A host of education officials stood beside New Mexico Attorney General Raúl Torrez on Wednesday in the state Justice Department building to decry the impacts of frozen education funds as a threat to families — and as unpopular policy even for many Donald Trump voters.
Torrez has brought New Mexico into a coalition of 24 states and the District of Columbia that is suing the federal government for the release of nearly $7 billion in education funds marked for programs like after-school and English-language instruction.
With those funds frozen, the attorney general and his slate of speakers argued the most vulnerable student groups will be hurt and child care crises will be exacerbated. Nearly 10,000 students in New Mexico are expected to lose after-school and summer school programs, Torrez said, creating a ripple effect that will impact everything from student outcomes to their parents’ work schedules.
States were notified of the freeze by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget on June 30 — a day before they were set to receive the funding. The freeze affects nearly $45 million earmarked for New Mexico.
It was last-minute news for school districts, which are “forced now to make some impossible choices,” said Kristie Medina, superintendent of Raton Public Schools, adding the freeze will have a “have a direct and devastating impact … especially in rural and underserved communities such as ours.”
“This is not about party lines. This is about the future of our students and our kids,” said Medina, whose school district is in Colfax County, which voted solidly for Trump in 2024.
Torrez and his speakers honed in on bipartisan support for after-school and summer programs.
“Even in this very divided political world … helping kids is still thankfully a place where we still find a lot bipartisan support,” Torrez said, though he acknowledged the constant need to improve efficiency and eliminate waste in programs.
Bipartisan or not?
Amy Barela, chair of the Republican Party of New Mexico, pushed back on Torrez’s claim of bipartisan agreement in a statement issued a few hours after the news conference in which she called the attorney general’s lawsuit “political theater.”
The party, Barela wrote, “stands with President Trump in his effort to end reckless federal spending that prioritizes radical agendas over the real needs of American children,” adding the president has “long warned” he would cut “programs that promote DEI indoctrination and that cater to illegal immigrants at the expense of our students and our communities.”
In reference to Torrez’s claim rural schools will be hit the hardest, she said rural districts “have long suffered under current funding structures,” and preexisting policies have not improved the statewide quality of education.
Barela instead called for “school choice,” a frequent refrain among conservatives that typically signals support for parents enrolling students in private, charter or parochial schools outside of traditional public education.
“ I think if you went and asked folks — even folks that supported the administration and voted for the administration — if when they cast a ballot for Donald Trump, they did so because they thought he was going to cut after-school and summer care programs in rural communities,” Torrez said, “I would imagine they have other issues and ideas … on their mind.”
In statements to various media outlets regarding the freeze, the Office of Management and Budget cited an “ongoing programmatic review” of funds to ensure they align with Trump administration priorities. The office pointed to New York, where it said the funds went to “promote illegal immigrant advocacy organizations.” New York Attorney General Letitia James called that claim “patently false” in a Tuesday announcement her state had joined the coalition’s lawsuit.
Torrez said the funding freeze will have “unintended or unrealized consequences” that will go against even a conservative agenda.
“ I find it ironic that this administration would issue an executive order seeking to establish English as the official language of this country, and yet at the same time, cut supports for helping kids who want to learn English,” he said. “They want to more fully participate in the American dream and in American society — and making these kinds of cuts will have a dramatic impact on their ability to do that.”
Another unintended consequence, Torrez said, will be the potential impact on juvenile crime if summer and after-school programs are suspended.
“All of that [program] impacts their ability to succeed in the education system and makes them far more likely to end up in the criminal justice system,” he said.
“Eight-seven percent of voters, including large majorities of Republicans, independents and rural voters agreed that after-school programs are an absolute necessity and nearly four in five Republicans favor greater investments in these programs,” said Ian Gates, who serves as special projects coordinator for the New Mexico Out-of-School Time Network, one of 50 state advocacy organizations of its kind that advocates for after-school and summer school programs, during the event.
‘We’re scrambling’
Santa Fe Public Schools officials who also attended the news conference said the freeze will impact the city.
“There’s no clear path forward,” said Peter McWain, Santa Fe Public Schools executive director of curriculum and instruction.
McWain said the district has not redirected funding to keep its after-school program afloat for the 700 local families it serves.
“ Santa Fe Public Schools and school districts I’ve worked in don’t have frivolous things built into their budget that are disposable,” he said. “School starts in three weeks. With this cut … we’re scrambling and trying to figure out how to support our students that are in most need.”
The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court in Rhode Island, also came with a motion for preliminary injunction, which, if granted, will mean “the administration will be ordered not to cut this funding — meaning the status quo will remain in place,” Torrez said. A hearing for preliminary injunction has not been scheduled, he added.
The new litigation joins a pile of lawsuits filed by Torrez and the coalition of Democratic attorneys general the last few months, some over other funding freezes.
Though the granting of the preliminary injunction would mean the restoration of funds, the lawsuit, “if it follows the same pattern that previous litigation has followed,” Torrez said, can be appealed up to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“That [lawsuit] could take a year or more, maybe several years to resolve this question,” Torrez said. “So it’s very early on in the process.”