“Unfortunately, Elmo was recently laid off because of federal budget cuts…Elmo loved his time at Sesame Street” reads the top of a LinkedIn Post from the official Elmo from Sesame Street account. This post followed an Executive Order by the Trump Administration titled “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization of Biased Media”, wherein the Administration intended to end the supply of federal funding granted to the public media outlets NPR and PBS.[1] The Executive Order called on the Corporation for Public Broadcasting's board of directors to “cease federal funding for NPR and PBS,”[2] on the grounds of ideological bias.[3]
Indeed, the language of the Executive Order notes that “Americans have the right to expect that if their tax dollars fund public broadcasting at all, they fund only fair, accurate, unbiased, and nonpartisan news coverage.”[4] The Administration has taken issue with the content being shared to American audiences through NPR and PBS programming such as Sesame Street, with the Administration describing it as “radical, woke propaganda disguised as news.”[5] Specifically, the Administration seems to take issue with the fact that PBS and NPR programming has included content related to the affirmation of various gender identities, as well as the discussion of racial inequality.[6]
This is not the first time that the administration has taken issue with educational content being publicly shared throughout the nation. In another similarly toned Executive Order, the Administration has also attempted to restrict the kind of educational content that can be taught in American public schools. This Executive Order, titled “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” claims that “Anti-American, harmful, and false ideologies”[7] are currently being forced on American schoolchildren through content that discusses topics such as “White Privilege” or “Unconscious Bias.”[8] As such, the Administration, through use of this Executive Order, attempted to require “that recipients of Federal funds providing K-12 education comply with all applicable laws prohibiting discrimination in various contexts and protecting parental rights.”[9] It further called on the Secretaries of Education, Defense, and Health and Human Services to recommend an “Ending Indoctrination Strategy”[10] to eliminate federal funding for programs that promote “anti-American, subversive, harmful and false ideologies,”[11] including resources based on “gender ideology” and “discriminatory equity ideology.”[12] The Executive Order asks that the Secretaries mentioned above also create a process by which to prevent or rescind federal funds from K-12 schools that “support or subsidize”[13] these ideologies, including by deliberately concealing a minor’s social transition from their parents, using preferred pronouns or a name not corresponding to a student’s birth sex, and referring to a child as non-binary.[14]
Clearly, the language and message of the two Executive Orders were crafted to achieve one singular goal: the restriction of educational content in the name of retaliating against a “radical left, woke agenda.” But at its core, what is an Executive Order, and how effective are they at achieving such a mission?
An Executive Order is a directive that comes from the President. They have the full bite of the law without requiring Congressional approval but are limited in scope to the management of the operations of the Federal government.[15] The President is empowered to issue such orders through Article II of the U.S. Constitution, and such orders may be challenged or overturned if deemed unconstitutional.[16]
However strong the language of the Executive orders themselves, the actual application of any concrete restrictions on educational content or curriculums in public schools nationwide is unlikely. While schools may experience increased monitoring of their curriculums[17], the Executive Branch is not empowered to unilaterally alter the public-school curriculums used throughout the nation.[18] The U.S. Constitution hands final authority over education to the purview of the states, meaning that states are not required to adopt any federal curriculum policies.[19] The Federal Department of Education does not have the authority to set curriculum or dictate what is taught in schools. School Boards and Districts themselves have immense authority over curriculum decisions as well.[20] While some states may choose to follow the Administrations directives as listed in the Executive Order, other states may choose to challenge them.[21] This may lead to a piecemeal and uneven implementation of the Executive Order’s Policies and Procedures nationwide.[22] In addition, many states have already implemented culturally responsive or progressive education policies, such as California, New York, and Illinois, which emphasizes diversity, equity, and inclusion.[23] Such states would be unlikely to roll back such educational programming without resistance.
In addition, it is possible that the Executive Order could follow through on its threats to withhold federal funds from schools whose curriculum support or subsidize “harmful, anti-American” ideologies. However, loss of that federal funding, though detrimental, may not be enough to cow schools into obeying the order. Most school funding is handled at the local and state levels of governance, through which they receive roughly 90% of their total funding.[24] Thus, if financially feasible, many schools could choose not to comply with the order outright and simply lose federal financial support.[25] Furthermore, the Executive Branch’s ability to withhold or cut off Congressionally approved funding, even using Executive Orders, is limited by the Impoundment Control Act of 1974. This act creates a system by which the President may propose delays or cancellations of allocated federal spending, but Congress would then need to review it, typically within 45 days.[26] If Congress disproves of the alteration, the funds remain available for spending.[27] Therefore, the ability for the Executive Order to successfully withhold federal funding from schools whose curriculum it does not approve of may not succeed outright.
Overall, the Executive Orders issued by the Trump Administration aim to reshape public education and media funding in line with a particular ideological agenda, their practical impact is likely to be limited. Constitutional constraints, state and local control over education, and legal limitations on withholding federal funds all serve as significant checks on the Executive Branch’s authority to achieve this mission. As debates over education, identity, and public media continue to intensify, these Orders seem to serve more as political statements than enforceable policy shifts. The future of programs like Sesame Street and culturally responsive public-school curriculums will likely be determined not by Executive mandates, but by the values upheld within individual states and communities.
[1] David Folkenflik, “Trump Says He’s Ending Federal Funding for NPR and PBS. They Say He Can’t,” NPR, May 2, 2025, sec. Media, https://www.npr.org/2025/05/02/nx-s1-5384790/trump-orders-end-to-federal-funding-for-npr-and-pbs.
[2] Executive Orders, “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization Of Biased Media,” The White House, May 2, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/05/ending-taxpayer-subsidization-of-biased-media/.
[3] Folkenflik, “Trump Says He’s Ending Federal Funding for NPR and PBS. They Say He Can’t.”
[4] Orders, “Ending Taxpayer Subsidization Of Biased Media.”
[5] The White House, “The NPR, PBS Grift Has Ripped Us Off for Too Long,” The White House, April 14, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/articles/2025/04/the-npr-pbs-grift-has-ripped-us-off-for-too-long/.
[6] House.
[7] The White House, “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling,” The White House, January 29, 2025, https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-indoctrination-in-k-12-schooling/.
[8] House.
[9] House.
[10] House.
[11] House.
[12] House.
[13] House.
[14] “Unpacking Indoctrination and School Choice EOs: How Are K-12 Schools Affected? - Jackson Lewis,” February 6, 2025, https://www.jacksonlewis.com/insights/unpacking-indoctrination-and-school-choice-eos-how-are-k-12-schools-affected.
[15] “Unpacking Indoctrination and School Choice EOs.”
[16] “Unpacking Indoctrination and School Choice EOs.”
[17] “Unpacking Indoctrination and School Choice EOs.”
[18] John Pascarella, “What Does the ‘Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling’ Executive Order Mean for Equity-Driven Educators?,” USC Race and Equity Center, n.d., https://race.usc.edu/wp-content/uploads/2025/03/2025-Practice-Brief-Final.pdf.
[19] Pascarella.
[20] “Unpacking Indoctrination and School Choice EOs.”
[21] Pascarella, “What Does the ‘Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling’ Executive Order Mean for Equity-Driven Educators?”
[22] Pascarella.
[23] “Unpacking Indoctrination and School Choice EOs.”
[24] “Unpacking Indoctrination and School Choice EOs.”
[25] “Unpacking Indoctrination and School Choice EOs.”
[26] Zachary Price, “A Primer on the Impoundment Control Act,” Lawfare, January 28, 2025, https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/a-primer-on-the-impoundment-control-act.
[27] Price.
Written by Loren Safta, Law Clerk at Abdnour Weiker LLP