A school bus drives along a rural road outside of Kenosha, Wis. The One Big Beautiful Bill Act established a national tax credit scholarship program, but state leaders can decide whether and how to participate. (Photo by Spencer Platt/Getty Images)

When President Donald Trump signed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, he gave state leaders — not federal regulators — the power to decide whether and how to participate in the first-ever national tax credit scholarship program.

That decision now looms largest in blue states, where Democratic governors and lawmakers must weigh whether to reject the law outright on ideological grounds — or try to reshape it into something that reflects their own values.

“This isn’t the federal voucher program we were worried about five years ago,” said Jon Valant, a senior fellow in governance studies at the left-leaning Brookings Institution who testified before Congress on earlier versions of the bill. “It still has serious problems — but states now have tools to mold it into something they might actually support.”

The final law gives states wide discretion, he said. They can opt out entirely. They can opt in passively, leaving the program to operate as written. Or, as Valant suggests, they can try to redraw its footprint — focusing less on private school tuition and more on public school supports like tutoring, transportation and enrichment services in underserved districts.

“My hope is that blue states take a hard look and ask: Can this be used to address our own needs?”

For progressives and education advocates who are wary of school vouchers, the decision is fraught. Opting in could draw criticism for approving what many see as a vehicle for privatization of K-12 education. But opting out could mean turning down federal dollars — education money that states with budding or robust private school voucher infrastructures, such as Arizona and Florida, will gladly take.

“There’s money on the table, and it can be used for more than just private school tuition,” Valant said. “If blue states want to keep that money from reinforcing inequality, they’ll have to get creative, and act fast.”

Since 2020, private school choice programs — once limited to low-income or special needs students — have rapidly expanded.

In 2023, $6.3 billion was spent nationwide on private school choice programs — less than 1% of total public K-12 operational spending, according to EdChoice, a nonprofit that advocates for school choice measures. From 2023-24 to 2024-25, participation in universal private school choice programs surged nearly 40%, growing from roughly 584,000 to 805,000 students in just one school year.

By 2026-27, about half of all U.S. students will be eligible, according to estimates by FutureEd, an independent think tank at Georgetown University.

These trends, combined with new federal tax credit, could fundamentally reshape the education funding landscape across state governments, experts say.

“States will need to decide whether to encourage the redirection of funding to support private and religious schools — either by expanding existing voucher programs or, if they don’t have one, by introducing such a program for the first time,” said Sasha Pudelski, director of advocacy for AASA, The School Superintendents Association. The group opposes the national voucher plan.

State regulations

As of this May, 21 states operated tax credit scholarship programs with varying degrees of funding and oversight. According to the EdChoice Friedman Index, the states of Florida, Arkansas, Arizona and Alabama rank highest in private school access, with 100% of students eligible for school choice programs.

Some states, like Florida and Arizona, already have extensive tax credit scholarship systems. Others, including Texas, are building new infrastructure such as statewide voucher programs and education savings accounts, known as ESAs.

States with no current programs face decisions about participation, regulation and equity, but without clear federal guardrails, education advocates told Stateline.

The federal policy builds on existing state-level tax credit scholarship programs — such as Alabama’s — but significantly expands eligibility, removes scholarship caps and broadens allowable uses to include not just tuition, but also tutoring, therapy, transportation and academic support services. Beginning in 2027, scholarships will be excluded from federal taxable income.

Valant, of Brookings, told Stateline that some of his initial concerns were addressed in the version of the bill signed into law.

“There was a very realistic scenario in the earlier version of the bill where a small number of very wealthy people could essentially make money off this,” Valant said. “That was mostly addressed.”

The enacted version eliminates stock donations and caps individual tax credits at $1,700. And with states that opt in having the power to shape their own program, Valant said that gives them the chance to establish their own guardrails, such as income eligibility caps or nondiscrimination policies for participating schools.

The scholarship-granting organizations, known as SGOs, would then be subject to new state regulations about where the money can go.

“States could say SGOs can’t give money to schools that discriminate based on sexual orientation. … There’s quite a lot of room here for state regulation,” he said.

Looking ahead, Valant said he’ll be watching how states interpret their regulatory powers — and how effective scholarship-granting organizations are at fundraising under the new rules, which prohibit large stock gifts and rely instead on millions of smaller donations.

“Now it’s a strange pitch: ‘Can you front me $300 to give to the SGO? I swear the IRS will give it back,’” he said. “It’s going to take time to figure out how to sell this to families.”

Concerns over transparency and equity remain. The program allows donors, scholarship-granting organizations and families to direct funds with little public accountability, critics say. And in states without robust oversight, Valant warns that funds could be misused — or channeled to institutions that exclude students based, for example, on identity or beliefs about sexual orientation.

He also emphasized that early participation is likely to skew toward families already in private schools, particularly in wealthier ZIP codes — mirroring patterns seen in programs in Arizona, Florida and Georgia.

“One big risk is that the funds will disproportionately flow to wealthier families — just like we’ve seen in many ESA programs,” Valant said.

What do these programs look like across the country?

FutureEd studied eight states — Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Oklahoma and West Virginia — where 569,000 students participated in school choice programs at a cost to taxpayers of $4 billion in 2023-24.

The FutureEd analysis found significant differences among the states in design, funding and oversight.

Arizona’s ESA program was the first of its kind in 2011, and also the first to shift toward universal eligibility in 2022.

Florida operated the largest and most expensive program, with broad eligibility, no caps or accreditation requirements, and a major influx of higher-income families, though it mandated some university-led performance reviews. Iowa fully funded ESAs and, like other states, saw mostly existing private school families benefit.

Arkansas had a cautious rollout due to legal delays and geographic clustering of participants, while West Virginia allowed spending across state lines with no performance reporting.

Newcomer North Carolina began with income-based prioritization but quickly expanded under political pressure or demand, while Alabama and Louisiana will launch ESA programs in 2025-26 using general state revenues.

Utah enacted a universal voucher program in 2023, providing up to $8,000 per student for private school or homeschool expenses. A state teachers union sued, arguing that participating schools were not “free and open to all children” and that the program diverted public school funds. A state court this April ruled the program was unconstitutional.

As the new federal law opens the door for tax-credit-funded tuition support, Texas is building its first universal school voucher program, aided through ESAs to begin in the 2026-27 school year. The program is funded with $1 billion over two years, with $10,000-$11,000 per student — up to $30,000 for students with disabilities and $2,000 for homeschoolers.

The Texas comptroller will oversee the program, and private schools must be open for at least two years to be eligible for funds.

Voucher programs can drain state budgets, and budget wonks predict the cost for Texas could rise to around $4.8 billion by 2030, The Texas Tribune reported.

A spokesperson for the Texas comptroller’s office said that details are still being finalized; the state has issued a request for proposals due Aug. 4 to select eligible educational assistance organizations that would help funnel scholarship dollars to schools.

Other states may be more cautious. The Missouri National Education Association filed a lawsuit this summer to block $51 million in state appropriations to private school scholarships through the MOScholars program. The suit argues that using general revenue rather than private donations violates the state constitution and undermines public education funding.

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

A student draws with chalk on an outdoor court at a New York City public school in 2022. If states don’t receive billions in congressionally approved funding for K-12 education that the Trump administration is withholding, officials say programs for migrants, English-language learners and kids in need of after-school care will be at risk. (Photo by Michael Loccisano/Getty Images)

The U.S. Department of Education’s decision last week to hold back $6.8 billion in federal K-12 funds next year has triggered alarm among state education officials, school leaders and advocacy groups nationwide over how the lack of funds will affect their after-school, enrichment and language-learning services.

The Trump administration’s decision to freeze the funding has put states in “triage mode” as they scramble to decide what programs may be cut without that funding, said Mary Kusler, senior director for the Center for Advocacy at the National Education Association. The money was approved by Congress to support education for English language learners, migrants, low-income children and adults learning to read, among others.

As of July 1, school systems are unable to draw down funding, jeopardizing summer programs, hiring and early-year planning for the 2025–26 school year.

The funding freeze affects several core programs: Title II-A (educator training and recruitment), Title III-A (English learner support), Title IV-A (student enrichment and after-school), as well as migrant education and adult education and literacy grants. Trump has proposed eliminating all those programs in his proposed budget for next fiscal year, but that proposal hasn’t gone through Congress.

State superintendents sent out missives to school districts early this week and now are scrambling to make choices.

“This is not about political philosophy, this is about reliability and consistency,” Alabama state Superintendent Eric Mackey said to Politico. “None of us were worrying about this.”

The administration says it is reviewing the programs.

“The Department remains committed to ensuring taxpayer resources are spent in accordance with the President’s priorities and the Department’s statutory responsibilities,” the U.S. Department of Education wrote to states in its announcement June 30.

Historically, the department releases allocations by July 1 to ensure schools can budget and plan effectively for the coming school year. Withholding the money could result in canceled programs, hiring freezes and the loss of essential support for English learners, migrant children and other high-need populations, education and state officials told Stateline.

“America’s public school leaders run district budgets that are dependent on a complex partnership between federal, state, and local funding,” said David R. Schuler, executive director of the School Superintendents Association in a statement. “For decades, school districts have relied on timely confirmation of their federal allocations ahead of the July 1 start of the fiscal year — ensuring stability, allowing for responsible planning, and supporting uninterrupted educational services for students.”

The states facing the largest withheld amounts include California ($810.7 million), Texas ($660.9 million), and New York ($411.7 million), according to data from the NEA and the Learning Policy Institute, an education think tank.

For 17 states and territories, the freeze affects over 15% of their total federal K-12 allocations, according to the Learning Policy Institute. For smaller jurisdictions such as the District of Columbia and Vermont, the disruption hits even harder: More than 20% of their federal K-12 budgets remain inaccessible.

Colorado Education Commissioner Susan Córdova urged school districts to begin contingency planning in case funds are not released before the federal fiscal year ends on Sept. 30. California State Superintendent Tony Thurmond hinted at possible legal action, which has become a trend as states fight the second Trump administration’s funding revocations or delays.

“California will continue to pursue all available legal remedies to the Trump Administration’s unlawful withholding of federal funds appropriated by Congress,” Thurmond said in a statement.

The NEA and the NAACP have filed for a preliminary injunction, calling the administration’s delay an illegal “impoundment” — a violation of the federal Impoundment Control Act, which bars the executive branch from withholding appropriated funds without congressional approval.

Education advocates warn the recent decision by the Trump administration to withhold funding reflects a broader pattern of federal disengagement from public education.

Community nonprofits said the withholding could devastate their programming too. The Boys and Girls Clubs of America could have to close more than 900 centers — bringing the loss of 5,900 jobs and affecting more than 220,000 children, said President and CEO Jim Clark in a statement.

The 1974 Impoundment Control Act lets the president propose canceling funds approved by Congress. Lawmakers have 45 days to approve the request; if they don’t, it’s denied. Meanwhile, agencies can be directed not to spend the funds during that time.

A White House statement shared with States Newsroom this week said “initial findings have shown that many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”

“Kids, educators, and working families are the ones losing,” said Kusler, of the NEA. “We need governors and communities to step up — now.”

Stateline reporter Robbie Sequeira can be reached at rsequeira@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.

A makeshift memorial for DFL State Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband Mark Hortman is seen at the Minnesota State Capitol building on June 16, 2025, in St. Paul, Minnesota. The violence has sparked concern among lawmakers across the country. (Photo by Steven Garcia/Getty Images)

A year into her first term in office, New Jersey Assemblywoman Sadaf Jaffer decided not to run for reelection.

The political world saw her as a rising star in 2023; Jaffer, a Democrat, previously served as the nation’s first female Muslim mayor. But rampant harassment from online commenters and other politicians about her religion, as well as high-profile acts of violence against other public officials, made her reconsider her political future.

“I was concerned about my family,” Jaffer said in an interview. “They didn’t sign up for this. I didn’t want to put them in harm’s way.”

In the wake of the assassination of Minnesota state Rep. Melissa Hortman and her husband, as well as the wounding of state Sen. John Hoffman and his wife, more public officials across the country are taking stock of their safety. Some say death threats have become part of the job. They fear that violence — real attacks and constant threats — will scare potential candidates away from seeking public office.

Michigan Democratic state Rep. Laurie Pohutsky said she has faced multiple death threats since 2020. In one instance, a neighbor reported that a stranger was waiting at her house, demanding to know when she would return home.

“I have certainly considered somewhat frequently that I might be killed doing this job,” Pohutsky told Stateline. “But what really alarmed me [about the Minnesota attacks] and stopped me in my tracks was I had not considered that someone might enter my home and kill my family.”

Nationwide, lawmakers in both parties say political rhetoric that dehumanizes anyone who disagrees on an issue has created a charged atmosphere. As politicians increasingly describe their rivals not just as wrong on policy but as the enemy, the message can embolden extremists to carry out violence.

“People treat death threats against government officials as a matter of course until someone is assassinated,” Pohutsky said. “It’s an impossible position, because the people who are carrying out these attacks want people to leave public office.”

In some states, lawmakers are discussing whether officials’ home addresses should be included in campaign finance forms and other publicly available documents. Elsewhere, political leaders are reviewing their security protocols.

But elected leaders say there are no easy answers. And they fear things will get worse before they get better.

“These threats of violence, we’ve seen it before here and there, but nothing like we’ve seen it now,” said South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster, speaking with reporters this week. “And yes, I think that would make a lot of people stop and think and decide they do not want to enter that arena.

“It’s a tough arena anyway,” McMaster said, “but when you have the threat of violence — unanticipated, unmitigated, unexpected violence — that’s just one more reason not to get involved in politics.”

Growing threats

In recent years, elected officials have faced a growing number of threats and attacks.

In 2020, a group of men were accused of plotting to kidnap Michigan Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer; five were later convicted. That same year, the 20-year-old son of a federal judge in New Jersey was killed by a gunman and lawyer who had previously had a case before her.

Paul Pelosi, the husband of former U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, was assaulted by a hammer-wielding attacker at his home in 2022. President Donald Trump was targeted in a pair of assassination attempts during the 2024 campaign, including a shooting in which a bullet grazed his ear. And earlier this year, Pennsylvania Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro was targeted in an arson attack on the governor’s mansion.

Nearly 9 in 10 state lawmakers reported facing demeaning or derogatory comments or actions in their current term or the campaign leading up to it, and more than 4 in 10 reported harassment and threats, according to a report published last year by the progressive-leaning Brennan Center for Justice.

Women were three to four times more likely than men to experience abuse related to their gender, according to the report. And people of color were more than three times as likely as white officeholders to endure race-based abuse.

Since the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol, political threats against candidates — particularly women, people of color and LGBTQ+ individuals — have escalated dramatically, according to Amanda Litman, co-founder and president of Run for Something, a political action committee that helps recruit young, liberal candidates for office.

“It sucks that we have to have these conversations with folks,” she said. “But the goal of this violence is to stop good people from running.”

Litman said that her organization offers support for candidates, including safety protocols, digital privacy training and mental health support. But increasing political violence and the easy online access to officeholders and candidates has begun to change how they interact with constituents and what they share about their lives.

“We have candidates who may have not thought twice to share a photo of their family or post updates about their lives outside of political office,” Litman said. “But now there is a shift in being more deliberate about what is being shared, especially online, where people can send threats and other stuff into your DMs, and use that information to stoke even more fear.”

Language matters

Leaders say that rhetoric characterizing opponents as evil has made violent incidents more likely.

“People have gotten very, very good at toeing the line just shy of actually threatening to kill people,” Pohutsky, the Michigan lawmaker, said.

“That’s sort of become normalized,” she said. “If you make this a righteous fight, if you convince people that someone is harming children, it’s much easier to incite violence against them. That language is intentional.”

The changes have accelerated in recent years. Returning home in 2015 after serving in combat zones as a U.S. Marine and working in post-conflict regions, Jake Harriman said he didn’t recognize the country he had fought for.

Harriman said the tactics he witnessed extremist groups use in conflict areas abroad to exploit fractured nations and warring factions — such as division, fear, isolation — he now sees playing out across the United States.

“What shocked me most,” said Harriman, founder of More Perfect Union, a veteran-led civic service group, “was the hatred — Americans dehumanizing each other in ways I had only seen in war.”

More people are finding a sense of self and belonging via partisan political groups, such as identifying as MAGA or as an opponent of MAGA, said Amy Pason, an associate professor who specializes in political rhetoric at the University of Nevada, Reno.

“This is because people are more isolated or finding social groups on social media — or the other media they consume — and they identity with that group,” she said. “This gets to be more problematic when belonging to that group is to also accept beliefs and shift your attitudes — that those not in your group are dangerous or out to harm your group.”

Despite condemnations of the Minnesota shootings from state lawmakers of both parties, some Republicans in Congress rushed to social media to falsely blame Democrats and liberals.

U.S. Sen. Tina Smith, a Democrat and friend of Hortman’s, confronted U.S. Sen. Mike Lee, a Republican, in person on Capitol Hill after he made inflammatory comments about the assassination on the platform X. The posts were removed soon after.

Oregon state Sen. Jeff Golden, a Democrat, said the Minnesota attacks were a wakeup call. He pledged to direct his public comments in the future “towards the substance of the proposal and not the character of the person proposing.”

“I do think it can be a thin line,” Golden said. “I probably have crossed it one time or another, and I’m gonna do everything I possibly can not to do it again.”

But politicians have incentive to keep their base motivated and engaged through inflammatory attacks on people they characterize as the enemy, which dehumanizes them and fuels political violence, said Donald Nieman, a history professor at Binghamton University in New York.

Nieman noted in an email to Stateline that fear for personal and family safety is increasingly common among elected officials — affecting even how they vote. While he believes the path out is clear — “tone down the rhetoric, emphasize common ground” — he’s not optimistic.

“In a polarized political system, politicians depend on (and fear) a loyal base,” Neiman wrote. “I fear that the discussion of political violence will take the same course as school shootings: We will lament them, propose solutions that go nowhere, and there will be more shootings.”

Security measures

Just hours before the Minnesota shootings, Oregon lawmakers passed a bill that would make it harder for the public to obtain the home addresses of elected officials. Rather than having that information on the secretary of state’s website, as is currently law, the bill would require residents to submit a public records request to obtain those details.

In 2023, New Jersey lawmakers passed a bill exempting local officials from sharing their addresses publicly, but Democratic Gov. Phil Murphy declined to sign the measure, citing a technicality with its effective date.

“We’re in such uncharted territory when all of this data can be accessed by anyone and made into lists,” said Jaffer, the former New Jersey lawmaker, citing the “hit list” of 45 officials that law enforcement officials say had been compiled by alleged Minnesota attacker Vance Boelter.

“There needs to be more done to protect those who step up to serve, but we also need to protect freedom of speech and freedom of information,” she said.

Jaffer said a friend from another country was surprised to learn that she had no security detail while in office.

“We’re just normal people,” she said of state legislators. “It’s a great thing that we’re accessible, but it certainly makes us vulnerable.”

Following the Minnesota shootings, North Dakota officials announced they will take down lawmakers’ addresses from legislative websites. New Hampshire legislative leaders also pulled down pages with information about elected leaders, while ramping up security at the State House. Meanwhile, lawmakers in New Mexico are reviewing their security practices.

Litman, of Run for Something, said legislatures should consider funding security for local candidates and officials who may not be able to afford it.

“I think there’s a real fear that if Donald Trump, who has the best security detail in the world, can be attacked at a public event, then what about local officials who don’t have the budget to afford to keep themselves or their families safe?” Litman said.

Julia Shumway of the Oregon Capital Chronicle and Seanna Adcox of the South Carolina Daily Gazette contributed to this report.

Stateline reporters Alex Brown and Robbie Sequeira can be reached at abrown@stateline.org and rsequeira@stateline.org.

Stateline is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Stateline maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Scott S. Greenberger for questions: info@stateline.org.