Updated: This page is no longer being updated. The last data update was on April 30, 2025.
The Trump administration called on the nation’s schools to certify that they’re not using “illegal DEI practices” by April 24 in order to continue receiving federal education funds.
That same day, three federal judges issued separate rulings that significantly limit the Trump administration’s ability to enforce the orders and withhold federal funding from states and districts that don’t comply.
State education chiefs received the order in a letter sent April 3, in which the administration gave them 10 days to sign a certification saying they’re complying with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits race-based discrimination in federally funded programs. State chiefs were also to collect individual certifications from the school districts in their states.
While the order told educators to certify their compliance with federal civil rights law, it made clear that the U.S. Department of Education considers the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion—which it didn’t specifically define—to be a potential violation of the anti-discrimination law. It argued that the act of treating people differently based on their race, or programs that “advantage one’s race over another,” constitute an “illegal DEI practice,” citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision to overturn the legality of affirmative action policies that allowed universities to consider race as a factor in college admissions decisions.
The department later extended the deadline to April 24.
As of April 30, 2025, 21 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico had said they would sign the certification, according to an Education Week tally. Twenty-five states had declined to sign the certification. The remaining states hadn’t indicated their intentions or hadn’t yet made public comments on the matter.
The 21 states signing the certification break down the following way in terms of partisan control: In 17 states, Republicans control the executive and legislative branches; and in four states, Republicans and Democrats split control of the two branches.
One state that signed the certification, New Hampshire, set up a website posting local districts’ certifications as they came in, earning praise from Education Secretary Linda McMahon. A handful of New Hampshire school districts, meanwhile, joined one of the legal challenges to the certification requirement.
In another state, Kentucky, Education Commissioner Robbie Fletcher signed the certification while acknowledging in an email to superintendents that the Education Department order was “not without issues.
“Nevertheless, I am confident that through our statewide commitment to providing opportunity and access for every student, we can advance towards meeting the needs and ensuring the success of each student in Kentucky’s public schools,” he wrote.
The state gave districts until April 18 to sign their own certifications, but said it would propose that the federal office for civil rights take no enforcement action against districts that didn’t sign “on the grounds that the Certification Form does not comply with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995,” Fletcher wrote to superintendents, according to the Lexington Herald-Leader.
Some states are balking at the DEI certification order
Meanwhile, 20 states that said they didn’t intend to comply have Democratic governors while five—Missouri, Nevada, South Dakota, Utah, and Vermont—have Republican governors. Nineteen states that didn’t sign the certification sued the U.S. Department of Education on April 25 to challenge the certification push.
Some of those declining to sign the federal certification questioned the Education Department’s authority to request such a certification and noted that districts already routinely certify their compliance with civil rights laws as a condition of receiving federal money.
“We will not sign additional certifications that lack authority, lack clarity, or are an assault on the autonomy of states and local school districts by misapplying a higher education admissions case,” said Chris Reykdal, Washington state’s education chief, in an April 8 statement. “It would be irresponsible to do so.”
Some states that didn’t sign the certification asked the department to reply with more details about whether the request amounts to a threat of enforcement of requirements beyond existing law; which federal grant programs would be in jeopardy if the department finds states in violation; and which law authorizes the department to compel states to insist that districts sign federal certifications.
Some also raised concerns about the abrupt nature of the department’s request, which came with no comment period or advance notice.
“At best, the Reminder and Request appears to be redundant,” wrote Benjamin Jones, general counsel for the Wisconsin Department of Instruction. “At worst, the Reminder and Request appears to be unauthorized, unlawful, and unconstitutionally vague.”
In Vermont, Education Secretary Zoie Saunders on April 14 sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education certifying the state’s compliance with Title VI while pushing back against the federal request to certify that schools are not using “illegal DEI practices” and other provisions. The Green Mountain State’s certification “does not incorporate any other Executive Orders, memoranda, or guidance materials or the undefined language regarding ‘certain DEI practices’ or ‘illegal DEI’ in the Request for Certification,” Saunders wrote.
“Indeed, the Department’s own guidance affirms that ‘DEI’ practices are lawful,” the letter continued. "... And schools may employ staff whose titles include ‘DEI Coordinator’ because schools have important obligations, including Title VI obligations, to foster welcoming and equitable learning opportunities for students of all races, and to respond to allegations of racial harassment.”
Education Week previously categorized Maryland, Missouri, and Vermont as states that intended to sign the Education Department’s certification based on earlier communications from state education departments and in media reports.
Trump’s anti-DEI push has drawn legal challenges
The certification order for states and school districts stemmed from a Feb. 14 Dear Colleague letter issued by the Education Department and a subsequent “frequently asked questions” document that warned districts they’d risk losing federal funds if they retained DEI programming.
The department also launched an “End DEI” portal to solicit public complaints about DEI programs in schools.
The nation’s two largest teachers’ unions separately sued the department over those measures, and later added challenges to the certification letter to their lawsuits. The NAACP launched a third legal challenge to the Dear Colleague letter and certification requirement on April 15. The three judges overseeing those lawsuits ruled April 24 putting different aspects of the Education Department’s anti-DEI directives on hold, pausing the department’s enforcement of the certification requirement.
The 19 states with Democratic attorneys general sued a day after those judges ruled.
The U.S. Department of Labor under Trump has also drawn legal challenges for an executive order requiring grant recipients to sign a certification letter similar to the one sent to states and K-12 schools.
In blocking part of that order, a judge said plaintiffs who challenged it were likely to succeed in arguing that the order was unconstitutionally vague and violated free speech rights.
The Trump administration “has studiously declined to shed any light on what [DEI] means,” wrote Judge Matthew Kennelly of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. “The answer is anything but obvious.”
