Despite Trump’s promise to remove “Critical Race Theory” from schools, the federal government has remarkably limited direct authority over what is taught in American classrooms. Curriculum decisions are set primarily by individual states, local school districts, and school boards—not the president. A Trump administration could potentially pressure states through funding conditions or use executive authority over federal education programs, but it cannot directly mandate curriculum changes across the nation’s roughly 130,000 public and private schools.
The decentralized structure of American education, deliberately designed this way through the Constitution’s Tenth Amendment, means that curriculum authority rests with states and local communities rather than Washington. The promise to remove CRT illustrates a fundamental misunderstanding of how education governance actually works in practice. When Trump and other political figures call for removing “Critical Race Theory” from schools, they are speaking to popular frustration, but the mechanics of how that would happen are far more complicated than a simple federal directive. States can pass their own restrictions, districts can make their own decisions, and local school boards retain significant power—but none of this happens at the federal level through a single executive action or legislative fix.
Table of Contents
- How Is Curriculum Authority Actually Divided in American Schools?
- What Authority Does the Federal Government Actually Have?
- What Is “Critical Race Theory” and What Are Schools Actually Teaching?
- What Tools Could a Trump Administration Actually Use to Restrict Curriculum?
- What Are the Enforcement Challenges and Potential Unintended Consequences?
- How Have State-Level CRT Restrictions Actually Played Out?
- What Is the Future Outlook for Curriculum Battles?
- Conclusion
How Is Curriculum Authority Actually Divided in American Schools?
Curriculum decisions in the United States follow a clear hierarchy that puts the most power at the state and local levels. The U.S. Department of Education cannot mandate what subjects schools teach or how they teach them. Instead, each state develops its own educational standards and curriculum frameworks. For example, California’s Department of Education sets standards that schools in California must follow, while Texas’s State Board of Education sets different standards for Texas schools. Within those state frameworks, individual school districts often have authority to customize curriculum further, and school boards The federal government’s power over education is limited but not nonexistent. It can set conditions on federal funding—roughly 10 percent of K-12 school funding nationally comes from federal sources through programs like Title I funding for low-income schools and special education funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). A presidential administration could, in theory, threaten to withhold some of this funding from schools or states that do not comply with curriculum restrictions. This would be a powerful tool, but it faces legal and practical barriers. Past administrations have faced court challenges when attempting to tie federal education funding to curriculum or policy conditions, and Congress would need to be involved in any major changes to how federal education funding works. Another limited tool is the bully pulpit. A trump administration could publicly pressure states and school districts, as Trump did in his first term when he called for schools to promote American patriotism and traditional history. But public pressure is not the same as authority. The real constraint on federal power comes from the fact that, constitutionally, education is primarily a state and local responsibility. This decentralization was intentional—the Founders wanted to avoid federal control over education, and this principle has been upheld consistently in American law. Any effort to expand federal curriculum authority would face significant constitutional and political obstacles. To understand the promise to remove CRT from schools, it is essential to clarify what the term means. Critical Race Theory, in its academic sense, is a graduate-level legal framework developed by law scholars in the 1980s that examines how racism is embedded in laws and institutions. It is not being taught in K-12 schools—legal scholars and education researchers across the political spectrum agree on this. However, the term “Critical Race Theory” has become a catch-all political label for a much broader range of topics, including lessons about slavery and racism, the teaching of diverse perspectives in history, LGBTQ inclusion in curricula, and discussions of systemic inequality. This distinction matters enormously for understanding what is actually at stake. When a parent opposes “CRT” in schools, they may be concerned about specific age-inappropriate content, or they may be objecting to the general inclusion of topics related to race, slavery, and systemic injustice in the curriculum. The framers of anti-CRT legislation often use the term loosely, which has led to confusion about what is actually being restricted. Some states’ anti-CRT laws have been written so broadly that they could affect how teachers discuss historical events like slavery, the civil rights movement, or colonialism. Other laws are narrower, targeting specific curricula or classroom activities. A Trump administration pursuing a CRT agenda would likely focus on strategies that work within the existing structure of American education governance. The most direct approach would be executive orders affecting the federal education agency—the Department of Education could issue guidance that discourages grantees from teaching certain topics or could prioritize federal funding for curriculum that aligns with administration preferences. In the first Trump term, the Department of Education did issue guidance opposing the 1619 Project (a New York Times initiative reframing American history around slavery) in schools, though schools are not required to follow such guidance. Congress also plays a role. Republican-controlled legislatures could pass laws withholding federal education funding from states or districts that teach prohibited topics. This approach has more teeth than guidance alone, though it would likely face legal challenges. Additionally, the Trump administration could use its bully pulpit to encourage states to pass their own anti-CRT legislation, similar to how it did in the first term. Many states have already done this independently—as of 2024, over 30 states have some form of legislation restricting how race and history can be taught. A federal push would likely accelerate this trend, but it would still ultimately depend on state and local action. Even if a Trump administration successfully threatened to withhold federal funding or passed restrictive legislation, enforcement would be extremely difficult. The federal government lacks the administrative capacity to monitor what is taught in over 130,000 schools across the country. Teachers have significant professional autonomy in how they teach, and determining whether a lesson complies with curriculum restrictions can be subjective. For example, if a law prohibits teaching that “America is a fundamentally racist country,” what happens when a history teacher covers the Jim Crow era? Is presenting historical facts about segregation in violation of the law, or does the law only prohibit value judgments? This vagueness creates a chilling effect even without active enforcement. Teachers may avoid teaching certain historical topics altogether rather than risk losing their job or facing complaints. Research on past curriculum restrictions shows this can result in students receiving less complete historical education. Additionally, aggressive federal curriculum restrictions could trigger fierce legal challenges based on free speech grounds and constitutional limits on federal power. Courts have been skeptical of efforts to dictate curriculum in ways that appear to suppress discussion of controversial topics, and any major federal overreach could result in years of litigation that ultimately limits the restrictions. Several states have already implemented their own restrictions on teaching about race and racism, providing real-world examples of how such policies work in practice. Florida’s anti-CRT law prohibits teaching that any race is responsible for the problems of another race, which sounds straightforward but creates complications when teaching about historical racism. Teachers in Florida report uncertainty about how to cover slavery, Jim Crow laws, and civil rights movements without violating the law. Some school districts have responded by removing books on these topics from curricula and classroom libraries. Texas passed legislation restricting how teachers can discuss race and requiring “opposing perspectives” to be taught whenever discussing current events or political topics. This has led to debates over whether Holocaust units need to present “both sides,” and whether lessons on Martin Luther King Jr.’s civil rights activism must also cover opposing viewpoints. In some cases, school districts have had to hire new curriculum specialists to navigate these restrictions. These examples show that even when laws are already in place, their real-world implementation creates uncertainty, litigation, and sometimes educational gaps. A federal push for similar restrictions would likely create the same complications on a much larger scale. The curriculum debates that dominate local school board meetings are unlikely to disappear regardless of federal action. The underlying cultural divide over how American history should be taught, what topics are age-appropriate, and whose perspectives are centered in education is rooted in fundamental disagreements about national identity and values. Even if a Trump administration pushes restrictions on CRT, communities will continue to fight over curriculum locally. Some states and districts will embrace the restrictions, while others will resist them or find ways to maintain academic freedom despite the pressures. A longer-term question is whether the increasing politicization of curriculum will lead to changes in how education governance works. Currently, the decentralization of American education means that one parent’s curriculum victory in one district can be another parent’s defeat in another district. This reflects American federalism, but it also creates significant inequities—students in different districts receive different educations based on local politics rather than educational standards. Whether future administrations, regardless of party, will seek to centralize more curriculum authority at the federal level remains an open question, but it would require significant constitutional and congressional changes. Trump’s promise to remove “Critical Race Theory” from schools highlights a fundamental gap between campaign rhetoric and the actual mechanics of American education governance. The federal government lacks the constitutional authority and administrative capacity to directly control curriculum in the nation’s schools. What a Trump administration could do is pressure states through funding mechanisms, issue guidance to federal grantees, and use the bully pulpit to encourage state-level restrictions. Many of these steps have already been attempted or initiated in previous administrations and remain controversial. The reality of curriculum control in America is that it remains deeply local. Parents, teachers, administrators, school board members, and state officials all have a say, but the president does not have the power to unilaterally remove subjects from the curriculum. Understanding this decentralized system is essential for anyone seeking to influence what their children learn in school or for understanding what campaign promises about education can realistically deliver.
What Authority Does the Federal Government Actually Have?
What Is “Critical Race Theory” and What Are Schools Actually Teaching?
What Tools Could a Trump Administration Actually Use to Restrict Curriculum?
What Are the Enforcement Challenges and Potential Unintended Consequences?
How Have State-Level CRT Restrictions Actually Played Out?
What Is the Future Outlook for Curriculum Battles?
Conclusion
You Might Also Like