Trump administration moves to limit fixes for systemic racism in schools

WASHINGTON (AP) — For decades, a key principle underpinned civil rights enforcement in American schools: Not all discrimination was intentional.

Even if a school policy was written without overt racial bias, it might unfairly hurt one group of students over another, the understanding went. The concept is known as systemic racism , and Republican and Democratic administrations agreed: Schools and universities that received federal funding had an obligation to address it.

Under President Donald Trump's administration, that's no longer the case. One by one, the administration has limited the remedies schools can use to address systemic racial injustice .

This summer, the Education Department rescinded a regulation that allowed schools to gauge potential discrimination by comparing outcomes across races, such as the racial breakdown of students in advanced classes. Then, it issued a letter to American schools, emphasizing it's illegal to consider race when crafting discipline policies — even if one particular racial group ends up suspended or expelled more often.

At the same time, Trump's Justice Department has stepped away from many school desegregation cases . In a news release Thursday, the department boasted of successfully working through the courts to close more than 50 desegregation cases since Trump took office, with motions to dismiss in the works in many other cases. Previous administrations had used these federal court cases to hold schools accountable when students of color had worse outcomes than white students — high rates of discipline, worse school facilities or reduced access to extracurriculars and advanced coursework.

While Trump's first administration deprioritized enforcing racial justice, his current administration has gone further — threatening to punish schools for any consideration of race in their policies and practices.

To the administration, the practice of examining different outcomes for particular groups of students, sometimes known as “disparate impact,” was itself a form of racial discrimination.

“The Obama and Biden Administrations weaponized disparate impact by effectively coercing schools to discipline students differently based on race in order to engineer equitable disciplinary outcomes across racial groups,” Education Department spokesperson Sabin Sidney said. "These practices unfortunately led to unsafe classrooms and undermined student learning."

Critics worry the administration's actions will make it easier to get away with racial discrimination.

“When they talk about returning it to the states and making America great again, they’re talking about returning to how it was before 1954,” when school segregation was legal, said U.S. Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va.

Since Trump's return to office, the administration has set its sights on school discipline.

In May 2025, the president signed an executive order directing federal agencies to stop looking for “ disparate impact ," or policies that appear neutral but result in outsized impact to one group over another. Those policies had been examined for possible discrimination, regardless of their intent.

In education, that analysis had most often been applied to school discipline — especially to removing students from the classroom, such as through suspensions, expulsions and referrals to law enforcement.

Federal and state data have long shown students of color, particularly Black students , are more likely than their peers to be pulled from the classroom for similar infractions. Research shows that students who are suspended are more likely to become disengaged from school and to have worse academic outcomes.

In 2021, the Education Department began investigating a complaint alleging Black male students with disabilities in Denver Public Schools were being disproportionately pushed out of the classroom. Progress on the case halted after Trump took office in 2025.

Advocates had also filed the complaint with state authorities, who found violations of civil rights laws and ordered the district to mandate new training. Meanwhile, families have heard nothing from the federal Education Department.

The silence gives school districts permission to continue with business as usual, said Pam Bisceglia, executive director of Advocacy Denver, which filed the complaints.

“I’d like to say that we have overcome and that marginalized communities are enjoying equal protections. We see that, in fact, that isn’t true,” she said.

Under Trump's first administration, the Education Department continued to investigate and resolve cases of racial discrimination against minority students.

In 2018, the Education Department reached a settlement agreement with Durham Public Schools in North Carolina, after examining whether the district's discipline policies, or their effects, were racially discriminatory. The investigation found Black students were disproportionately given out-of-school suspension — especially in instances involving subjective decisions on matters like disobedience.

For a time, Jovonia Lewis, a parent and former Durham school board member, constantly received calls about her son being kicked out of the classroom. She was told he couldn’t sit still. But the federal settlement agreement helped Black parents see their children's experiences were not occurring in isolation, Lewis said.

“We knew our kids were being treated differently, but this data gave us leverage,” she said.

The investigation had a significant impact in Durham, Lewis recalled. The district adopted a new student code of conduct and created an equity affairs office.

Under the Trump administration's new guidance, federal authorities are unlikely to take up similar cases.

“The federal government has chosen to close its eyes to that way of understanding discrimination,” said Catherine Lhamon, who oversaw education civil rights under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden, both Democrats.

The impact of the administration's changes will outlast Trump's presidency, said Johnathan Smith, a former attorney in the civil rights division at the Justice Department and a managing director at the National Center for Youth Law. Once the administration changes rules and regulations, future efforts to investigate civil rights could be held up in court.

“They're building an infrastructure that says, ‘Not only are we taking down these structures, but we are building in roadblocks to make it very difficult for any future administration to change course,’” Smith said.

Across the South, the Justice Department has taken an interest in closing cases of court-mandated school desegregation, arguing the decades-old orders are outdated. But civil rights attorneys say the impact of segregation continues to be felt today.

Courts have long maintained the passage of time is not enough to rule that discrimination has passed, said Kelly Gardner, deputy director of litigation at the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. To be released from a desegregation order, schools have had to show that they have removed the lingering effects of segregation to the extent possible. That can involve assessing extracurricular offerings, funding levels and the state of school facilities.

Now, the Justice Department is intervening to close cases, often without taking account of those considerations, Gardner said.

In January, a federal court granted a request from the Justice Department and the DeSoto Parish School Board in Louisiana to release the small district from its desegregation order. In the order, the district had allowed students to transfer out of racially isolated schools, with transportation provided. As recently as 2024, the order was used to ensure those students had equal access to extracurriculars in their new schools.

Louisiana Attorney General Liz Murrill, a Republican, praised the court decision for freeing the district from federal oversight.

“After 60 years of litigation and federal control, the elected members of the DeSoto Parish School Board now have the full powers of their office, as our Constitution has always intended,” Murrill wrote in a social media post at the time.

A few months after the order was lifted, the school district amended its policies. The district would no longer accept new applications for transfers, and students in the transfer program would have to return to their zoned schools once they finished the highest grade at their current school.

____

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.