Washington Update, June 24, 2025
Dear Colleagues:
As summer enters the chat, Congress and federal agencies are moving forward with a flurry of decisions that will reshape everything from civil rights enforcement to funding for teacher preparation, research, and inclusive educational practices. Against a backdrop of budget debates, legal challenges, and cultural flashpoints, these policy changes carry profound implications for special education faculty and doctoral scholars. Here’s a deep dive into recent developments—arranged chronologically—and why they matter to our work.
1. Judge’s Injunction Preserves OCR Capacity
A federal judge issued a forceful injunction blocking the administration’s plan to slash nearly half of the Department of Education’s workforce, including critical staff at the Office for Civil Rights (OCR). He called the cuts a “thinly veiled attempt” to disable the agency without legislative sanction. The ruling not only halted layoffs of around 1,400 employees, but also restored full OCR operations and required the office to resume all paused discrimination investigations—from racial and gender-based harassment to disability-related grievances.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
A fully operational OCR is the backbone of IDEA and 504 enforcement. For faculty, the ruling ensures continued support for inclusive education systems and maintains our capacity to design coursework around civil rights compliance. Doctoral scholars studying disability policy will find the sustained OCR activity a critical living laboratory of enforcement trends and administrative responsiveness.
2. HELP Committee Presses Nominees on Civil Rights & Department Purpose
Also in late spring, the Senate HELP Committee moved forward with confirmation hearings for two key appointments: Penny Schwinn for Deputy Secretary and Kimberly Richey for Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights. Democrats questioned Richey vigorously on LGBTQ+ protections and her plan to manage OCR investigations amid staffing disruptions. Richey affirmed a narrower approach to Bostock’s application under Title IX but pledged to defend OCR’s authority. Schwinn, meanwhile, reinforced her support for expanded school choice, stricter classroom cellphone policies, and reassured committee members that exploring structural alternatives—including closure—was part of her mandate under a presidential executive order.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
These two appointments shape how the federal government will prioritize civil rights and operational oversight. Educator preparation programs and doctoral students studying policy must consider how new leadership might shift IDEA implementation, Title IX interpretation, and the department’s broader educational mission.
3. Court Orders Full Restoration of OCR Functions
In June, the same judge issued a supplemental order specifically focused on OCR, demanding reinstatement of all civil rights staff and full reopening of the office’s investigative docket. OCR had reportedly been prioritizing politically motivated cases over critical disability and racial discrimination complaints. The ruling underscored that under Title VI and Title IX, the agency cannot selectively ignore violations tied to protected classes, including disability.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
OCR’s ability to address complaints affecting students with disabilities remains essential to teaching, clinical practice, and compliance training. As faculty build inclusive modules and doctoral scholars investigate equity and enforcement outcomes, the integrity and capacity of OCR remain fundamental.
4. NIH Front-Loading Grants Comes With Consequences
Also in June, NIH unveiled its FY26 budget plan, which proposes paying full grant amounts upfront instead of incrementally. Although this streamlines budget execution, it would decimate the number of funded projects—cutting awards from approximately 42,000 today to 27,000, and shrinking new grants by nearly half. Awards rates are projected to fall below 8%, forcing researchers to choose between fewer opportunities or pivot to private or preliminary funding sources.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
Special education research already competes under tight budgets. These changes threaten early-career researchers and those focused on behavioral interventions, inclusive teaching strategies, and assistive technologies. Doctoral students may find pathways to external funding narrowing.
5. Hidden Plans to Shift ED Programs to Other Agencies
Court documents also revealed ongoing—but paused—plans to transfer major sections of the Department of Education to other agencies. A policy signed in May sought to shift approximately $2.7 billion in Career and Technical Education (Perkins) and adult education funds to the Department of Labor. Concurrently, staff were being detailed to Treasury to manage student loan collections—following severe cuts to ED’s internal units. Though currently halted by court order, these moves reflect a broader agenda to dilute ED’s core function.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
Such transfers would weaken partnerships between special education faculty and school systems, particularly in transition programming and work-based learning. Doctoral scholars embedded in career development research must brace for disrupted funding lines and unfamiliar administrative structures.
6. Medicaid Provider Tax Proposal Draws GOP Scrutiny
In budget debates, Senate Republicans advanced a proposal to reduce the allowable Medicaid provider tax cap from 6% to as low as 3.5%. While presented as a cost-saving measure, it has alarmed rural hospital advocates and service providers.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
Medicaid underwrites vital school-based services—speech, OT, mental health—for students with disabilities. Reductions in Medicaid revenue can reduce in-school training opportunities for special education personnel and challenge doctoral studies that focus on integrated service delivery and health-education collaboration.
7. School Choice Tax Credit Expands at Federal Level
The federal reconciliation bill includes a $5 billion annual tax credit for private school scholarships, with Senate leaders proposing to double that to $10 billion and eliminate income limits. Supporters hail it as universal school choice, while critics condemn it as a defacto federal voucher without federal oversight.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
Private school expansion challenges IDEA protections and weakens the inclusive public system. Faculty preparing special educators must adjust curricula to ensure teacher candidates are ready to advocate for legal safeguards in private educational contexts. Doctoral research into equity implications also becomes increasingly vital.
8. Senate Endowment Tax Could Drain Research Budgets
In a separate committee move, Senate Finance introduced a three-tiered endowment tax, with rates rising from 1.4% to 8% on institutional investment income. While religious schools are exempt, the tax targets larger endowments and comes with enforcement measures to prevent evasion.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
Endowment revenue supports graduate assistantships, research centers, and outreach programming—especially in special education. Reduced funds mean fewer teaching awards, doctoral stipends, and innovative project investments, disproportionately affecting smaller and mission-driven programs.
9. Federal Ultimatum Targets California’s Inclusive Sex-ed Program
Finally, the administration issued a 60-day ultimatum to California, demanding removal of “gender ideology” references from its federally funded Personal Responsibility Education Program—critical for serving at-risk youth, including LGBTQ+ and justice-involved populations.
Why this matters for higher ed faculty and doctoral scholars:
Inclusive sex education is essential for students with disabilities and diverse identities. Restrictions limit the scope of educator preparation, undermine culturally responsive practice, and present a case study in how federal policy can discriminate against marginalized youth. Doctoral scholars in special education or inclusive pedagogy need to document and respond to how these mandates obstruct equitable practice.
Final Reflections
This policy update reflects a tug-of-war over federal educational authority, civil rights enforcement, funding structures, and inclusivity in both K–12 and higher education. For those of us deeply involved in shaping the next generation of educators and researchers, these developments are not abstract—they directly influence:
• OCR’s enforcement capacity and oversight of equitable practices
• Availability and design of graduate-level research
• Program alignment between special education and workforce training
• Infrastructure and funding for inclusive services
• Preparation of teachers capable of navigating diverse educational environments
As daunting as these shifts may seem, they reaffirm the essential role of higher education leaders, researchers, and special educators in defending equity and shaping policy. The courts have reminded us that our institutions, our expertise, and our collective voice still matter. Even in uncertain times, we have the opportunity—and the responsibility—to advocate for systems that honor every learner.
Please make sure to use the newest Advocacy Toolkit for resources to contact your Members of Congress. Make sure you share information about the email/visit/call using our Google Form - we will be raffling off Starbucks gift cards in early July!
Let’s keep moving forward. Our students, our research, and our profession are worth the effort.
With hope and resolve,
Kait
@brennan_kait
