As federal immigration officers made more “at-large” arrests in communities across the country in the first year of the current Trump administration — including at homes, places of worship and workplaces — more than 1,100 Nebraska families developed family safety plans in the event a parent or breadwinner faced detention or deportation.

These plans help families decide who will take care of the children, handle school and medical decisions, and manage finances if a parent suddenly cannot be there.

Families are encouraged to choose a trusted adult — such as a relative or family friend — who could temporarily care for the children. They’re making sure children have passports, updating school emergency contacts, and letting family members know how to locate a parent if they are detained.

“This is not unique to immigrant families, but it’s of course more nuanced for immigrant families in the sense that their family can be separated at any time,” said Lina Traslaviña Stover, a sociologist who also is executive director of the Heartland Workers Center, a Nebraska nonprofit that advocates on behalf of workers in the meatpacking, restaurant, construction and cleaning industries.

“There are a lot of ripple effects when families prepare for the possibility of separation. In some cases, older siblings are being asked to step into the role of head of household if a parent is detained or deported. Imagine a high school senior suddenly carrying the responsibility for the family’s finances and stability. Even if it’s just a ‘what if’ scenario, that kind of pressure can change a young person’s plans for the future.”

The effort in Nebraska, and similar ones around the country, points to the social and economic fallout from the immigration crackdown. The deportation of a breadwinner, the potential exposure of tenants’ personal data and stricter federal housing policies can all stress families, advocates say, even as some policymakers are trying to help.

Demand for rental housing is driven primarily by U.S. citizens, but immigrants have long been a key subset of renters: They headed 9.6 million renter households (21%) in 2024, according to the recently published America’s Rental Housing report by the Harvard University Joint Center for Housing Studies. Researchers also note that immigrants contribute to the economy and pay taxes, supporting the communities they live and work in.

“For households living paycheck to paycheck, losing just a few days of wages can mean losing housing,” said Meesha Moulton, a Las Vegas-based immigration attorney. “Housing insecurity in these communities doesn’t start with an eviction notice, it starts with the empty chair at a job site.”

Fear can also affect how or whether immigrant families — with or without legal status — apply for food, housing or health programs they qualify for because they worry it could put them on the government’s radar. Both Americans and immigrants with legal status have been arrested during the past year’s enforcement crackdown. And nearly three-fourths of the people in immigration detention in late January had no criminal record.

Jacob Rugh, a sociologist and associate professor at Brigham Young University who studies immigration enforcement and housing, said high-profile incidents of aggressive and fatal encounters between federal agents and U.S. citizens and noncitizens have shifted public opinion in ways that could help affected immigrants.

In a Quinnipiac University poll conducted shortly after a federal immigration officer fatally shot 37-year-old Renee Good, roughly 80% of respondents said they had seen video of the shooting.

“People are seeing videos everywhere and there’s more visibility in the non-immigrant community,” Rugh said. “It makes the issue much more salient in ways that didn’t exist before. People donate, help on the ground and become part of the solution.”

‘We cannot GoFundMe our way out of a crisis’

Policymakers in many affected places are looking for ways to help.

In Los Angeles County, officials declared a state of emergency in 2025 after federal immigration raids, allowing the county to provide rent relief, legal aid and other services to residents affected by immigration enforcement in Southern California last year.

In Clark County, Washington, a $50,000 rental assistance program was launched to help families who have a family or household member — and are missing a primary wage-earner — detained or deported by immigration officers. Officials say the demand for assistance is already exceeding available funds.

In Santa Ana, California, a $100,000 emergency assistance program is aimed at helping renters affected by federal immigration raids. It offers up to one month of rent or utility assistance for a household that lost income as a result of a member’s detention or deportation.

Few places better illustrate the direct relationship between immigration enforcement and housing insecurity than Minnesota, where the Trump administration in December sent thousands of federal agents. Operation Metro Surge closed streets and businesses amid protests and shelter-in-place orders, and agents detained more than 4,000 people, according to the White House.

The Minneapolis City Council approved extending the time frame for eviction notices, but Mayor Jacob Frey vetoed the measure and instead proposed $1 million in city funding in rental assistance.

Landlords across Minneapolis and St. Paul have filed 2,585 eviction notices so far this year, 25% above the same time period in 2023 and 2024, according to the Eviction Lab at Princeton University.

Many residents have reported losing jobs, said Tara Raghuveer, director of the Tenant Union Federation, a national union of tenant unions involved in a new tenant campaign in the Twin Cities. Some fell behind on rent, and with income-earners detained, some families have attempted to fill the void by raising money on GoFundMe.

“We cannot GoFundMe our way out of a crisis of this scale,” Raghuveer said in an interview. “Many people have not been able to work, and as a result many people have not been able to pay rent, and the economic pain created by this invasion will still be with everyday people long after ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) agents are gone.”

Minneapolis and St. Paul have each allocated about $1 million in emergency rental assistance.

Last week, Minnesota’s Democratic-led Senate approved $40 million in rental assistance, but the legislation isn’t expected to pass the evenly split House. Republicans argued that residents living in the country illegally shouldn’t receive aid, the Minnesota Reformer reported.

Trust between landlords and immigrant tenants

Immigration enforcement has also caused a ripple in the relationship between landlords and their tenants who lack legal status. In Tennessee, a law enacted in 2025 criminalizes harboring such immigrants for financial gain, which some critics argue could pressure landlords to evict tenants or refuse rentals out of fear of legal consequences.

In Oregon, lawmakers passed legislation that would restrict landlords from disclosing a tenant’s immigration status and sensitive personal information without clear legal requirements. The measure would protect information such as immigration status, Social Security numbers and financial records. It’s awaiting action by the governor.

A New Jersey bill that would bar landlords from using a tenant’s immigration status is advancing in the legislature.

California, Colorado and Illinois have enacted so-called immigrant tenant protection acts, with provisions to prevent landlords from harassing, intimidating or evicting tenants based on their citizenship or immigration status.

Democratic Oregon state Rep. Pam Marsh, who sponsored the Oregon legislation, told Stateline that the idea emerged after reviewing tenant records from her own experience as a small landlord.

“I realized I had file drawers full of very sensitive data,” she said. “It made me start asking what the law actually requires about confidentiality.”

The measure ultimately passed with bipartisan support after negotiations with landlord groups.

Immigration authorities have taken a new legal position that civil administrative warrants may allow agents to enter residences without a judge-signed warrant, according to guidance compiled by the National Apartment Association’s legal team. Many legal experts dispute the directive, and at least one court has found it unconstitutional.

A proposed U.S. Housing and Urban Development rule would prohibit “mixed-status” families — households with both U.S. citizens and people without legal immigration status — from living in public or other subsidized housing.

HUD estimates that about 25,000 mixed-status households currently receive agency-assisted housing, less than 1% of all federally aided renters. The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates about 80,000 people could lose housing assistance, including roughly 37,000 children, nearly all U.S. citizens.

Some landlords are concerned their tenants may end a lease early or not renew based on rumors or threats of immigration agent sightings, according to Alexandra Alvarado, director of marketing and education for the trade group American Apartment Owners Association.

María Monclova, a Mexican-born immigration lawyer, says that landlord compliance with requests from federal agents is in part due to ignorance of obligations to cooperate with federal matters.

“There have been credible reports of immigration authorities requesting leases, rental applications and identification documents from landlords or property managers,” she said.

“Many landlords don’t fully understand the difference between an administrative request and a court-issued subpoena or warrant,” she said. “When that distinction isn’t clear, some property owners may overcomply out of fear of liability.”

Given the current administration’s attempt to determine immigration status through public housing data, Moulton, the immigration attorney, thinks some immigrant and mixed-status families may be avoiding formal leases altogether.

“They’d rather live in a crowded basement with no paperwork than sign a legal contract that has their name on it. This is all bad for everyone,” Moulton said. “It leads to ‘shadow housing’ where buildings aren’t inspected, safety rules are ignored and slumlords can take advantage of people. When we push people into the shadows, we lose the data we need to keep our neighborhoods safe.”

Some neighborhoods — and the groups of people who live and call them home — have been reshaped by immigration preceding the current Trump administration and dating through the George W. Bush, Obama, first Trump and Biden administrations.

A 2025 study from Rugh and other researchers in the journal Demography found that when local police helped enforce immigration laws, Latino and white residents were less likely to live in the same neighborhoods over time. Researchers say tougher enforcement can make immigrant families feel less secure financially and more likely to move.

“When large numbers of men are detained or deported — and most deportees are men — they’re suddenly no longer contributing to household income,” Rugh said in an interview.

“When you detain and deport large numbers of people, it affects entire communities,” he said. “Landlords lose renters, property values can fall, local businesses suffer, and people who aren’t immigrants feel the economic effects.”

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

Sixteen states and the District of Columbia are challenging guidance from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development that plaintiffs allege imposes new rules and funding conditions they say could weaken state protections against housing discrimination — and their ability to investigate them. 

The lawsuit focuses two HUD memos in September detailing how it will prioritize resources for cases with clear evidence of intentional discrimination.

HUD withdrew several fair housing documents including guidance policies on disparate impact — a theory of discrimination where neutral-seeming policies disproportionately exclude or harm certain groups — along with procedures for referring discrimination cases to the Department of Justice, and credit programs aimed at expanding access to housing. 

On April 11, it will be 58 years since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Fair Housing Act into law in an effort to combat housing discrimination and partner HUD with state and local agencies to enforce those laws. Through the Fair Housing Assistance Program, HUD refers complaints to state agencies, which use HUD funding to investigate cases, train staff and conduct outreach.

The September memos stipulated that state agencies receiving HUD dollars to enforce fair housing laws won’t be reimbursed for cases regarding discrimination based on sexual orientation, gender identity, criminal record, source of income or English-language proficiency.

Attorneys general filing the lawsuit say HUD has significantly reduced staffing and the number of discrimination cases it pursues, while dismissing whistleblowers who raised concerns about the agency’s ability to enforce fair housing laws or look into acts of housing discrimination.

If the HUD changes go through, many state laws could be in conflict with this guidance. 

Several states, including some represented in the lawsuit, have fair housing laws that extend protections beyond those covered by federal law and could be impacted by HUD’s guidance.

Included in the lawsuit alongside are attorneys general from Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and the District of Columbia. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

Among state laws that offer protections cited in the HUD memos, California state law protects tenants based on sexual orientation, gender identity and lawful source of income, including housing vouchers. 

Other states such as Illinois and Washington extend protections based on immigration status. Colorado, Massachusetts and Rhode Island also provide protection against discrimination on the basis of identities such as gender identity, sexual orientation and source of income.

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

A coalition of mostly Democratic-led states is suing the Trump administration over a new federal requirement that would force colleges to report detailed admissions data, including race, gender, test scores and financial aid for individual students. 

The mandate is an expansion of a 40-year-old system known as IPEDS and follows the 2023 Supreme Court decision banning race-based admissions. The lawsuit argues the new requirement could threaten student privacy and overburdens universities.

The Trump administration’s requirement comes as data suggests the Supreme Court ruling has already shifted campus demographics: Black enrollment has dropped at several elite universities, while Asian American enrollment has increased at some schools. Researchers say it may take years to fully understand how admissions patterns are changing.

For roughly 40 years, the federal government’s primary way of collecting data and information about colleges and universities across the U.S. has been a database called Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, or IPEDS.

Included in IPEDS data is information on enrollments, graduation rates and financial aid, and some of this data has informed higher-ed policies and research. 

In August, President Donald Trump issued a memorandum directing the Department of Education to use IPEDS data as a way to track whether colleges are considering race in admissions decisions.

Trump’s directive was preceded by the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which banned colleges from considering race directly in admissions decisions. 

The Trump administration isn’t just looking for demographic data from IPEDS, but also is rolling out a new reporting mandate for four-year colleges — the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS) — to report detailed admissions data such as race, gender, test scores and financial aid levels.

Colleges were expected to begin complying with the new reporting requirement this year, with responses due March 18, according to the suit.

A coalition of 17 states led by Massachusetts has filed a lawsuit in U.S. District Court seeking to block the new mandate.  The states argue the ACTS survey imposes onerous reporting demands on universities and requires institutions to collect data they have not historically collected and may not be compelled to expose due to student safety. 

The lawsuit says the administration seeks “to fundamentally change IPEDS, converting it from a reliable tool for methodical statistical reporting to a mechanism for law enforcement and the furthering of partisan policy aims.” 

The states also argue that the new requirement is rushed, forces colleges to compile data in months that normally would take years, and risks reporting errors.

Other states listed as plaintiffs include California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington and Wisconsin. It names U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Management and Budget Director Russell Vought as defendants.

Federal officials argue the additional reporting in the new survey is necessary to ensure transparency and confirm that colleges are complying with the Supreme Court’s ruling. 

Since the 2023 Supreme Court ruling, declines among Black college enrollment have been strongest at highly selective private universities.

An Associated Press analysis of 20 selective colleges found that nearly all saw a drop in Black freshman enrollment compared with 2023. At Harvard, Black enrollment fell from 18% in 2023 to less than 12% in the next incoming class. Princeton’s drop was from about 9% to roughly 5% Black freshmen in the following admissions cycle.

Several universities reported higher Asian American enrollment in the years immediately after the ruling. At Harvard, the share of Asian American freshmen rose from 37% to about 41%. Some institutions saw even larger changes — one analysis reported Asian enrollment jumping from 26% to 45% between 2023 and 2025 at a selective university.

Researchers suggest a cascading effect of higher enrollment numbers of Black and Hispanic students at public universities, as selective school admissions drop and students enroll at less selective colleges. Data from fall 2024 admissions cycles show Black and Hispanic enrollment rising about 8% at public flagship universities overall.

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

Amid a slew of proposed changes scaling the federal government’s role in broadening assistance in federal rental programs, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development plans to rescind a 2024 regulation requiring public housing agencies and certain federally subsidized landlords to give 30 days’ notice before filing for eviction based on unpaid rent. 

Under the proposed HUD changes, those 30 days would give way to older standards, which vary by housing program and state law, and which can be as little as a few days’ notice. 

The proposed HUD rule also would eliminate requirements that landlords include detailed information about rent charges or available assistance in eviction notices.

Many states and localities already require 30-day or longer notices before a landlord can proceed with an eviction for nonpayment of rent, though some are far shorter. California, for example, generally requires at least three–day “pay or quit” notices for nonpayment of rent, meaning tenants have three days to pay the rent or move out. 

The current HUD rule also requires that landlords provide tenants with a ledger showing how their balance was calculated and information about how to obtain a rent decrease if they have lost income. Tenants’ advocates argue the detail allows transparency over how much is owed and when. Without the rule’s protection, advocates say, HUD tenants in some parts of the country could be evicted for being as little as one dollar short or one day late on rent. 

Several tenants’ rights groups have already filed legal challenges, arguing that the rollback was issued without proper public notice and comment. If the rule remains in effect, housing providers and tenant advocates say its impact will depend largely on states’ eviction laws. 

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

As the Trump administration continues to focus on the legal immigration statuses of many across the country, a revived proposal by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development could impact many families’ ability to receive rental assistance.

The proposed rule would prohibit “mixed-status” families  —  those including U.S. citizens and people without legal immigration status — from living in public and other subsidized housing. It would apply to HUD public housing, Section 8 rental assistance, and some housing development grants. 

Current regulations allow mixed-status families to receive decreased assistance based on the number of household members with legal status. The proposed rule would limit that assistance to 30 days as HUD verifies family members’ legal status. 

HUD Secretary Scott Turner has said the change could redirect $218 million to other qualifying families. 

“The law is clear: Housing assistance must only go to eligible individuals. This requirement exists to protect the families and taxpayers who fund the nation’s welfare system. It draws a hard line,” Turner wrote last week in an opinion piece in the Washington Post. He wrote that some 24,000 people living in HUD-assisted housing are likely ineligible. 

HUD’s own analyses from previous mixed-status rule discussions estimated there are about 25,000 mixed-status households living in HUD-assisted housing, fewer than 1% of all households receiving federal rental aid.

The proposed rule would update regulations barring HUD from providing assistance to individuals who are not U.S. citizens or do not have legal or eligible immigration status. Under this proposal, all assistance-eligible tenants and applicants under housing programs — regardless of age  — would need to verify their citizenship or status.

This proposal was initiated in 2019 under the first Trump administration, but was blocked. The rule would remove the existing “do not contend” option, end certain exemptions for older participants and expand the use of Social Security numbers and the federal SAVE system for status verification. The SAVE system (Systematic Alien Verification for Entitlements) is run under the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and also is being used to help verify voter citizenship status and public benefits eligibility. 

Nearly three-quarters of potentially affected households live in California, Texas and New York, according to the left-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities’ analysis of HUD administrative data. California accounts for the largest share of affected families, followed by Texas and New York. In these states, thousands of households that currently receive prorated rental assistance could lose eligibility entirely if the rule is finalized, rental housing advocates warn.

These states also have high housing costs in concert with long waiting lists for assistance. The policy would primarily affect families with children, many of whom are U.S. citizens, and could increase demand for emergency housing and other local safety-net services, advocates say.

The Center for Budget and Policy Priorities estimates 80,000 people could lose housing assistance, including an estimated 37,000 children, nearly all of whom are U.S. citizens.

The proposal is open for public comment through April 21.

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

States are scrambling to meet rising demand for newly expanded school choice initiatives, pouring more money into the programs as waiting lists — and budget concerns — grow.

A further boost is expected next year, when the federal government rolls out a new policy allowing taxpayers to claim a tax credit for up to $1,700 in donations to nonprofits that award private school scholarships to K-12 students.

Supporters tout such programs as a lifeline for parents desperate to get their kids out of failing public schools, while opponents have long warned that they drain resources from public education as students move from public schools to private ones.

For years, voucher and scholarship programs providing taxpayer dollars for private school tuition were limited to low-income or special needs students. In 2022, however, Arizona became the first state to allow all students to use public money for private school tuition. By next school year, at least 17 states are expected to have universal programs — making roughly half of U.S. students eligible to receive money, according to FutureEd, a think tank at Georgetown University.

As both universal and limited programs spread across the country, many families are eager to participate.

In Alabama, more than 36,000 students last spring applied for 14,000 spots in the state’s new program, prompting Republican Gov. Kay Ivey to propose increasing its funding from $180 million to $250 million for the 2027-28 school year, when income limits will be eliminated.

In Oklahoma, Republican Gov. Kevin Stitt has proposed removing the budget cap on a scholarship program that turned away 5,600 students a couple of years ago because it ran out of money. And in Tennessee, Republican Gov. Bill Lee has proposed doubling the funding for a scholarship program that has a waitlist of about 34,000 students.

“Last year, we gave families school choice with the Education Freedom Scholarship program, because parents know best,” Lee said in his State of the State address last month. “Growing the program would open the doors of opportunity for thousands more children statewide.”

South Carolina Republican Gov. Henry McMaster and Missouri Republican Gov. Mike Kehoe also are seeking more money for school choice programs.

“So far what we’ve really seen is legislatures looking to expand the programs,” said Andrew Handel, director of education and workforce development at the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), a membership group for conservative state lawmakers that has pushed for choice programs nationwide.

“The ESA [education savings account] is the gold standard. It’s the one that gives parents the most flexibility,” he said, referring to programs that allow parents to use the money for other education-related expenses in addition to tuition. “The best states are where the funding for those school choice programs is tied directly to their state education formula. That ensures that no matter how many families apply, you’re always going to have the money there.”

But in Arizona, the first state with a universal program, Democratic Gov. Katie Hobbs has become an outspoken critic.

Hobbs last month criticized the program, approved under her Republican predecessor, as an “entitlement program” that “continues to operate unchecked, squandering taxpayer dollars with no accountability.” She has proposed scaling back the program to its original scope, when it was limited to children with disabilities and military families.

The program serves more than 100,000 students — about 1 in 10 K-12 students — and cost the state about $872 million in fiscal 2025, according to the Grand Canyon Institute, a nonpartisan think tank. In addition to offering vouchers to pay private school tuition, it allows money to be spent on certain school supplies.

A recent audit by the Arizona Department of Education found that about 20% of Empowerment Scholarship Account dollars were used for unauthorized purchases, including iPhones, lingerie, jewelry and other luxury items, according to documents obtained earlier this month by the television station 12News in Arizona.

At least 45% of the kids receiving aid in Arizona were never enrolled in public schools, 12News recently reported. In some states, the percentage is even higher: In the 2023-24 school year, about two-thirds of the students participating in scholarship programs in Arkansas and Iowa were already attending private schools.

Those numbers have handed ammunition to critics who argue that universal programs are creating two parallel education systems, both funded by taxpayers.

“Every state that’s passed a voucher system has had to slow down its per-pupil funding for public schools,” said Joshua Cowen, a professor of education policy at Michigan State University. “Whether they take it directly out of school aid or fund it from another pot, it’s all the same budget.

“States can’t afford to run two systems.”

The waiting lists prove that many families would like to send their children to private schools, but it’s difficult to determine whether they get a better education there: Unlike public schools, private schools can turn away students, and in many states private school students don’t take the same standardized tests, so comparing academic performance is difficult.

Patrick Wolf, a professor at the University of Arkansas who studies school choice programs, noted that in his state, students with disabilities made up 48% of first-year participants. The percentage declined to 36% the second year, but that was still nearly three times the rate of disability in the general population.

Wolf argued that choice programs can help public schools by providing competition, forcing them to adapt.

“The traditional public schools can lose students who didn’t really want to be there, and that can be a pressure release valve,” he said. “What we’ve seen when private school choice programs launch is that public school test scores often go up slightly.

“The competitive effects are either neutral or positive,” he said. “They communicate more effectively with parents. They offer new programs targeted to the kinds of students they’re afraid might leave.”

Going big in Texas

Earlier this month, Texas launched what is likely to be the nation’s largest school choice program.

The new pre-K to 12th grade scholarship program is open to any U.S. citizen or immigrant in the country legally (public schools are open to everybody), but funding will be capped at $1 billion for the 2026-2027 school year. If state lawmakers choose to spend more in future years, the cost could rise to nearly $5 billion by 2030, according to a legislative fiscal note. The state’s current biennial budget is close to $340 billion.

Most participating students who want to attend a private school will be eligible for about $10,470 per year, while students with disabilities can receive up to $30,000. Families who want to homeschool their child can get $2,000.

This year, Texas will give priority to students with disabilities, families with lower incomes, and children enrolled in public and charter schools. Starting next year, the guidelines will be adjusted to favor the siblings of current students and new applicants.

Strongly backed by Republican Gov. Greg Abbott, the program drew more than 42,000 applications when it opened on Feb. 4, according to state officials. As of Feb. 18, the state had received a total of 111,000 applications. Texans can apply through March 17.

Travis Pillow, a senior official overseeing implementation, said the state partnered with Odyssey, a vendor that has administered similar programs in other states, to automate eligibility verification using state IDs and federal tax returns, since Texas does not have a state income tax.

Officials say more than three-quarters of applicants were verified the same day they applied, a benchmark they argue is critical to maintaining momentum and public confidence.

Pillow said Texas lawmakers are required to consider waitlist numbers in future appropriations decisions, and early demand could shape whether the program expands beyond its initial $1 billion allocation.

Federal tax credit

Meanwhile, a provision of the broad tax and spending measure President Donald Trump signed in July could create a significant new source of funding for families who want to send their kids to private school — but only in states that choose to participate.

The measure creates a new federal tax credit for people who contribute to nonprofits that award private school scholarships to K-12 students. Taxpayers in any state can get the tax credits, but only by donating to organizations in participating states.

Last month, federal officials announced that 23 states had opted in to the program; all of them, except for Virginia, are led by Republicans. However, the federal list did not include Colorado, where Democratic Gov. Jared Polis said in December that his state also would participate. North Carolina Democratic Gov. Josh Stein also has said he will opt in. The Democratic governors of New Mexico, Oregon and Wisconsin have said their states will not participate.

In Pennsylvania, where one of the nation’s largest state-level tax credit scholarship programs already operates, scholarship granting organizations say that the state needs to opt in to the federal program to meet the growing demand. Democratic Gov. Josh Shapiro has been a supporter of vouchers generally, but he has not said whether Pennsylvania will opt into the program.

Keisha Jordan, president and CEO of the Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia, said that more than 200,000 Pennsylvania children live in neighborhoods where the local public schools are low performing.

Despite serving thousands of students, she said, “every year scholarship organizations like Children’s Scholarship Fund Philadelphia still have to turn students down because we don’t have enough funding to meet the demand.”

Jordan argues the new federal tax credit could help close that gap. “The demand is here,” she said. “Pennsylvania taxpayers will participate, but their money could go to another state. Why not keep it here?”

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

WASHINGTON — Five days after federal immigration enforcement agents killed the second of his constituents, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey had a message for his peers: Speak out.

“Mayors, we do not back down to bullies. We stand up for democracy,” Frey said in a speech last month in Washington, D.C., at a gathering of hundreds of mayors from around the country.

Frey left the U.S. Conference of Mayors and rode to Capitol Hill to meet members of Congress, and five days after that, President Donald Trump said that he’d pull 700 U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents out of Minneapolis. Some 2,300 would remain.

Frey, a liberal mayor governing a predominantly liberal city, illustrated his way of responding to Trump’s increasing encroachment into city limits and city business, and he urged that way — public, loud, strong — for others too.

But his path isn’t the right one for all mayors, who hold mostly nonpartisan jobs in an increasingly hyper-partisan political environment. Their jobs are primarily to pick up trash, fill potholes and keep people safe. While some view confrontation with the White House as the right approach, others are opting for accommodation — or just keeping their heads down.

Cities rely on federal money, and Trump has made it clear that more ICE agents and fewer federal dollars will flow to cities that don’t respond to his requests.

Plainfield, New Jersey, Mayor Adrian Mapp, the son of immigrants, said in an interview at the conference that some disagreements with the federal government, such as those over immigration raids, can feel like a personal and political battle. Residents expect their mayor to fight for them, he said, especially against unpopular policies or federal overreach.

“There is a sense in our community that this is what people want from their mayor — to know we’re standing up, putting resources together and doing everything we can to support those who are affected,” Mapp said.

Boots on the ground

Chris Jensen, a two-term mayor of Noblesville, Indiana, told Stateline that city leaders are often insulated from Washington’s partisan battles, and that unless those issues get local, they’re not worth engaging in.

“Mayors don’t get to go on cable news and just repeat talking points,” Jensen said. “We have to do the work every single day. Snow has to be plowed. Roads have to be built. Trash has to be picked up. That’s not partisan, that’s just governing.”

A registered Republican who used to work for former Indiana Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels, Jensen said mayors must embrace bipartisanship so they can get resources for their constituents. And federal leaders, he added, could better utilize mayors by asking them for on-the-ground data and feedback from their constituents.

“We’re the boots on the ground,” Jensen said. “If you want to talk about housing, we know how many permits we pulled. If you want to talk about mental health, we know how many crisis calls we ran. Rely on us and get out of the way when we need to move faster.”

At last month’s conference, several mayors described tensions with the Trump administration — often not naming the president directly — as having intensified in recent months, particularly around immigration enforcement, federal deployment of National Guard troops and threats of revoked federal funding.

Much of Trump’s ire, they pointed out, has been aimed at big cities with large Democratic populations. The African American Mayors Association has noted that the cities Trump has decried as lawless and in need of National Guard troops — Chicago; Los Angeles; Memphis, Tennessee; Oakland, California; and Washington — are all led by Black mayors. All have seen significant declines in violent crime.

Trump has also threatened to send troops to New Orleans, despite its falling crime rate. Mayor Helena Moreno, who took office in January, was among the mayors visiting Washington. She told constituents in an Instagram message that she grabbed a moment with Trump at another event — and worked to shift his attention to other city needs.

“I thought it was very important for the president to hear directly from me on what the city of New Orleans actually needs from the federal government,” she said in the video. The city’s homicide rate is at its lowest in 50 years, she said, and she told Trump of the city’s infrastructure needs.

“I think he was receptive,” Moreno told constituents. “I’ve always said this: That even though I might not be politically aligned with someone, that if they are in a position of power, and have the ability to help the city of New Orleans, then I want to make sure that our needs are being told … so that we can figure out if there’s a path to being able to work together.”

Pushing back

Trump had told mayors that if they didn’t agree to drop sanctuary status, which bars local police agencies from working with ICE on immigration enforcement, their federal dollars would be cut off Feb. 1.

When the funding threats from the president didn’t materialize, newly sworn-in New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani said his administration “will continue to stand up for the city” against efforts to restrict federal funding for cities based on politics and ideology.

But Mamdani, like other mayors, has looked for ways to connect with the president, meeting with Trump in the Oval Office shortly after his election last fall.

Washington, D.C., Mayor Muriel Browser, who finishes her third term next year, has said that whoever succeeds her in office will have an especially tricky job, because of the city’s unique circumstances — the federal government can overrule local laws.

Bowser pushed back strongly against Trump in his first term, but has been more pragmatic in his second term — looking for common ground over his National Guard deployment, accelerating homeless encampment sweeps and erasing a block-long “Black Lives Matter” mural that had been painted onto the street as protest in front of the White House. At the same time, Bowser has warned that such measures could limit city autonomy.

Similarly, San Francisco Mayor Daniel Lurie persuaded Trump in a phone call last fall to hold off on surging immigration agents to the city, telling the president that the city was doing well. Trump told reporters he was giving San Francisco a chance.

But sustained pushback may have been what led to the scaling back of ICE operations in Minneapolis.

Portland, Oregon, Mayor Keith Wilson has been hoping for a similar reduction in immigration enforcement in his city as he calls for ICE officers to leave the city.

Boston Mayor Michelle Wu, who noted at the conference that mayors are facing “headwinds” at the federal level when it comes to funding, recently joined regional mayors to announce a slew of accountability measures for ICE officers.

Newark, New Jersey, Mayor Ras Baraka and Jersey City Mayor James Solomon are both advocating for state lawmakers to pass legislation limiting how much state officials and local police can cooperate with ICE agents.

Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson signed an executive order to expand the city’s investigation into possible misconduct by ICE officers.

Cincinnati Mayor Aftab Pureval said during a panel session at the mayors conference that the administration’s use of partisan politics — and the scope of the federal government’s powers — has profoundly changed the job for mayors.

“It’s absolutely affecting trust at every level,” he said.

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

Students at a public charter science academy sit at their desks during English class in Warr Acres, Okla., in August 2025. More states are considering joining Oklahoma in legislating strict bell-to-bell cellphone bans. (Photo by Nuria Martinez-Keel/Oklahoma Voice)

The momentum behind cellphone bans in schools has reached more than half the states, as teachers, superintendents and education experts praise these policies as a way to boost student achievement and mental health, and to rebuild a sense of community that many believe has been diminished by students’ addiction to screens.

Now, the question for many states and school districts isn’t whether to remove distracting devices from students each day, but for how long.

States that have passed laws requiring some kind of cellphone policy now are considering going further and mandating daylong bans, even for high schoolers. The idea has gotten some pushback from students, but also from teachers and parents who say strict bell-to-bell bans aren’t necessary. Some say they worry about safety in the event of a school shooting or other emergency.

Education experts say the modern push for school phone bans accelerated after the pandemic reshaped how students use technology and interrupted crucial in-person experiences in a classroom. Kara Stern, director of education and engagement for SchoolStatus, a data-collecting firm that assists K-12 districts with attendance and other school issues, said smartphones shifted from being tools of connection during remote learning to sources of isolation once students returned to classrooms.

“During remote learning, phones became a primary way kids entertained themselves and stayed connected,” Stern said. “But once schools reopened, phones stopped being a connection tool and started creating disconnection.”

Currently, 38 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted some form of statewide restriction or requirement for districts to limit student phone use. Of those, roughly 18 states and the district have full-day bans or comprehensive statewide restrictions (including during classroom and noninstructional time).

Despite widespread adoption of school cellphone restrictions and support for them, compliance remains uneven, according to a 2025 University of Southern California study. Most students continue to use phones during the school day regardless of restrictions, the researchers found.

Still, more than half of teens surveyed said enforcement this school year is stricter than it was the previous year.

“Teaching a class where students are on their phones is like trying to teach at Disney World over a loudspeaker,” Stern said. “The environment just isn’t designed for learning.”

Pushing for broader bans

Georgia is among the states considering a bell-to-bell policy for all public high schools. This comes a year after Republican Gov. Brian Kemp signed a ban for K-8 grades.

Students are paying attention. At East Paulding High School in Dallas, Georgia, students and teachers offered mixed views on cellphone bans. On a student-run news broadcast aired last fall, some students expressed concern over their safety, while some teachers were bullish on the idea that a ban would be effective at the high school level.

Republican state Rep. Scott Hilton, who proposed the new law, told the Georgia Recorder that the ban for younger students helped families get used to a bell-to-bell ban.

“I’ve just been blown away at the positive reaction across the board from all different constituencies, teachers, administrators, parents and even in a lot of cases, students who have experienced a difference and said, ‘Oh, wow, I kind of like this,’” Hilton said.

Several states focus their bans on prohibiting cellphone use “during instructional time,” which wouldn’t necessarily include free time such as lunch. Kansas lawmakers are pushing ahead on a ban on use during instructional time; it would supersede previous action that allowed local district discretion on cellphone use in schools. Michigan legislators passed a similar bill last month; it was sent to Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer on Monday.

Similar instruction time bills passed in Iowa, North Carolina and Wisconsin last year. In Oregon, Democratic Gov. Tina Kotek issued an executive order in July requiring every district to adopt bell-to-bell cellphone bans by Jan. 1. Several districts have said the mandate has gone better than expected, with some superintendents saying they’ve seen more interaction among students.

Bell-to-bell cellphone restrictions are being considered or advanced in Massachusetts and Pennsylvania, and were recently enacted in New York. The Massachusetts bill goes further than most, adding smartphones, tablets and Bluetooth devices to its list of banned electronic devices.

Most legislation reviewed by Stateline includes exceptions to the bans for students with special needs and in cases of emergency.

School shootings in 2025 fell to the lowest number since 2020, according to a review by Education Week. Still, there were 18 shootings that left seven people dead last year, the review found.

In Georgia, state Superintendent Richard Woods, a Republican, told reporters he’s heard firsthand from survivors of a shooting there about the importance of having cellphones on hand for safety reasons.

“Do I support this? Absolutely,” Woods said, referring to the cellphone ban. “But I think we have to find a sweet spot and not move to the extremes.”

What works best?

According to a Pew Research Center poll released last summer, 74% of U.S. adults support banning cellphones during class for middle and high school students, up from 68% in fall 2024. Far fewer adults (19%) oppose classroom bans, and 7% are unsure, the poll found.

For advocates of a phone-free education, the gold standard of cellphone policies is a bell-to-bell restriction with inaccessible storage for the device.

A 2025 article in JAMA Pediatrics reported that teens ages 13-18 spend an average of 90 minutes on their phones during school, but that little has been written about what students are doing during that time.

“Although 99.7% of US public school principals report their school has a smartphone policy, few studies have objectively examined smartphone app usage during school,” an abstract of the study reads.

Stern said she saw the effects of a “consistent bell-to-bell” policy firsthand with her own son. When his phone broke in eighth grade, he dreaded going to school without it. But after his first day, he came home and told Stern that he played soccer at recess, met new classmates and had “a really good day” — one he said was better than usual.

Kim Whitman, a co-head of Smartphone Free Childhood US, and other education experts believe cellphone bans will mirror past public health reversals — like banning smoking in schools — and possibly redefine what it means to be in a classroom post-pandemic.

“Today we can’t imagine allowing smoking in schools,” Whitman said. “I think in five to 10 years we’ll say the same thing about cellphones — wondering how we ever allowed them into classrooms.”

Whitman, who has examined and graded states according to the efficacy of their cellphone bans, said that North Dakota and Rhode Island are the only states warranting high marks for their adoption and enforcement of bell-to-bell policies.

Despite claims from adults who love the phone-free policies, students aren’t as convinced. Only 41% of teens support cellphone bans in middle and high school classrooms, according to polling by Pew Research Center released in January.

The largest share of teens who like certain phone-free policies are in schools where the policy allows phones during noninstructional time throughout the day, according to the USC study.

Editor’s note: This story has been edited to correct that it was Kara Stern of SchoolStatus who told Stateline about her son’s experience with a phone-free day. 

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