The Trump administration is trying to reshape how schools discipline students and change the role of the federal government in the process.

On April 23, 2025, President Donald Trump issued an executive order that advises schools to use racially discriminatory discipline policies. It sparked new federal guidance that would reverse policies supported by the Obama and Biden administrations aimed at reducing racial disparities in school discipline by Black children and other students of color.

I believe the order could have far-reaching consequences and is likely to cause strikeback and legal challenges. As a researcher studying school disciplines, I can explain why this happens and what it means to the school and students.

Local control, federal influence

Historically, school discipline has been under local control, although federal law does require some disciplinary responses, such as deportation of firearms. School Board of Directors Creates Code of Conduct. School principals and teachers formulate and enforce rules.

But federal guidance has increasingly shaped these local decisions over the past decade.

For example, in 2014, the U.S. education and justice sector issued guidance to reduce racial disparities in school discipline. The Obama-era letter suggests that higher discipline rates among racial minorities may be evidence of discrimination. The guide marks how the U.S. Department of Education will explain federal law and why the federal investigation is underway.

In the following years, schools reduced suspensions and adopted alternatives such as repairing habits, which focused on passing and repairing injuries rather than removing students from the classroom. But some people think it is a weakening of school discipline. Politicians and policy advocates even claimed that these changes in discipline led to school shootings.

Even with the removal of guidance in the first Trump administration, the federal government is still investigating disciplinary differences. Without other guidance, many schools continue to be guided by Obama-era policies.

Under President Joe Biden, these efforts to reduce disparities in schools continue, despite no resumption of Obama-era guidance.

However, when the school returned to school after the Covid-19 shutdown, the school struggled to deal with reports of student misconduct. Nine out of 10 principals across the country reported the negative impact of the pandemic on student behavior.

Meanwhile, it has been reported that some schools have not properly documented serious misconduct - hiding high or different discipline rates. These issues provide the Trump administration with an opportunity to push for new federal guidance.

What does Trump's executive order do

Trump’s new executive order lays the foundation for further impact on discipline policy and practice. This is what is included.

First, the executive order states that schools should no longer focus on disciplinary rates across subgroups. It believes that doing so has led to the school’s failure to report events and make decisions based on the students’ race rather than objective facts.

Next, the Executive Order calls on the Secretary of Education to develop new school discipline guidelines for states and schools. It also called on the Education Minister and the Attorney General to work with state leaders to reshape the discipline of how their states prevent racial discrimination.

Finally, the executive order requires a report on school subjects “based on discriminatory rights.” The order does not specify what this discipline is, but presumably includes alternatives to pause and methods focused on considering race in disciplined decision-making.

The report is intended to provide model policy, ordering claims will uphold “American values ​​and traditional virtues” and provide examples of disciplines that are not based on “fair ideology.”

Part of the report will also include assessments of past federal civil rights investigations and federal funding support organizations to facilitate disciplinary approaches that are considered problematic under the new order. This addressed concerns that the federal investigation threats to disciplinary differences were used to affect school discipline policies.

In short, the order shows that the federal government is involved in school discipline. Although noted, this is a "obvious conclusion" that "discipline decisions are best left in the hands of classroom teachers and administrators."

The meaning of "discrimination" in anti-DEI is

The executive order claims to provide “protecting racial discrimination” in school discipline. Interestingly, Trump’s policy seeking to remove is also aimed at reducing racial disparities.

This contradiction can be understood when observing executive orders in the context of current debate on education policy. Over the past five years, extensive policies on efforts on diversity, equity and inclusion and related topics have been at the forefront of debate on attending school. From the debate surrounding “critical race theory” (the idea that racism is embedded in our social system) to the contents of the school library, “cultural war” is right at the gate of the school building.

Therefore, it is not accidental that the Executive Order uses the term “discriminatory fairness ideology” to describe its prohibited discipline policies.

I think this reimagining of discrimination from diversity, equity and inclusiveness shows that the new executive order is not only related to school discipline. This is part of a larger debate on the value and impact of DEI and the politicization of the fight for public education.

What the order means to schools and students

In the short term, I believe educators will face a lot of uncertainty. The executive orders are vague. It does not list specific discipline strategies that should be avoided or used.

But in the coming months, the executive order promises to increase the federal impact on school discipline. The full scope or impact of this is not clear. However, it is reasonable to expect that, like other controversial issues in education, certain regions face legal challenges and pushback.

In short, the “common sense” discipline reform required in executive orders is unlikely to be seen as common sense for everyone.