WASHINGTON — As President Donald Trump takes drastic steps to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education, disability advocates are worried about whether the agency can carry out its responsibilities to serve students with disabilities.
Representatives of several disability advocacy groups cited “chaos,” “fear” and “uncertainty” in describing the situation to States Newsroom. They said there’s a lack of clarity about both proposed changes within the realm of special education services and the impact overall of sweeping shifts at the agency, calling into question whether the department can deliver on its congressionally mandated guarantees for students with disabilities.
“It’s only been a few weeks since these things started happening, so I don’t think we’re seeing any of the effects trickle down right now, but we do have parents reaching out to us, calling and feeling really scared,” said Robyn Linscott, director of education and family policy at The Arc of the United States, an advocacy group for people with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Among the department’s chief responsibilities is guaranteeing a free public education for students with disabilities through the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, and enforcing Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, part of which bars programs and activities receiving federal funding from discrimination on the basis of disability.
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act was enacted in 1975 under a different title and later renamed in 1990.
IDEA “governs how states and public agencies provide early intervention, special education, and related services” to students with disabilities, per the department.
The department notes that before the 1975 law, “many children were denied access to education and opportunities to learn” and in 1970, “U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities.”
According to the National Center for Education Statistics, 15% of all public school students in the country received services through IDEA during the 2022-2023 school year.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 states that: “No otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States … shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.”
Closing the department
Trump signed an executive order in March that called on Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure” of the agency to the maximum extent she’s permitted to by law.
The department also announced earlier that month that it would be slashing more than 1,300 positions through a “reduction in force,” or RIF effort, sparking widespread concerns about how the department could deliver on its core functions.
Molly Cronin, a special education teacher in Virginia, holds a sign that reads: “Linda has no I.D.E.A.” — referencing the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, at a rally outside the department on March 14, 2025. During an interview on Fox News, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon could not answer what the acronym stood for when asked. (Photo by Shauneen Miranda/States Newsroom)
For special education services, advocates question significant cuts to units like the Office for Civil Rights, which is tasked with investigating discrimination complaints, including those that are disability-based.
Linscott said parents are asking questions such as: “‘What does this mean? Is my child still going to be able to have an (Individualized Education Program)? Is the state going to be required to uphold the IDEA? Or, I have a pending complaint with (the Office for Civil Rights), what does this mean for how long it’s going to take to settle this case or to investigate this claim?’”
Heather Eckner, director of statewide education at the Autism Alliance of Michigan, said it’s been “all-consuming” trying to keep up with what she calls a “chaos factory,” noting that it’s a lot of work for advocacy groups and policy analysts “to try to sort through and figure out what’s real, what’s actually happening, what might happen, and where the impact might be.”
“Ultimately, this is just having a significant destabilizing effect,” said Eckner, whose statewide organization focuses on expanding opportunities for people with autism.
Moving special education services to HHS
That uncertainty also stems from Trump’s announcement in March that the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services “will be handling special needs.”
The proposal sparked concern and confusion among disability advocates, both for what that transfer would look like and the legality of the proposed move.
The president offered little detail into the proposal, but HHS secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said on social media that the agency is “fully prepared” to take on that responsibility.
Meanwhile, HHS is witnessing its own drastic changes and restructuring, including beginning to lay off 10,000 workers — further calling into question how that agency could take on the Education Department’s special education services.
In response to a request for comment, HHS directed States Newsroom to Kennedy’s social media post regarding the proposed transfer but did not provide any further details.
“We have a lot of concerns over both the legality of that, but also just what that means for kind of how we view the education of students with disabilities in general, and how do we view disability in this country, and then what those actual implications on students are,” Linscott said.
Jennifer Coco, interim executive director at the Center for Learner Equity, told States Newsroom that any move to separate the education of students with disabilities from the education of all students “further pathologizes disability and is treating 15% of all the children in our public school buildings like they’re medical issues — they’re not.”
“They are students who learn differently, a vast majority of whom could learn at the same grade level as their peers if they were provided appropriate instruction,” said Coco, whose national nonprofit focuses on ensuring students with disabilities have access to quality educational opportunities, including public school choice.
Any transfer of responsibility for these federal laws, such as IDEA, would require an act of Congress — a significant undertaking given that at least 60 votes are needed to break through the Senate’s filibuster and Republicans, with their narrow majority, hold just 53 seats.
The Education Department told States Newsroom that no action has been taken to move federally mandated programs out of the agency at this time.
“As President Trump and Secretary McMahon have made clear, sunsetting the Department of Education will be done in partnership with Congress and national and state leaders to ensure all statutorily required programs are managed responsibly and where they best serve students and families,” Madi Biedermann, a spokesperson for the department, said in a statement shared with States Newsroom.
Last updated 2:30 p.m., Apr. 4, 2025
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Dave Mason | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-04-29 19:00:00
(The Center Square) – California and Arizona Tuesday joined 22 other states and the District of Columbia to sue the Trump administration to stop cuts in AmeriCorps’ grants and workforce.
The lawsuit objects to the federal government reducing 85% of the workforce for the agency, which promotes national service and volunteer work addressing disaster recovery and other community needs.
According to americorps.gov, the agency enrolls more than 200,000 people each year in community service organizations. AmeriCorps also provides more than $4.8 billion in education awards.
Besides California and Arizona, states filing the suit are Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
President Donald Trump issued an executive order in February directing every federal agency to reduce its staff. Since then, AmeriCorps has placed at least 85% of its workforce on administrative leave immediately and told employees they would be dismissed effective June 24, according to a news release from the Arizona Attorney General’s Office.
The states’ lawsuit contends the Trump administration’s efforts to reduce AmeriCorps and its grants violate the Administrative Procedures Act and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution.
California is co-leading the lawsuit against the Trump administration.
“In California, AmeriCorps volunteers build affordable housing, clean up our environment, and address food insecurity in communities across our state,” Attorney General Rob Bonta said in a news release. “California has repeatedly taken action to hold the Trump Administration and DOGE accountable to the law — and we stand prepared to do it again to protect AmeriCorps and the vital services it provides.”
The Arizona Attorney General’s Office said the cuts in AmeriCorps affect grants such as:
$700,000 for Northern Arizona University, Arizona Teacher’s Residency, designed to address teacher shortages.
$308,000 for Area Agency on Aging, Caring Circles, which helps older Arizonans with needs such as transportation to medical appointments, grocery shopping and help with technology.
$495,000 for Vista College Prepartory’s tutoring and teacher support for math and reading for low-income students.
“AmeriCorps represents the best of our nation – providing opportunities for millions of Americans to serve their neighbors and communities and make our country a better place to live,” Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes said. “By unilaterally gutting this Congressionally authorized agency, Donald Trump and Elon Musk have yet again violated the law and the separation of powers under the U.S. Constitution. Their illegal actions will harm Arizona communities.”
Mayes noted studies show AmeriCorps programs generate more than $34 per every dollar spent in terms of their impact on communities.
“Slashing these programs serves no purpose and is incredibly short-sighted from those claiming to champion efficiency,” she said.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
This article reports on a legal action filed by multiple states against the Trump administration over cuts to AmeriCorps, without offering an overt ideological stance. The content outlines the details of the lawsuit, the parties involved, and their claims. The language used is largely factual, describing the positions of the states, particularly California and Arizona, without endorsing one side. While the article highlights the perceived impacts of the cuts and quotes politicians critical of the Trump administration, it refrains from promoting an explicit viewpoint, focusing instead on reporting the legal and administrative actions at hand. The tone remains neutral and provides an equal space to both the states’ concerns and the implications of the lawsuit. It primarily serves as a factual report on the legal challenge, rather than an advocacy piece, and does not adopt a partisan perspective on the issue.
After years of legal wrangling, former Kentucky Secretary of State Alison Lundergan Grimes is free of any state ethics violation charges.
The Executive Branch Ethics Commission, which brought charges against her in 2021, has decided not to try to appeal to the Kentucky Supreme Court last month’s unanimous decision by the Kentucky Court of Appeals to uphold a lower court order that cleared Grimes of any wrongdoing.
With no appeal to the state’s highest court from the commission within 30 days, the appellate court finalized its decision on April 21.
“There are no legal charges any more against her, and there never should have been any,” her attorney, Jon Salomon of Louisville, said Monday night.
The end of the legal case could opens the door for a possible run for another political office. The Democrat is seen by some Kentucky political observers as a possible candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2026 or Central Kentucky’s 6th Congressional District next year.
Grimes is a Lexington lawyer who was secretary of state from 2011 to 2019 and was an unsuccessful candidate for the U.S. Senate in 2014 against Republican Mitch McConnell. She is the daughter of the former state Democratic Party Chair Jerry Lundergan of Lexington. The Lundergan family is close to former President Bill Clinton and his wife, former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.
Grimes did not return phone calls seeking comments about her legal victory and political future.
Susan Clary, executive director of the ethics commission, had no comment Monday night when asked why the commission did not ask the Kentucky Supreme Court to review the Court of Appeals’ decision.
The commission had been investigating Grimes for several years.
In November 2021, the commission fined Grimes $10,000 for two ethical violations pertaining to handling of voter data.
As secretary of state, Grimes was the state’s chief elections officer. In her position, she had access to data from the state voter registration system in the State Board of Elections.
The commission had alleged that Grimes violated the ethics code by sharing voter information without requiring a request under the Open Records Act or other “established process of government.”
Grimes responded that all the voter data at issue was information in the public domain and that she had full legal authority and discretion as secretary of state to access and share such information. She claimed no statute or regulation was violated by the sharing of such public information. She claimed the commission’s charges were barred by the five-year statute of limitations and that the record did not support a finding of any violations of the state executive branch’s code of ethics.
The commission argued that it was not bound by any statute of limitations and claimed that a limitation could hamper its work on other cases.
The only allegations pursued by the Ethics Commission were that Grimes allegedly acted unethically in accessing public information in the voter registration system by downloading voter information onto a thumb drive when she was a candidate for reelection.
The commission also looked at whether Grimes improperly shared information on new voter registrations for certain Kentucky House of Representative districts in response to a request made informally through the office of the House speaker without requiring a formal open records request or charging a fee.
Grimes fought the charges in Franklin Circuit Court and Judge Phillip Shepherd ruled in her favor.
Then the three-member appellate court said last month that the Executive Branch Ethics Commission missed its statutory deadline to charge Grimes with improperly ordering the downloading and distribution of voter registration data from her public office while she was Kentucky’s secretary of state.
“The Franklin Circuit Court reversed the commission’s decision, finding it was arbitrary, not supported by substantial evidence and time barred. Due to the statute of limitations alone, we affirm,” said the appellate court decision. The three appellate judges were Susanne M. Cetrulo, James H. Lambert and Jeff S. Taylor.
Salomon, Grimes’ attorney, noted that the final order contained a “To Be Published” provision, meaning that the case sets precedent in law.
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Center-Left
This article presents the facts about Alison Lundergan Grimes’ legal case and political future in a mostly neutral to slightly favorable light. It highlights her legal victory and potential political prospects without using charged or partisan language. The article leans slightly center-left due to the positive framing of a Democratic figure and the mention of her ties to prominent Democratic leaders while maintaining an informative and balanced tone overall.
Beyond Kentucky’s borders, horse racing is a sport in steep decline. Within the commonwealth, however, wealth is common.
Though no fewer than 48 American racetracks have closed since 2000, Kentucky operators continue to invest hundreds of millions in their facilities and are reaping an outsized return, and not only on the first Saturday in May.
For instance:
Churchill Downs Inc. reported record net revenue ($2.7 billion) and net income ($427 million) for 2024.
Keeneland’s September Yearling Sale netted a record $427.9 million.
The 2006 races run in Kentucky in 2024 paid an average purse of $112,648, 20% higher than the second most lucrative state (Arkansas).
September’s seven-day all-grass meet at Kentucky Downs in Franklin paid out $490,789 per race, easily the highest total ever recorded at a North American track.
“Retreat to Kentucky if you want a future in racing,” California horseplayer Andy Asaro tweeted on April 15. “Things are moving fast.”
Whisper Hill Farm paid $5 million at the September 2024 Keeneland sale for a then-unnamed yearling colt by Curlin out of Cavorting by Bernardini. (Keeneland photo)
Beyond the Bluegrass, things are moving mostly in reverse. Jockey Club data shows the number of Thoroughbred races run in the United States has dropped by more than 50% since 1995, and the size of the national foal crop has been falling even faster, from 34,358 in 2007 to an estimated 16,675 last year. The Sonoma County Fair recently announced it will forego live racing for the first time since 1936 because of a shrinking supply of horses in Northern California. Last month, the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled the state’s historical horse racing machines unconstitutional, prompting Churchill Downs Inc. to project a 25% cut in purses at its Fair Grounds racetrack.
Slots-lite a double-edged sword
Meanwhile, “decoupling” legislation that could free Florida gaming operators of the obligation to stage live racing as a condition of their licenses has been stalled, but may only represent a temporary reprieve from redevelopment of major tracks. The Stronach Group’s 1/ST Racing, which owns Gulfstream and Santa Anita, has threatened to sell both tracks while showing a pronounced inclination to divest rather than invest in its properties. Last year, the company closed Golden Gate Fields near San Francisco and cut a deal that turned over Baltimore’s Pimlico, the home of the Preakness Stakes, to the state of Maryland.
Against this gloomy backdrop, and in contrast to its own contentious closure of Arlington Park near Chicago, Churchill Downs Inc. continues to spend aggressively on its flagship track. Plans for new capital projects with a projected cost of $920 million were put on pause last Wednesday, ostensibly in response to the uncertainty surrounding tariffs and trade disputes, but recent improvements to the paddock and the addition of Homestretch Club and Turn One Experience cost in excess of $300 million and speak to management’s long-term bullishness.
While these investments are largely attributable to the singular appeal of the Kentucky Derby, they also reflect the thoroughbred industry’s political influence in Frankfort and, in turn, the gushing revenue stream historical horse racing (HHR) terminals have unleashed.
Since their 2011 introduction at Kentucky Downs, the slot-like historical horse racing terminals have reinvigorated racing in the state. Programmed to pay out based on the results of races previously run, Kentucky’s HHR machines generated more than $9.6 billion in handle during the 2024 fiscal year, accounting for $99 in bets for every $1 wagered live at the state’s thoroughbred and standardbred tracks.
They contributed $55.5 million to Kentucky’s Thoroughbred Development Fund during that 12-month period, fueling the growth of purses that have more than doubled since 2017. Consequently, Eric Hamelback, CEO of the National Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association, refers to HHR’s proliferation as racing’s “golden ticket.”
A terrace at Churchill Downs. (Churchill Downs photo)
When HHR’s legality was challenged in 2018, Ellis Park General Manager Jeffery Inman said the loss of that revenue would “likely threaten the very survival of one of Kentucky’s iconic racing venues.” Though opposition was vocal, it was handily outvoted. Attorney Ryan Roark, in an article published in the Kentucky Law Journal, wrote that the legislature settled on a definition of pari-mutuel wagering “not shared by anyone outside Kentucky … to allow for the powerful horse industry to exclusively run their slot-like gaming systems.”
The result, says Churchill Downs CEO Bill Carstanjen, has been a “juggernaut.” According to the Kentucky Horse Racing Commission, gross HHR commissions for Churchill Downs’ two Derby City Gaming locations exceeded $224 million for the 2024 fiscal year, nearly 12 times the total commissions from on-track wagering at all of the state’s racetracks.
To the extent this disparity underscores the industry’s reliance on revenue sources that require no physical horses, it inevitably raises questions about racing’s sustainability and the best use of its real estate.
A yearling on the way to the sales ring at the 2024 Keeneland September sale. (Keeneland photo)
“Racing is on life support in Southern California, Florida, Delaware, Pennsylvania etc. and exists almost everywhere else only with the support of non-racing revenues from slots, casinos and state supplements,” Kenwood Racing founder H. Robb Levinsky wrote in a January letter to Thoroughbred Daily News. “Instead of embracing innovative ideas to make the sport more attractive to a new generation of racing fans and owners, the focus continues to be on protecting those non-racing revenues. An industry where 80-90% of purse money comes from slots instead of wagering on the core product is simply not viable in the long run.”
Signs of progress in New York, Maryland
In the short run, at least, the growth of Kentucky’s purses has led to a higher quality of horses competing in the state, more interest among bettors and a breeding boom running contrary to national trends. As Ed DeRosa documented for Horse Racing Nation, Kentucky passed both California and Florida in total handle in 2024 after trailing both states annually since 2007.
“We’re the only jurisdiction (among the top four states) that has grown since 2020,” said Chauncey Morris, executive director of the Kentucky Thoroughbred Association. “The rest have contracted.”
And as cash incentives for Kentucky-breds have increased, so has the state’s share of registered foals. When HHR was introduced at Kentucky Downs in 2011, Kentucky produced 29.2% of the national foal crop. In 2023, the most recent year for which statistics are available, it was 42.2%.
Damon Thayer (LRC Public Information)
“In states where racing has a good relationship with state legislators, racing is in good shape,” said consultant Damon Thayer, formerly the Kentucky Senate’s majority floor leader. “In states where they have not cultivated a long-term relationship with the legislature, horse racing is either in a declining state, a crisis state or a questionable state.”
In addition to Kentucky, there are pockets of progress. New York and Maryland have committed nearly a billion dollars to renovations at Belmont Park and Pimlico. Multiple industry executives cited developments in Wyoming, the nation’s last populous state, as a basis for bullishness. Yet their optimism is tempered by unsolved problems in larger locales, including the most populous state, California.
Without supplemental income from other forms of gambling, California’s racing and breeding businesses have been contracting for decades. Efforts to enhance purses through HHR remain at the discussion stage in view of Native American tribes’ virtual monopoly on the state’s casino gaming. Unless some accommodation can be reached, racing columnist Ray Paulick warns, “racing in California is history.”
“You can put 1,000 HHRs in at Santa Anita and it would change California racing overnight,” Thayer said. “They’d be wildly popular. You’d direct the money to purses and breeders reward programs and it would be a huge success. It seems like some sort of attempt should be made to cut a deal with the Indians and convince them that 1,000 HHRs at Santa Anita is not going to damage their land-based casinos. . .
“Like Cyndi Lauper used to say, money changes everything.”
Iconic image from “The Greatest Two Minutes in Sports.” (Churchill Downs)
YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE.
SUPPORT
Kentucky Lantern is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Kentucky Lantern maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jamie Lucke for questions: info@kentuckylantern.com.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The content provided primarily focuses on the state of horse racing in Kentucky and the economic factors surrounding it, without overt political ideologies or agendas. It presents factual data regarding revenue, investments, and industry trends while addressing challenges faced by the sport in a straightforward manner. The analysis includes both positive developments (such as revenue growth) and negative trends (such as declines in racing overall), indicating a balanced approach. While there are mentions of legislation and the influence of the horse racing industry on politics, these elements are presented contextually rather than as a critique or endorsement of specific political positions. Thus, the piece maintains a centrist tone.
