president's efforts to expand executive power and remake the government and a source of mounting frustration to him and his allies. But the court left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump's order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally or temporarily. The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, which was written by Justice Amy Coney Barrett. Enforcement of the policy can't take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote. Even then it's unclear whether the court's decision could produce a confusing patchwork of rules that might differ in the 22 states that sued over the Trump order and the rest of the country. The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden's Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court. Judges have issued more than 40 such orders since Trump took office for a second term in January. The administration has filed emergency appeals with the justices of many of those orders, including the ones on birthright citizenship. The court rarely hears arguments and issues major decisions on its emergency, or shadow, docket, but it did so in this case. Federal courts, Barrett wrote, 'do not exercise general oversight of the Executive Branch; they resolve cases and controversies consistent with the authority Congress has given them. When a court concludes that the Executive Branch has acted unlawfully, the answer is not for the court to exceed its power, too.' The president, speaking in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was 'amazing' and a 'monumental victory for the Constitution,' the separation of powers and the rule of law. Senate Democratic leader Chuck Schumer of New York wrote on X that the decision is 'an unprecedented and terrifying step toward authoritarianism, a grave danger to our democracy, and a predictable move from this extremist MAGA court.' Justice Sonia Sotomayor, writing in dissent for the three liberal justices, called the decision 'nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.' This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court. The administration didn't even ask, as it has in other cases, for the lower-court rulings to be blocked completely, Sotomayor wrote. 'To get such relief, the government would have to show that the order is likely constitutional, an impossible task,' she wrote. But the ultimate fate of the changes Trump wants to make were not before the court, Barrett wrote, just the rules that would apply as the court cases continue. Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of 'putative nationwide class.' Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion. States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold. 'We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,' said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts. Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution's 14th Amendment. In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes. The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or 'right of the soil' — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them. Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called 'a priceless and profound gift' in the executive order he signed on his first day in office. The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not 'subject to the jurisdiction' of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship. But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment's adoption. Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration. The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings. The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump's plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case. The justices also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.


Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
California Gov. Gavin Newsom Sues Fox News over Alleged Defamation in Story about Call with Trump
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — California Gov. Gavin Newsom sued Fox News on Friday over alleged defamation, saying the network knowingly aired false information about a phone call he had with President Donald Trump around the time the National Guard was sent Los Angeles. The lawsuit alleges Fox News anchor Jesse Watters edited out key information from a clip of Trump talking about calling Newsom, then used the edited video to assert that Newsom had lied about the two talking. Newsom is asking for $787 million in punitive damages in the lawsuit filed in Delaware, where Fox is incorporated. That's the same amount Fox agreed to pay in 2023 to settle a defamation lawsuit by Dominion Voting Systems. The company said Fox repeatedly aired false allegations that its equipment had switched votes from Donald Trump to Joe Biden during the 2020 election, and the discovery process revealed the network's efforts not to alienate conservatives in its audience in the wake of Biden's victory. 'If Fox News wants to lie to the American people on Donald Trump's behalf, it should face consequences — just like it did in the Dominion case,' Newsom said in a statement. 'I believe the American people should be able to trust the information they receive from a major news outlet.' He asked a judge to order Fox to stop broadcasting 'the false, deceptive, and fraudulent video and accompanying statements' that Newsom said falsely say he lied about when he spoke to Trump regarding the situation in Los Angeles, where protests erupted on June 6 over Trump's immigration crackdown. Fox News said in a statement that it would fight the lawsuit 'vigorously' and looks forward to it being dismissed. 'Gov. Newsom's transparent publicity stunt is frivolous and designed to chill free speech critical of him,' it said. Newsom's suit centers on the details of the phone call with the president. Both Newsom and the White House have said the two spoke late at night June 6 in California, which was already June 7 on the East Coast. Though the content of the call is not part of the lawsuit, Newsom has said they never discussed Trump's plan to deploy the National Guard, which he announced the next day. Trump said the deployment was necessary to protect federal buildings from people protesting increased immigration arrests. Trump later announced that he would also deploy Marines to the area. On June 10, when 700 Marines arrived in the Los Angeles area, Trump told reporters he had spoken to Newsom 'a day ago' about his decision to send troops. That day Newsom posted on the social platform X that there had been no call. 'There was no call. Not even a voicemail,' Newsom wrote. On the evening of June 10, Fox's Jesse Watters Primetime show played a clip of Trump's statement about his call with Newsom but removed Trump's comment that the call was 'a day ago,' the lawsuit said. Watters also referred to call logs another Fox News reporter posted online showing the phone call the two had on June 6. 'Why would Newsom lie and claim Trump never called him? Why would he do that?' Watters said on air, according to the lawsuit. The segment included text across the bottom of the screen that said 'Gavin Lied About Trump's Call.' Newsom's suit argues that by editing the material, Fox 'maliciously lied as a means to sabotage informed national discussion.' Precise details about when the call happened are important because the days when Trump deployed the Guard to Los Angeles despite Newsom's opposition 'represented an unprecedented moment,' Newsom's lawyers wrote in a letter to Fox demanding a retraction and on-air apology. 'History was occurring in real time. It is precisely why reporters asked President Trump the very question that prompted this matter: when did he last speak with Governor Newsom,' the letter said. The law makes it difficult to prove defamation, but some cases result in settlements and, no matter the outcome, can tie up news outlets in expensive legal fights. Trump, particularly since taking office a second time, has been aggressive in going after news organizations he feels has wronged him. He is in settlement talks over his lawsuit against CBS News about a '60 Minutes' interview last fall with Democratic opponent Kamala Harris. And this week Trump's lawyers threatened to sue CNN and The New York Times over their reporting of an initial assessment of damage to Iran's nuclear program from a U.S. bombing.


Yomiuri Shimbun
an hour ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Hungary's LGBTQ+ Community Defies Government Ban on Pride March
BUDAPEST, Hungary (AP) — Hungary's LGBTQ+ community is preparing for a face-off with the country's autocratic government, and plans to push ahead with a march in the capital on Saturday despite a government ban and threats of legal repercussions. The populist party of Prime Minister Viktor Orbán in March fast-tracked a law through parliament that made it an offense to hold or attend events that 'depict or promote' homosexuality to minors aged under 18. Orbán earlier made clear that Budapest Pride — marking its 30th anniversary this year — was the explicit target of the law. But on Friday, Pride organizers along with Budapest Mayor Gergely Karácsony, European Commissioner Hadja Lahbib and Vice President of the European Parliament Nicolae Stefanuta said the march will take place Saturday despite official threats of heavy fines for participants and even jail time for the liberal mayor. They expect the march to be the largest ever Pride event in Hungary. 'The government is always fighting against an enemy against which they have to protect Hungarian people … This time, it is sexual minorities that are the target,' Karácsony told a news conference. 'We believe there should be no first and second class citizens, so we decided to stand by this event.' A crackdown on LGBTQ+ rights Critics of the Pride ban and other Hungarian legislation targeting LGBTQ+ communities say the policies are reminiscent of similar restrictions against sexual minorities in Russia. Hungary's recent law allows authorities to use facial recognition tools to identify individuals that attend a prohibited event. Being caught could result in fines of up to 200,000 Hungarian forints ($586.) Orbán, seen as Russian President Vladimir Putin's closest ally in the European Union, has in recent years prohibited same-sex adoption and banned any LGBTQ+ content including in television, films, advertisements and literature that is available to minors. His government argues exposure to such content negatively affects children's development. But opponents say the moves are part of a broader effort to scapegoat sexual minorities and consolidate his conservative base. Fines and facial recognition After police rejected several requests by organizers to register the Pride march, citing the recent law, Karácsony joined with organizers and declared it would be held as a separate municipal event — something he said does not require police approval. But Hungary's government has remained firm, insisting that holding the Pride march, even if it is sponsored by the city, would be unlawful. In a video on Facebook this week, Hungary's justice minister, Bence Tuzson, warned Karácsony that organizing Pride or encouraging people to attend is punishable by up to a year in prison. At the news conference Friday, Karácsony sought to dispel fears that police would impose heavy fines on Pride attendees. 'Police have only one task tomorrow: to guarantee the safety and security of those gathered at the event,' he said. Speaking to state radio on Friday, Orbán said that attending Pride 'will have legal consequences, but it can't reach the level of physical abuse.' 'The police could disperse such events, they have the right to do so. But Hungary is a civilized country,' he said. Right-wing counter-demonstrations On Thursday, radical right-wing party Our Homeland Movement announced it had requested police approval to hold assemblies at numerous locations across the city, many of them on the same route as the Pride march. Later, a neo-Nazi group said it too would gather Saturday at Budapest City Hall, from which the Pride march is set to depart. The group declared that only 'white, Christian, heterosexual men and women' were welcome to attend its demonstration. European officials respond Hungary's Pride ban has prompted a backlash from many of the country's partners and allies. Over 30 foreign embassies signed a joint statement this week expressing their commitment to 'every person's rights to equal treatment and nondiscrimination, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly.' European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen posted on social platform X on Wednesday, calling on Hungarian authorities to allow Pride to proceed 'without fear of any criminal or administrative sanctions against the organizers or participants.' More than 70 members of the European Parliament, as well as other officials from countries around Europe, are expected to participate in Saturday's march. Lahbib, the European Commissioner, said Friday that 'all eyes are on Budapest' as Pride marchers defy the government's ban. 'The EU is not neutral on hate,' she said. 'We cannot stay passive. We cannot tolerate what is intolerable.'