The Trump administration has framed its education agenda as one of “returning education to the states,” as it’s outsourced the U.S. Department of Education’s responsibilities to other agencies and waived certain federal requirements for states.
Now, a grant program focused on training teachers to work with English learners offers a glimpse into how that priority is playing out as the Education Department disburses competitive grant money.
In May, the department opened applications for a new round of funding under the National Professional Development program. When it put out the notice inviting applications, the agency encouraged applicants to submit letters of support from their governors or state education leaders to qualify for extra points in the competition scoring. The request fell under the department’s official grantmaking priority it’s labeled “returning education to the states.”
But as the Education Department prepares to make its final selection of new grantees by Sept. 30, Education Week found that how states responded to these requests for endorsement letters was all over the map. Some conducted in-depth reviews of grant applications before federal reviewers were to do the same, while others said they had limited capacity to do so. In at least one state, grantees were out of luck because state agencies are generally prohibited from issuing such letters of support.
The NPD program is one of a handful to which the Education Department has applied the “returning education to the states” priority so far. In at least one grant competition, letters of support from state leaders have been required.
For NPD applicants, the Education Department did not provide specific guidance on what those letters should address or how states should vet requests for support, program experts told Education Week.
The ambiguity has left state agency staffers with questions over the letters’ purpose, said Julia Martin, the director of policy and government affairs at the Bruman Group, a law firm that works with states and school districts, with a focus on federal grants.
“Is there some sort of substantive evaluation that is supposed to happen at the state level? Is it solely to say we’re handing control over to states, and states get to pick and choose which grants they want to see implemented in their state? Or is this a lever to let states pick their favorites for other reasons? It’s really unclear,” Martin said.
State responses to these requests varied greatly
From July 29 to Sept. 10, Education Week contacted all 50 governors’ offices and state education agencies, and the District of Columbia, to ask how many endorsement letters National Professional Development grant applicants had requested and how many state officials ended up writing. EdWeek also asked about their process for evaluating such requests.
As of Sept. 11, 18 governors’ offices and 35 state education agencies provided information.
While most state leaders submitted letters of endorsement for all the requests they received, how agencies vetted applicants varied drastically, with some creating formal review processes and others opting to only submit letters for public higher education institutions. (NPD grants are open to colleges and universities, among other organizations.)
Though the letters were not a requirement, the stakes are high, Martin said.
“The advantage to getting a letter could mean the difference between getting a grant or not getting a grant,” she said.
In response to questions about the value of these letters and how many NPD grant applications the Education Department received by the July 14 deadline, a spokesperson said the agency is “still in the process of determining FY2026 NPD grant awards. We expect to finalize awardees in the next few weeks and will announce them (in our usual manner).”
‘Returning education to the states’ is an official grant priority
Traditionally, it wasn’t unheard of for federal grant applicants to ask a member of Congress to write a letter in support of a competitive grant application, Martin said.
But in September 2025, the Education Department published updates to its priorities for competitive grantmaking, adding “returning education to the states” as a policy priority the agency could apply to grant competitions. Applicants “identified, designated, or endorsed by a Governor or chief State education official for purposes of implementing the project or proposal” would get a leg up.
Since then, at least one grant application notice, Innovative Approaches to Literacy, listed this priority as required, while others such as the Supporting Effective Educator Development, the American History and Civics—National Activities, and the National Professional Development grant programs listed it as an optional, competitive preference priority—meaning they could gain an advantage by addressing it.
In a May 29 informational webinar on the National Professional Development program, Cynthia Hunter, an education program specialist supervisor in the office of elementary and secondary education, said there was no template to use for letters of endorsement from governors or state education agency leaders. She added the letters must be signed on official letterhead, and a governor or state education agency official could endorse multiple projects.
Through its survey of governors’ offices and state education agencies, Education Week found that NPD applicants in 39 states and the District of Columbia requested at least 85 letters of endorsement from state officials, who produced 76 in response.
The Education Department said it will select a maximum of 13 projects. Officials from 11 states did not provide the requested information to EdWeek in time for publication.
In some states, a rigorous review. In others, no process to vet requests
In South Carolina, education officials met with each applicant, reviewed application materials, and considered how the proposed program aligned with the state’s educational priorities and needs, said Kinard Lisbon, a state education department spokesperson. The state received five requests for letters of endorsement and submitted five letters.
Maryland’s education department only provided endorsements for public colleges and universities. A department spokesperson, Raven Hill, said state officials received three requests for endorsement letters and submitted two.
Vermont’s education agency received one request but didn’t provide a letter of support. The agency “did not have a standardized process for vetting requests,” said spokesperson Toren Ballard.
The lack of federal guidance also meant some letters, like those submitted by Pennsylvania state officials, were addressed to the NPD grant review committee, while others, like letters submitted by Missouri Gov. Mike Kehoe and Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, were addressed to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.
In Kentucky, grant applicants seeking state letters of endorsement would have been out of luck.
That’s because executive branch agencies there are generally prohibited from authoring letters of support for outside entities seeking grants to avoid an appearance of favoritism.
Kentucky’s department of education received no requests for letters of endorsement, spokesperson Jennifer Ginn said. Gov. Andy Beshear’s office—from which grant applicants might have requested endorsement letters—did not respond to Education Week’s request for comment.
Martin, with the Bruman Group law firm, has spoken with state education agency staffers about the new federal grant priorities and said she’s aware of a handful of states that prohibit state leaders from endorsing any project to prevent favoritism.
There are also questions about state capacity to handle endorsement letter requests.
In Mississippi, the state education department cited time constraints when explaining that it granted one letter of endorsement despite receiving three requests.
“Two of three letters were received too close to the deadline for the grant, which did not give the [agency] enough time to review the proposed program and what [the agency’s] responsibility would be,” said Shanderia Minor, a department spokesperson.
Without more federal guidance, it’s also unclear how much work states are meant to put into letters of endorsement, Martin said.
“If the aim, as identified, is returning education to the states, that sounds like more work for the state if they’re supposed to do some sort of actual evaluation of the proposals, especially in states that have lost staff because their budgets are strained,” Martin said.
