A student walks along the campus of Howard University, an HBCU, on Oct. 25, 2021 in Washington, D.C. Howard is an HBCU. (Photo by Drew Angerer/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s administration said Monday it will redirect $495 million in additional funding to historically Black colleges and universities as well as tribal colleges. 

The U.S. Education Department’s announcement came just days after the administration decided to gut and reprogram $350 million in discretionary funds that support minority-serving institutions over claims that these programs are “racially discriminatory.” 

The department last week said it would cease funding for seven grant programs that go toward institutions that serve students who are Black, Indigenous, Hispanic and Asian, as well as initiatives for minority students pursuing science and engineering careers. 

The agency argued that these programs “discriminate by conferring government benefits exclusively to institutions that meet racial or ethnic quotas.” 

Charter schools, civics education

Meanwhile, the department is also diverting $60 million toward grants for charter schools, and will award a total of $500 million for these schools, which receive public funds and are a form of school choice. The umbrella term “school choice” centers on programs that offer alternatives to one’s assigned public school.

The agency also said it’s investing more than $160 million total in American history and civics grants — a $137 million increase in the funds Congress previously approved. 

In its announcement, the agency said “these investments will be repurposed from programs that the Department determined are not in the best interest of students and families.” 

Education Secretary Linda McMahon said her department “has carefully scrutinized our federal grants, ensuring that taxpayers are not funding racially discriminatory programs but those programs which promote merit and excellence in education,” in a statement Monday. 

She added that the administration “will use every available tool to meaningfully advance educational outcomes and ensure every American has the opportunity to succeed in life.” 

There was no breakdown made available Monday as to which programs or individual institutions would gain funding.

HBCU ‘godsend’

Lodriguez V. Murray, senior vice president for public policy and government affairs at UNCF, which supports historically Black colleges and universities, said the extra funding is “nothing short of a godsend for HBCUs,” in a statement Monday.   

“We are grateful to have worked with the Trump Administration, Secretary McMahon, and her Department of Education team in achieving this one-time infusion of grant funding,” Murray said.  

Murray noted that “HBCUs are currently and have been underfunded since their inception” and “while we are grateful for these funds, we are still under-resourced.” 

The National Center for Education Statistics noted that in 2022, there were “99 HBCUs located in 19 states, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Virgin Islands.” 

Percy Brown stands outside the church where he grew up, Mt. Zion Baptist Church in Madison. (Photo by Erik Gunn/Wisconsin Examiner)

For more than two decades, Percy Brown has worked as an educator, his core priority striving to address gaps in achievement between Black and white students.

There’s no single cause for those gaps, Brown says. Poor teaching methods are one factor, in his view. He points to changes in how reading is taught, for example, that have been shown to improve reading proficiency among white and Black students alike.

But, he contends, that’s only part of the answer. A legacy of discrimination through the generations demands more careful attention to making sure every student is fully welcome at the schoolhouse door and gets the opportunity to learn and thrive, he says, in the classroom and out.

Brown pursued that goal as the director of equity and student achievement in the Middleton School District, west of Madison, and more recently as a trainer and consultant on diversity and equity in education as well as a speaker on other education-related topics.

Biases about Black students’ inherent academic abilities persist, Brown contends — influencing not only white teachers but Black students as well.

“We’ve dealt with racial inferiority being placed on us and embedded in the psyche of all of America for a very, very long time,” Brown says. “And while we might have egalitarian beliefs, those stereotypes and biases are still there.”

Concern about that legacy drove Brown to write “Strength Through Generations” — a combination memoir, thumbnail sketch of Black history and call to action.

The book has more than one audience, Brown says. 

One audience is fellow educators — “to reach teachers, to help them be more culturally responsive in the classroom,” Brown says.

“I also wrote it for high school students that are African-American, so that they can learn more about their history, with the hope that that inspires them,” he says. “To know thyself is so key to what you’ll be able to do in life.”

DEI under attack

The book comes at a time when organized programs to address racial diversity, promote equity to overcome centuries of discrimination and subjugation, and promote inclusion of the broad range of people into national life and institutions are under fierce attack.

Starting on his first day in office President Donald Trump has issued a series of executive orders aimed at ending diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs in federal government and education while also condemning inclusive policies in the private sector.

Brown has critiqued some of the ways DEI has been carried out. When he read an audit of Universities of Wisconsin DEI programs conducted by the Legislative Audit Bureau on behalf of the Legislature, he was struck that there seemed to be no consistent definition throughout the system for DEI.

But he also considers the anti-DEI wave a backlash to the protests in 2020 after the police killing of George Floyd. “That woke up the world,” Brown says. “There was a coming together, and it wasn’t even politicized like that.”

Right-wing influencers began attacking critical race theory — a complex, academic concept — and subsequently DEI, he observes, deploying “the anti-woke rhetoric to really scare people.”

Six years earlier, however, in Middleton, “I was able to collaborate and get support from people on the right side of the aisle to try to make things better for historically disenfranchised students,” Brown says. “It wasn’t a boogie man.”

The book’s publication is especially timely, he believes.

“There’s a lot going on that I would say is just anti-‘We the people’ — unless you’re talking about ‘We the People’ in its original intent for this nation to be a nation for white people — and then nobody else,” Brown says.

Family history and Black history

Brown’s book weaves the stories of his grandfather’s involvement in the civil rights struggles in rural, segregated Mississippi and the lives of his father, aunts and uncles growing up there together with a primer on Black history.

“As a Black male educator with a background in social studies, I know that America’s schools focus heavily on teaching slavery, but this does not address the more significant curricular issue when it comes to the history of Black people,” Brown writes in the book’s introduction. “There’s no mention of ancient African civilizations, such as the Kingdoms of Mali, Songhai, Benin, Kemet, Nubia, Axum and Ethiopia.”

By teaching “a more comprehensive history of Black people,” he writes, educators can appropriately build self-esteem of Black children and also “change the perception of those who are not Black.”

Brown’s father, Percy Sr., and his father’s siblings integrated their local high school in Mississippi in 1965 after the district was forced to admit Black students. Ku Klux Klan members burned a cross at their home and fired gunshots. “The intimidation was real, as real as could be,” Percy Sr. told his son in an interview included in the book.

Finding common ground

His father moved north from Mississippi to attend the University of Wisconsin-Madison, graduating in 1975. Percy Brown Jr. grew up in Madison, and his book reflects on the racial divisions then and now in the state’s capital city despite its progressive image.

When it came time to go to college, Brown attended Delta State University in Mississippi near where his father grew up.

A bout of spring cleaning helped trigger Brown’s idea to write the book. He turned up a paper he had written as an undergraduate in 1997 “about the need to incorporate Black history into the curriculum to help build the self-esteem of Black children,” he recalls. The paper concluded with his declaration that one day he would write a book about Black history to help meet that need.

Not long after finding the paper, he traveled to Egypt in 2023 to learn about the African roots of one of the world’s oldest civilizations — roots that Brown says have long been unappreciated.

“Going to Egypt — that was transformational for me, and in a lot of ways I think I felt more closely connected to the human family,” Brown says.

The final push for the book came from the CEO at a publishing firm that specializes in producing books by entrepreneurs.

While his book focuses on Black experience, Brown says that in his consulting work he sees parallel experiences in places where the population is all white or nearly so.

Conducting a student assembly (about being safe online) in Door County, he got a firsthand look at the way schools there are also under-resourced. “My empathy for them up there is no different than the empathy that I have for the Black kids here in the community,” Brown says.

He worries about polarization and what he calls the tribalism that divides the public.

“The things that we have in common, that’s how you start to build those authentic relationships,” Brown says. “That’s how you start to build community, right? And it’s about our collective shared stories — not shutting down one story.”

 

Madison Mayor Satya Rhodes-Conway and other Wisconsinites took part in a city celebration for Transgender Day of Visibility in March. Wisconsin and 14 other states are suing in opposition to a Trump administration executive order blocking gender-affirming care for people under 19. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner)

A coalition including 15 state attorneys general have filed a multistate lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s effort to restrict access to medically-necessary care for transgender, intersex and nonbinary youth.

The lawsuit challenges recent federal action to deter doctors and medical providers from offering gender affirming care to youth under the age of 19 years old, including states like Michigan where that care is legal and protected.

Joining the suit are the attorneys general of Michigan, New York, California, Massachusetts, Illinois, and Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia, as well as Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro.

“The Trump administration shouldn’t be interfering with the provision of health care,” said Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul in a statement Friday. “The administration should be respecting individual liberty and equal rights, not shamefully targeting transgender people.”

The attorneys general have asserted that President Donald Trump’s White House is overstepping its authority, using threats of criminal prosecution and federal investigations to pressure health care providers.

“The Trump Administration is attempting to strip away lawful, essential healthcare from vulnerable youth. These orders are illegal and dangerous and have no medical or scientific basis,” said Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel in a statement. “I will continue to protect families, defend doctors, and stop politicians from putting our kids’ lives at risk.”

Trump in the beginning of his second administration signed an executive order stating that the U.S. would only recognize two sexes, and called for an end to what Trump labeled “gender ideology.” A second order focused on medical restrictions, directing the U.S. Department of Justice to pursue enforcement actions related to that care.

Since then, Nessel’s office said the Department of Justice has issued subpoenas to providers under the guise of criminal law enforcement, but the attorneys general filing the lawsuit Friday argue those efforts lack legal standing and are intended only to intimidate.

“Health care decisions for kids should be made by parents and doctors, not by politicians,” said Erin Knott, executive director of Equality Michigan, a LGBTQ+ advocacy group, in a statement. “The federal government is using funding as a weapon to force providers to abandon their patients and override parents’ rights to make health care decisions for their own children.”

Patricia Wells, a doctor and the medical director of The Corner Health Center in Ypsilanti, Michigan, said in a statement that she and her colleagues are distressed by new punitive changes to funding and regulations, which threaten to dismantle essential care.

“These policies do not protect children; they endanger them,” Wells said. “They undermine trust in the medical system and place affirming providers in an impossible position, forcing hospitals to close clinics and providers to stop offering the very care that helps young people survive and thrive. The loss of these services would not simply be a policy failure; it would be a moral one.”

Wells said the nation must do better.

“These young people deserve our compassion, our evidence-based care, and our unwavering commitment to their well-being,” she said. “I applaud the leadership of the state of Michigan for protecting transgender and gender nonconforming youth, their families, and the caregivers who are saving lives every day.”

Erik Gunn of Wisconsin Examiner contributed to this report.

Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

U.S. President Donald Trump displays a signed executive order during the "Winning the AI Race" summit hosted by All‑In Podcast and Hill & Valley Forum at the Andrew W. Mellon Auditorium on July 23, 2025 in Washington, DC. Trump signed executive orders related to his Artificial Intelligence Action Plan during the event. (Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)

An executive order signed by President Donald Trump last week seeks to remove “ideological agendas” from artificial intelligence models sold to the federal government, but it’s not exactly clear how the policy would be enforced, nor how tech companies would test their models for these standards, technologists and policy experts say.

The executive order says that AI companies must be “truth-seeking” and “ideologically neutral,” to work with the government, and mentions removing ideologies involving diversity, equity and inclusion from AI models.

“Really what they’re talking about is putting limitations on AI models that produce, in their mind, ideology that they find objectionable,” said Matthew  F. Ferraro, a partner at Crowell & Moring’s privacy and cybersecurity group.

Ferraro said that refinement of AI models and testing them for bias is a goal that gets support on both sides of the aisle. Ferraro spent two years working with the Biden administration on the development of its AI policy, and said that Trump’s AI Action Plan, rolled out last week, shares many pillars in common with the Biden administration’s AI executive order.

Both named the potentials for biohazard threats enabled by AI and the impact on the labor force in their AI action plans, and the importance of growing AI for American innovation, Ferraro said. Biden’s plan prioritized protections against harms, while Trump prioritized innovation above all else.

“It just so happened the Biden administration put those concerns first, not last, right?” Ferraro said. “But I was struck when reading the Trump AI action plan how similar the provisions that made recommendations the Department of Labor were to initiatives under the Biden administration.”

In the executive order, Trump assigns the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance for compliance in the next 120 days. But Ferraro said as it stands, the order doesn’t provide enough clarity around the technical compliance companies would need to meet, nor how to reach a standard of “truth.”

“It’s not at all clear to me, one, what exactly this executive order seeks to prevent, beyond sort of a gestalt of political speech that the administration found objectionable,” Ferraro said. “Second, it’s not all clear to me, technically, how this is possible. And third, it’s not at all clear to me that even by its own terms, it’s going to be enforceable in any comprehensive way.”

Technical challenges

AI companies looking to contract with the government under the policies in this executive order would likely need to prepare for ongoing testing of their models, said David Acosta, cofounder and chief artificial intelligence officer of ARBOai.

When an AI model is in its early days of training, developers are mostly looking for its technical functionality. But ongoing reviews, or audits, of the model’s growth and accuracy can be done in a process called “red teaming,” where a third party introduces testing scenarios that help with compliance, bias testing and accuracy.

Auditing is a part of what Acosta’s company specializes in, and he said his team has been flooded with requests since last year. The team anticipated there could be a struggle around objectivity in AI.

“This is something that essentially we predicted late last year, as far as where this narrative would come from,” Acosta said. “Who would try to steer it, load it and push it forward, because essentially it’s going to create a culture war.”

Many AI models have a “black box” algorithm, meaning that the decision-making process of the model is unclear and difficult to understand, even for the developers. Because of this, constant training and testing for accuracy is needed to assess if the model is working as intended.

Acosta said that AI models should seek to meet certain accuracy requirements. A model should have a hallucination score — how often a model produces fabricated, inaccurate, or misleading information — below 5%. A model should also have “uncertainty tax,” the ability to tell a user that there’s a level of uncertainty in its output. 

This testing is expensive for AI firms, though, Acosta said. If the federal Office of Management and Budget requires some sort of testing to meet its requirements, it may limit smaller firms from being able to contract with the government.

Third-party red teaming uses thousands of prompts to prod models for hallucinations and politically loaded responses, Acosta said. A well-balanced model will refuse to answer questions using certain ideology or rhetoric, or produce primary sources to validate factual information.

“Explainable AI and reasoning have always, always, always, always been important in order to make sure that we can substantiate what the feedback is,” Acosta said. “But at the end of the day, it always comes down to who it is that’s training these machines, and if they can remain neutral.”

What is “truth-seeking?”

The dataset that an AI model is trained on can determine what “truth” is. Most datasets are based on human-created data, which in itself can contain errors and bias. It’s a system many laws around discrimination in AI are aiming to address. 

“One would hope that there’s a surface level of, not unified — because you’re never going to get a 100% — but a majority agreement on what absolute truth is and what it isn’t,” Acosta said.

He used an example of textbooks from decades ago; much of the information widely known as truth and taught in schools in the 1980s is now outdated. If an AI model is trained on those textbooks, its answers would not stand up to an AI model trained on a much larger, more diverse dataset.

But the removal of “ideological” information like race and sex from AI model training, as outlined in Trump’s executive order, poses a risk for inaccurate results. 

“It’s such a slippery slope, because who decides? Data sanitization – when you’re filtering the training of data to remove ‘overtly ideological sources’ — I mean the risk there is, that in itself, is a subjective process, especially when you’re coming to race, gender and religion,” Acosta said.

The concept of ideological truth is not something the AI algorithm considers, Ferraro said. AI does not produce truth, it produces probabilities.

“They simply produce the most common next token,” based on their training, Ferraro said. “The AI does not know itself what is true or false, or what is, for that matter, ideological or not. And so preventing outputs that expressed [Trump’s] favorite ideological opinions can simply basically exceed the ability of the model builders to build.”

Compliance

Enforcement of this executive order will require clarity from the OMB, said Peter Salib, an assistant professor of law at the University of Houston Law Center.

“It seems like there is one thing happening at the level of rhetoric and then another thing happening at the level of law,” Salib said.

The OMB would need to define the political ideology outlined in the executive order, and what is included or excluded, he said. For example, is a dataset tracking racial wealth inequality over 150 years considered some kind of DEI?

The order also puts companies that wish to comply with the executive order in a position to decide if they want to develop two versions of their AI models — one for the private sector, and one that fits Trump’s standards, Ferraro said.

There are exceptions carved out for some AI systems, including those contracted by national security agencies, the executive order said. Salib also highlighted a section that walks back some of the intent of the order, saying that it will consider vendors compliant as long as they disclose the prompts, specifications, evaluations and other training information for their model to the government. 

“It’s saying you don’t actually have to make your AI ideologically neutral,” Salib said. “You just have to share with the government the system prompts and the specifications you used when training the AI. So the AI can be as woke or as right wing, or as truth seeking or as falsity seeking as you like, and it counts as compliance with the neutrality provision if you just disclose.”

In this case, the executive order could turn out to be a de facto transparency regulation for AI, more so than one that imposes requirements on AI’s ideology, he said.

The rollout of Trump’s AI Action Plan and the executive orders that accompanied it, including one that fast tracks data center permitting and expands AI exports, are the first real look into how the administration intends to handle the quickly growing AI industry.

If the OMB rolls out technological and accuracy-focused requirements for the order, it could be a win for those looking for more transparency in AI, Acosta said. But the office needs to be clear in its requirements and seek true neutrality.

“I think the intent is well with this, but there needs to be much, much, much more refinement moving forward,” Acosta said.