Some education grants in limbo were used for ‘leftwing agenda,' Trump administration says
The administration this week withheld more than $6 billion intended for after-school and summer programs, English language instruction, adult literacy and more, saying it would review the grants to ensure they align with President Donald Trump's priorities. The freeze sent schools and summer camp providers scrambling to determine whether they can still provide programs like day camps this summer or after-hours child care this fall.
On Wednesday, the Office of Management and Budget said an initial review showed schools used some of the money to support immigrants in the country illegally or promote LGBTQ+ inclusion. The administration said it hadn't made any final decisions about whether to withhold or release individual grants.
'Many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda,' the Office of Management and Budget said in a statement.
It said New York schools had used money for English language instruction to promote organizations that advocate for immigrants in the country illegally. Washington state used the money to direct immigrants without legal status toward scholarships the Trump administration says were 'intended for American students.' Grant funds also were used for a seminar on 'queer resistance in the arts,' the office said.
Officials from New York and Washington state didn't immediately respond to requests for comment.
Advocates for low-income and immigrant children connected the grant freeze to the Trump administration's larger crackdown on immigrants. Two of the five federal programs put on hold were appropriated by Congress to help support English proficiency of students still learning the language and migrant children who move with their parents to follow agricultural and other jobs.
School districts use the $890 million earmarked for English learners in a wide range of purposes, from training teachers' aides who work with English learners, to running summer schools designed for them, to hiring family liaisons who speak the parents' native languages. The $375 million appropriated for migrant education is often used to hire dedicated teachers to travel close to where students live.
By 'cherrypicking extreme examples,' the administration is seeking to conflate all students learning English with people who are in the country illegally, said Amaya Garcia, who directs education research at New America, a left-leaning think tank in Washington, D.C.
In reality, the majority of English learners in public schools were born in the United States, according to data from the Migration Policy Institute.
'The way they're framing it is that we're using this money for undocumented students and families," said Margarita Machado-Casas, president of the National Association of Bilingual Educators. "It's a distraction. A distraction from what's actually happening: that 5.3 million English learners who speak lots of different languages, not just Spanish, will suffer.'
Even if the students lack legal status, states may not deny public education to children in the country illegally under a 1982 Supreme Court decision known as Plyler v. Doe. Conservative politicians in states such as Oklahoma, Texas and Tennessee have pursued policies that question whether immigrants without legal residency should have the right to a public education, raising the possibility of challenges to that landmark ruling.
Meanwhile, states and school districts are still trying to understand what it will mean for their students and their staff if these funds never arrive.
In Oregon, eliminating grants for English learners and migrant students would "undermine the state's efforts to increase academic outcomes for multilingual students, promote multilingualism, close opportunity gaps and provide targeted support to mobile and vulnerable student groups,' said Liz Merah, spokeswoman for the state's Department of Education.
____
Associated Press writer Collin Binkley contributed from Washington.
_____
The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.
Bianca Vázquez Toness, The Associated Press
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Voices: This weekend, 100,000 people stood up to fight against the demonisation of trans people
One hundred thousand people, let me repeat, 100,000 people joined Saturday's march for London Trans+ Pride. It broke 2024's record of 60,000 and extended the capital's reign as the largest trans rights protest in the world. But pride doesn't even begin to encompass the full breadth of emotion I feel: not only in making it happen, but in the tenacity of our community. This was my second year helping to organise the march – and I do apologise to any of those still hearing the echoes of my voice ringing out 'Claim your space, we have the whole of Whitehall!' through a megaphone. As a proud trans woman, working alongside the collective of 30 or so volunteers who put on this event every year is a privilege. I am by no means its voice, and there are many others more qualified to be the community's voice, such as artist Lewis G Burton, BBC presenter Dr Ronx and Heartstopper actor Yasmin Finney, who all made speeches in Parliament Square. But I am writing this as someone who found comfort and community here and wanted to give back. For me and for so many other people, Saturday's march represents the ultimate safe space. It is a day of protest and of joy, liberation and celebration. There wasn't anything like it when I started my transition some 15 years ago. I was lucky enough to know exactly who I was from a young age – just as my mother had known who she was, and my father had known who he was. My parents have been my most supportive allies, and I was so moved to see signs from other families along the march. I spent several years working as an organiser of large-scale events before joining London Trans+ Pride. And while my career may have been my foundation for this move into advocacy, nothing can prepare you for the energy of those marching. I'm not surprised that so many more people joined compared to 2024. It has come at a time when we need proactive activism and allyship more than ever. Following the explosion against trans+ rights in the last five years, from puberty blocker bans to the Supreme Court's contested ruling in April – that the legal definition of a woman is someone born biologically female – friends, family and total strangers have stepped up and demonstrated their support – and highlighted that most Britons have never, and will never, view trans people as a threat. Our team was supported by almost 600 volunteer stewards. These people come from all over the UK and give up their time to guide the march. We could not safely deliver an event of such magnitude every year without them, and we owe them so much. They, and the additional 35,000 marchers we saw yesterday, have stepped up at a time when visible support is so needed. We tend to see significant mainstream coverage about small protests against immigration, but little about the thousands of people supporting trans rights. We heard the author Caroline Litman speaking about her late daughter, Alice, and initiatives highlighted from ally support groups such as the Trans Solidarity Alliance and Not in Our Name, and the enviable strength and determination of Trans Kids Deserve Better. When I had time to look up from my work as a pink blur of headsets and event management forms, I could soak in the phenomenon engulfing me. I spent all day being moved by the placards, banners, flags, and by the humour. The progressive spins on viral trends were a favourite: 'Nothing beats a Jet2 Holiday; except top surgery.' British irony combined with the joy of medical autonomy: something I see regularly in my new career in gender-affirming healthcare – an area persistently targeted in the tirade against our community. In my role, I get to float between marchers, volunteers and community workers throughout the march and see all the variety of support there. And while my bones may be a little worse for wear after what can only be described as the job of a lifetime – and thank goodness for comfy shoes – I couldn't imagine anything better. But this lovely day is counterbalanced by the continued demonisation of women like me, people like this and communities like ours. Our rights appear to be being used as pawns on the world's political stage to distract from larger issues. London Trans+ Pride was, is and will always remain a testament to joy. It confirms us as human by showing up for each other and everyone else through the intersectionality of systemic oppression. 2025 continues to be a horrific year for human rights. But, thanks to everyone who marched and made history, today, the future for trans people feels a little brighter. Stephanie Lynnette is a healthcare worker, content creator and the current Events and Projects Manager for London Trans+ Pride
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
TACO not on the menu: Howard Lutnick says tariffs start August 1 with no extensions
Tariffs are coming on August 1 and there will be no more extensions, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick said. President Donald Trump imposed his 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, causing a rollercoaster stock market. A week later, he announced a 90-day pause, which has now expired, with many set to take effect Friday. Although the world may have gotten used to Trump announcing sweeping levies before backing out of them shortly thereafter, this time, there's no risk of TACO — the shorthand for "Trump Always Chickens Out" — the commerce secretary suggested. "No extensions. No more grace periods. August 1, the tariffs are set. They'll go into place," Lutnick said on "Fox News Sunday.' World leaders are still more than willing to talk to Trump after the August 1 deadline. 'Between now and then, I think the president's going to talk to a lot of people. Whether they can make him happy is another question, but the president is definitely willing to negotiate and talk to the big economies,' Lutnick continued. Lutnick's announcement of the hard deadline contrasts with the message of Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent days earlier, when he suggested the tariff deadlines were flexible. 'The important thing here is the quality of the deal, not the timing of the deals,' Bessent told CNBC on Monday. The hard deadline comes months after the president earned the TACO acronym after he backed out of his sweeping tariff plan. On April 2, which he's dubbed Liberation Day, Trump declared the day would 'forever be remembered as the day American industry was reborn, the day America's destiny was reclaimed, and the day that we began to make America wealthy again.' Stock market turbulence ensued. The NASDAQ broke a record with its largest single-day point drop in the market's 50-year history as investors responded to Trump's tariff plan. Just one week after Liberation Day, he walked back on his grand plan and the stock market surged. That's when the acronym TACO emerged. Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong coined the term to describe the president's pattern of implementing trade policy threats, which investors predicted would cause the market to tumble, before he walks back on that policy, leading to a market rebound. Last month, he delayed the July 9 tariff deadline to August 1. Trump is meeting with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen on Sunday to try to avoid a potential trade war. "We're working very diligently with Europe, the EU," Trump told reporters before he left for Scotland on Friday. "I would say that we have a 50-50 chance, maybe less than that, but a 50-50 chance of making a deal with the EU." Lutnick also commented on Sunday's meeting. Speaking on 'Fox News Sunday,' he remarked: 'The question is, do they offer President Trump a good enough deal that is worth it for him to step off of the 30% tariffs that he set.' Trump has announced trade deals with several countries, including Japan, Indonesia, the Philippines, Vietnam and the United Kingdom. He's said letters had been sent out earlier this month to dozens of countries with tariff rates. 'We'll have a straight, simple tariff of anywhere between 15 percent and 50 percent," Trump said this week. "We have 50 [percent] because we haven't been getting along with those countries too well." Economic experts have warned that consumers could pay the price for the new levies. "Now that the Trump administration is concluding deals that would see the tariff rate facing most trading partners settling at between 15% and 20%, with even higher rates levied on Chinese imports, we suspect retailers will be forced to finally raise the prices paid by consumers,' Paul Ashworth, chief North America economist with Capital Economics, said in a research note, CBS News reported. Some companies have preemptively taken action. Trump has threatened a 50 percent tariff on Brazil. The steep levy threats against the country have prompted a New Jersey-based orange juice manufacturer to sue the Trump administration, arguing that the 50 percent tariff could result in a $70 million hit to its business. Sign in to access your portfolio

Wall Street Journal
10 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
America Should Travel Fast
Regarding Allysia Finley's 'California's Bullet Train Is a Model of Progressive Governance' (Life Science, July 21): Every highway and airport in America is subsidized—by billions more than we've ever given to high-speed rail. The $6 billion private line in Florida isn't high-speed, which costs more. But the benefit of true high-speed rail is that more people ride it because it's more convenient than driving or flying. Dozens of other countries, even those with far fewer resources than America, such as Morocco, build it because it's a better return on investment. I conducted a financial analysis of the California high-speed rail with some Harvard Business School colleagues more than a decade ago, and we came to two conclusions: It will cost more than they say, and it will still cost less than expanding highways or airports. The rail project should be reformed, not tanked.