Federal grant cuts over DEI leave rural students and teachers with few options to replace funding and its benefits

Canceled federal grant money is more difficult for rural
schools to replace. (Adobe Stock photo)

Efforts to root out inclusion and equity programming prompted the Trump administration to slash educational grants, leaving rural schools in a lurch. 

The lost grant money, which funded additions such as counselors to teach mental health education, additional academic tutoring options for students and learning initiatives for teachers, is difficult for rural communities to replace.

"Federal dollars make up roughly 10% of education spending nationally, but the percentage is significantly higher in rural districts," reports Annie Ma of The Associated Press. "When the funding is reduced, many districts have no way to make up the lost money."

Since President Donald Trump returned for a second term, his administration has cut millions of dollars earmarked for "programs supporting mental health, academic enrichment and teacher development," Ma writes. Republican lawmakers defended the cuts, saying the canceled grants focused on diversity and inclusion agendas -- not academics.

In Kentucky, the loss of grant funding means student counselors and supportive programming in rural counties will most likely come to a premature end, along with the student and staffing advantages they provided. 

In Shelby County, Ky., where federal spending "makes up about 18% of schools’ budgets," Ma reports. "The programs are not political, Superintendent Joshua Matthews said, and the funding loss only hurts students."

Matthews told Ma, "We’re not promoting anything one way or the other.”

The Department of Education recently announced a new round of mental health grants, but these funds require schools to hire psychologists, not counselors. Unfortunately, there is a national shortage of school psychologists and rural schools that attempt to recruit one will compete with larger, more urban schools.

States receive notice of how much money they will receive from the $10 billion Rural Health Transformation Program

Texas was awarded $281 million and New Jersey 
$147 million by CMS. (Adobe Stock photo) 

The wait is finally over for rural health care officials and advocates across the U.S., who have been "hotly debating" how much of the newly formed $50 billion Rural Health Transformation Program their state will receive. The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services announced their awards last week.

The five-year program divides half of the $10 billion-per-year distribution equally among the states; however, the division of the remaining $25 billion was "determined by the CMS based on how well the states’ pitches met goals of strengthening rural health prevention, standing up sustainable access, developing a rural workforce and introducing innovative care delivery and technology," reports Dave Muoio of Fierce Healthcare. 

CMS paired its award listing with an abstract of each state's application. "Only a subset of states have so far opted to make their full applications available to the public," Muoio explains. The complete list of state funding awards is here.

All 50 states received awards from the second half of the funds, with Texas and Alaska garnering the largest awards, and New Jersey and Connecticut receiving the smallest funding amounts. Some factors involved in the selective division included each state's rural population and the number of residents living in frontier regions.

While rural hospitals and providers have voiced support for the program, many are cautious about how much the new funding can do to balance "the nearly $1 trillion of nationwide Medicaid cuts expected over the coming decade," Muoio adds.

Last month, CMS announced the formation of a new office to manage the Rural Transformation Program and its funds.

Supreme Court's ruling on mail-in ballot deadlines could have an outsized impact in rural areas

Both Republicans and Democrats have large numbers
of voters who mail their ballots. (Adobe Stock photo)

The U.S. Supreme Court plans to rule on mail-in ballot deadlines this term, which could have an outsized impact on a subset of voters, including thousands of rural voters, should the court decide that ballots arriving after Election Day must be tossed.

The case centers on a Mississippi law that allows mailed ballots to be counted even when they arrive after Election Day, but roughly "18 states and territories accept such late-arriving ballots as long as they are postmarked by Election Day," report Nick Corasaniti and Christine Zhang of The New York Times.

Should the court decide that all votes must be received by Election Day, mail-in voters from rural areas will be challenged to mail their votes early enough to be counted.

Voters in the southwestern town of Medford, Oregon, provide a good example. When a Medford voter mails a ballot from the local post office, it doesn't go to the "town clerk’s office only a few miles away," the Times reports. "Instead, it travels about 280 miles north on Interstate 5 to Portland, to get a postmark stamped, before returning to the Medford elections office to be counted."

Rural mail services are also more likely to be delayed by local weather conditions or traffic bottlenecks due to bad weather or natural disasters far from their zip codes.

States with sprawling rural areas and high electoral college numbers, such as California, Texas, Illinois, and New York, currently allow late-arriving ballots to be counted. Should the Supreme Court ax that allowance, both parties could see Election Day impacts.

No matter what the Supreme Court decides, ongoing election education can remind citizens how and when to vote. David Becker, from the Center for Election Innovation and Research, told the Times, "For people who are voting once every four years, or once every two years, they’re not familiar with all these procedures and changes."

Dollar General settles multiple suits for $15 million. Suits claim the chain regularly overcharged customers.

Dollar General headquarters in Goodlettsville, Tenn.
(Wikipedia photo)

Dollar General, a company that promises affordable food and staples in communities with few options, agreed to a $15 million settlement after being accused of consistently charging higher prices at the register than the prices it displayed on shelves. Many rural and urban customers can apply for repayments, reports Barry Yeoman of The Guardian.

The settlement ends lawsuits in several states that claimed Dollar General "overcharged customers at many of its 20,000 U.S. stores," Yeoman writes. "Many of the stores are located in rural towns and low-income urban neighborhoods with limited retail."

The day before the $15 million settlement was announced, Dollar General announced it settled for $1.55 millions with the state of Pennsylvania to "resolve similar allegations," Yeoman adds. "The chain’s 900 Pennsylvania stores failed more than 40% of their pricing accuracy inspections between 2019 and 2023."

Provided the $15 million is approved by a New Jersey court in March, shoppers will be able to file a "claim award starting at $10 and rising to the full amount of the overpayment," Yeoman explains. Filers will need to provide documentation proving the overcharge, such as receipts or photos of receipts and shelving sale signs.

"Consumers who cannot supply documentation can still claim a $3 discount on one $10 purchase, available on certain days," Yeoman reports. "The company has denied wrongdoing in the cases."

Small Nebraska town tries to steady itself after Tyson Foods announces meat processing plant closure

The Tyson Foods beef processing plant in Lexington, Nebraska, wasn't just a slaughterhouse that offered good wages and steady employment; it was the rural town's hub. The company's announcement in November that it would be closing the plant due to financial losses in the meatpacking industry in early 2026 shocked the community," report Scott Calvert and Patrick Thomas of The Wall Street Journal. 

Once a town of roughly 6,600 residents, with a small Hispanic population, the 35-year-old Tyson plant helped Lexington's population grow and its demographics change. Calvert explains, "By 2000, its population rose to 10,000, half of them Hispanic, a share that now stands at 65%."

Once the plant closes later this month, an economic and social domino effect is likely to change the town again. "An exodus of residents would slash local school enrollment and the customer base for area businesses," the Journal reports. "Truckers, feedlot operators and cattle ranchers face hits to their bottom line without the Lexington facility." 

Location of Lexington within Nebraska 
and Dawson County (Wikipedia map)

Lexington’s city manager, Joe Pepplitsch, remains optimistic that the town can rebound from Tyson's closure. He told the Journal, "There’s a hell of a lot of positives here."

Government officials want Tyson to retrofit or sell the plant. They don't want the sprawling buildings sitting idle. Calvert writes, "A Tyson spokeswoman said the company is assessing how it can repurpose the facility."

Some plant workers have already quit and relocated to work at the JBS meatpacking plant about 90 miles east in Grand Island, Neb., while others have taken packing positions at Sustainable Beef in North Platte, Neb.