A Constitutional Education: The Implications of President Trump’s Executive Order for Disabled Youth in America

As one of his first executive orders since returning to the White House, President Trump decided to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, a move that jeopardizes critical disability access nationwide. On January 20, 2025, promptly after his inauguration, Trump issued Executive Order 14151, which aims to end “wasteful” government DEI programs, including the suspension of federal funding and grants for students with disabilities in the United States Education System. [1] He halted funding and grants for school district programs across America, such as the Oregon DeafBlind Project and the Wisconsin Deafblind Technical Assistance Project, stripping vital resources from deaf and blind individuals who depend on these services. [2][3] Trump’s Executive Order rebukes Executive Order 13985 issued by his predecessor, President Joe Biden, which pushed for advanced equity for all, “including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by poverty and inequality.” [4] Not even 24 hours after regaining office, President Trump abruptly cut essential funding and grants for disability organizations and educational institutes, infringing on the legal rights of disabled individuals under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act.

The cut in federal funding and grants infringes upon acts that allow for equal opportunities within deaf education. Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), disabled students are to receive a free public education in the “least restrictive environment” possible. [5] IDEA is a federal law that requires students to be placed and qualify for services based on their Individualized Education Program (IEP). [6] A child’s IEP acts as a plan tailored to their specific needs. [7] Both students and their families are protected under IDEA, yet funding and grants within school districts are required to foster the most appropriate environment for the students. For instance, the Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction calls out the significant impact Trump’s decision has had on the education of disabled youth within the state. [8] In September of 2025, the U.S. Department of Education, under the Trump administration, had cut $11 million in federal grant programs that aid children with special education services, such as vision and hearing loss. [9] Disabled students require translating programs, interpreters, and other disability friendly accommodations in school, but in order to achieve this, educational institutions, such as the ones in Wisconsin, need monetary resources. Wisconsin is not the only state to have voiced this outrage: school districts in Washington, Oregon, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and other states shared outward concern. [10] Under IDEA, a longstanding federal law passed for disabled students, school districts must guarantee a fair education to disabled students. [11] However, they require necessary funds from the government in order to provide the resources that create said fair education, and by extension, the “least restrictive environment.” 

By heavily cutting disability funding and necessary grants for educational systems, Trump’s executive order contradicts the outcome of School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts. [12] The 1985 case followed handicapped student Michael Panico, whose parents felt his performance at school was heavily impacted by the Burlington school district’s inability to meet standards for disabled education. [13] The school district suggested he be placed at Pine Glen School, but the Panico family enrolled Michael at Carroll School instead. [14] Michael’s parents felt Carroll School suited Michael’s disability needs better, yet his parents had to pay at their expense. [15] However, the Massachusetts Department of Education’s Bureau of Special Education Appeals (BSEA) felt the town’s proposal to Pine Glen School was inappropriate, ordering the Burlington district to pay for Michael’s tuition and transportation to Carroll School. [16] Burlington challenged this decision by filing a lawsuit against the Department of Education of Massachusetts. [17] Burlington fought back on this request, where they then filed against the Department of Education of Massachusetts. In an unanimous decision, the Supreme Court concluded that it falls under the town’s responsibility to reimburse guardians for tuition if they need a specific educational institution that better suits their child’s needs, rather than forcing the child to attend an incompatible institution. [18] The court is given the power to "grant such relief as [it] determines is appropriate" for the child and family in question, setting a precedent for future scenarios that reflect the case. [19] They also concluded that “to deny such reimbursement would mean that the child's right to a free appropriate public education, the parents' right to participate fully in developing a proper IEP, and all of the procedural safeguards of [IDEA] would be less than complete” for the children. [20] Guardians may be reimbursed for tuition if a specific institution is more appropriate for their child’s needs, even if they decide to pay at their own expense. This case set a significant precedent for easing the financial burdens disabled families face and how school districts have a responsibility to aid a disabled child in a basic education, an education equal to their “able” counterparts. However, in order for these towns and districts to fund and reimburse the tuition of disabled students, they require monetary means from specific DEI-allocated funding, which Trump has now cut with Executive Order 14151. For instance, every year, New York City has a percentage of its federal budget allocated to IDEA funding, dedicated to disability aid, including the distribution of these funds to school districts. [21] This applies to cities across the nation, not exclusive to New York City. Now that Trump has cut funding for disabled education within school districts, it will be exceedingly difficult for them to reimburse families and properly aid students in finding their most appropriate academic match. This infringes upon the ruling in Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts and for children like Michael Panico who are unable to get their tuition fairly reimbursed due to these budget cuts. 

Although numerous people have voiced concern and disagreement with the executive order, the cut to federal grants does not cease. More specifically, his executive order impacts disability programs within universities, and thereby affects their student body and staff. For instance, at Western Oregon University, Trump’s administration ended a grant to the university’s DeafBlind Interpreting National Training and Resource Center as part of his executive orders against DEI. [22] This federally funded project helps disabled students in school, specifically educating school districts on how to effectively teach literacy, math, and other skills to disabled students, yet these resources have been terminated. [23] The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) states that individuals with disabilities should be guaranteed equal opportunities like everyone else, but sweeping essential programs that provide enhanced understanding and a unity within disabled education contradicts the act. [24] Under the ADA, grant removal of the project prevents disabled individuals from fully sharing the right to an equal education as educated staff and support on the needs of disabled students is what allows for effective learning. [25] As a result of Executive Order 14151, disabled individuals are having their rights to an equitable education revoked. 

In discussions of DEI programs and executive orders that impact such organizations, the voices of the disabled community are unfortunately not always at the forefront. Unfortunately, the voices of disabled communities are often silenced, while their access to critical resources is further undermined. At the core of this debate is a fundamental legal principle: disability access and rights should not be viewed as optional, but as federally guaranteed. It is essential to recognize that individuals with disabilities have the right to an appropriate educational environment and equal access to education, as outlined for their “abled” counterparts in both the IDEA and ADA. The administration’s removal of federal grants and funds is preventing disabled individuals from fully exercising their rights and contradicts the outcomes of numerous court cases that outline the necessities disabled families need in the education system. Federal funding and grants for disabled education provide resources for a more appropriate learning environment; however, since this money is stripped away, there is lower accessibility and execution of these resources. In practice, these restrictions on financial grants and funding are an institutional restriction on accessible education for disabled communities that infringes upon human rights. If Executive Orders similar to 14151 continue, not only will disability access to educational resources deteriorate in the future, but the quality of disabled education and equal opportunities for knowledge will be unbalanced. 

Edited by Max Posada and Cara Wreen

[1] “Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government,” Federal Register (2021), https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2021/01/25/2021-01753/advancing-racial-equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-government]; Liam O’Dell, “Deaf Non-Profit Considers Fresh Legal Action against Trump Administration as It Drops Deaf Access,” 2025, https://liamodell.com/2025/01/29/donald-trump-executive-orders-accessibility-dei-diversity-equity-inclusion-american-sign-language-interpreters-asl-national-association-of-the-deaf-white-house-disability/.

[2] Bryce Dole and Kathryn Styer Martinez, “Trump Administration Cuts Funding to Oregon Disability Programs,” OPB, (2025), https://www.opb.org/article/2025/09/11/trump-cuts-funding-oregon-disability-programs/; [Libby Dowsett, “Trump Administration to Cut Funding for Oregon Program Serving Deaf-Blind Students,” KGW, 2025, https://www.kgw.com/article/news/politics/national-politics/trump-administration-cuts-deaf-blind-student-funding/283-891cbbfa-b017-49c7-89ba-859aa41864c7.

[3] Baylor Spears, “Trump Administration Cancels Grants That Support Deafblind Students, Special Education Teachers,” Wisconsin Examiner, 2025, https://wisconsinexaminer.com/briefs/trump-administration-cancels-grants-that-support-deafblind-students-special-education-teachers/. 

[4] “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The White House, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/.

[5] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (1990).

[6] Id.

[7] Id.

[8] Spears, “Trump Administration Cancels”. 

[9] Spears, “Trump Administration Cancels”.

[10] Spears, “Trump Administration Cancels”.

[11] Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq (1990).

[12] School Committee of the Town of Burlington v. Department of Education of Massachusetts 471 U.S. 359 (1985).

[13] Id. 

[14] Id.

[15] Id.

[16] Id.

[17] Id.

[18] Id.

[19] Id.

[20] Id.

[21] Thomas P. DiNapoli, “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,” Office of the New York State Comptroller, https://www.osc.ny.gov/reports/budget/fed-funding-ny/individuals-disabilities-education-act#:~:text=Federal%20Funding%20and%20New%20York%20%2D%20Page%20Style,school%20staff%20and%20parental%20education.

[22] Dowsett, “Trump Administration to Cut”.

[23] Dowsett, “Trump Administration to Cut”.

[24] Americans with Disabilities Act 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (1990).

[25] Id.