EO Pulse: Education Executive Orders

TBT: Let's get educated about the slew of EO's signed on April 23rd that impact education.

Education Executive Orders

The administration has issued a number of Executive Orders and other actions affecting our schools, some of which have been successfully challenged in court. As they say, life comes at you very fast, and if you don’t pay attention, you may miss the attack on our education systems. So let us summarize it for you.

Executive Orders

On April 23, 2025, the Trump administration released a number of Executive Orders targeting education. Here’s a summary:

Accreditation: The President signed an Executive Order addressing the accreditation of higher education institutions. Accreditation is the process colleges are required to go through to receive federal financial aid. They must prove that they meet an acceptable level of quality to qualify for aid. The Order calls for the Secretary of Education to suspend or terminate an accreditor’s federal recognition in order to hold it accountable if it violates federal civil rights laws. The order also singles out the American Bar Association (ABA) – which accredits law schools – and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education – which accredits medical schools – and directs cabinet secretaries to investigate. Yes, folks, another sideways attack on DEI.

Real Law Mom Take: Don’t panic yet, just like the DEI Dear Colleague Letter and FAQ, the implementation of this Executive Order will likely be challenged in court, and a judge will likely find that it is unconstitutional.

Foreign Gifts: In yet another attempt to exert pressure on U.S. universities, the President signed an Executive Order directing the administration to enforce existing laws requiring universities to disclose when they receive large foreign gifts, to address foreign influence at universities. The Order directs the Secretary of Education to take steps to require universities to disclose specific details about foreign funding, including the “true source and purpose of the funds.” The Executive Order warns that federal grants for universities could be revoked if they do not complete full and timely disclosure of federal funding.

Real Law Mom Take: This one may be harder to fight, as universities are required to disclose foreign funding, and recent reporting shows that universities have not been entirely honest about the amount of foreign funding and influence on their campuses. But, as with many Executive Orders, this may just be another nothing burger given that federal law already requires schools to disclose gifts or contracts worth $250,000 or more from foreign entities, and the Executive Order doesn’t provide any clarification or guidance on specific thresholds or new rules.

Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs): The President signed an Executive Order to revamp federal engagement with historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs). The Order establishes a new White House Initiative on HBCUs housed within the Executive Office of the President, reconstitutes the president’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs under the U.S. Department of Education, and outlines an agenda focused on fiscal stability, infrastructure modernization and workforce pipeline development. Notably, the Order omits any reference to DEI.

Real Law Mom Take: On the surface level, it sounds great, right? Except it seems to be a backdoor way for the government to fully restrict any DEI activities by HBCUs (seems a little antithetical to the purpose of an HBCU, right?) and further control curriculum at the very institutions created to address inequities in our education systems.

Discipline: The President signed an Executive Order requesting new federal guidance on school discipline and to revoke previous guidance under the Obama and Biden administrations that were aimed at reducing racial disparities in discipline. Under those policies, schools were required to address disciplinary policies that resulted in a disproportionate impact on students of color, even where the disciplinary policies were neutral on their face.

What does that mean? Here’s an example. Let’s say a school had a policy stating that misbehavior can result in a range of disciplinary action from a warning to suspension. On its face, the policy is neutral and doesn’t delineate any difference in discipline for any students of any particular race. However, a review of disciplinary sanctions for a one year period shows that even though Black students only comprise 10% of the student population, 90% of the students disciplined with suspension for misbehavior are Black. Thus, a neutral policy is resulting in a disproportionate – or disparate – impact on a particular race of students.

The Trump administration wants to eliminate this practice of looking at the disparate impact of disciplinary policies on marginalized communities as it results in prohibited DEI practices. That is, the Executive Order prohibits using such “racially preferential discipline policies.”

Real Law Mom Take: The Executive Order will make our schools less safe for marginalized students, and foment bias against such students by staff and administrators, even when it is unintentional. However, given that the Supreme Court ruled in the Harvard case that schools may not use any sort of race-based preferences, it is very possible the courts will view this Executive Order as permissible and lawful.