Kaine, Bonamici, and Colleagues Demand Education Department Abandon Effort to Rescind Guidelines That Prevent Discrimination in Career and Technical Education

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Today, U.S. Senator Tim Kaine (D-VA), a member of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) Committee and former civil rights attorney, and U.S. Representative Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR-01) led 29 of their Democratic colleagues in both chambers of Congress in issuing a letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon opposing the decision from the U.S. Department of Education (ED) to end-run federal law and rescind federal guidelines in place for nearly half a century that are designed to proactively root out discrimination based on race, national origin, sex, and disability in career and technical education (CTE) programs.

"We write to express our strong opposition to the Department of Education's … decision on July 23, 2026, to rescind guidelines from 1979 that worked to eliminate discrimination and denied services based on race, color, national origin, sex, and disability for career and technical education (CTE) programs, and urge you to reinstate the guidelines," wrote the members. "As proponents of CTE, we know that fair and equitable access is critical to our students and the strength of our economy."

"The 1979 Guidelines … established the Methods of Administration between states and the federal government to provide a framework for CTE programs to proactively root out discrimination. To date, this is the only mechanism within ED that actively works to prevent discrimination, as the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) responds retroactively to filed complaints," the members continued. "The Guidelines were issued with a clear purpose, in the government's own words: to end unlawful discrimination against people seeking the skills necessary for gainful and meaningful employment."

They continued, "Despite the rescission of the Guidelines, the underlying nondiscrimination statutes remain in force, and we are hopeful that states will continue to fulfill their duty to prioritize practices adopted under the Guidelines. We believe the Guidelines remain critical, and we urge you to rescind your final rule."

"Furthermore, the Department rescinded the Guidelines without following the law. While the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) includes an exception for notice-and-comment rulemaking before issuing or rescinding a final rule when the matter relates to 'public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts,' this exception does not apply in this case," the group wrote. "Therefore, ED is required to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking before rescinding the Guidelines. This is all taking place while ED is being dismantled illegally without congressional input or oversight."

The bicameral group of Democratic members requested responses to the following questions by Secretary McMahon:

1. What analysis led the Department to the decision to rescind the 1979 Guidelines?
2. What legal authority did the Department rely on to rescind the Guidelines?
3. Did the Department consult with any state CTE directors or civil rights organizations before rescinding the Guidelines, and if so, who?
4. What alternative mechanism will replace the Guidelines framework for proactive monitoring?
5. Was any equity or impact analysis conducted on how rescission would affect students of color, students with disabilities, and girls and women in CTE programs?
6. Will the Department commit to a public comment period before any permanent replacement policy is issued?

In addition to Kaine and Bonamici, the letter was signed by U.S. Senators Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Angus King (I-ME), Ed Markey (D-MA), Patty Murray (D-WA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH), and Ron Wyden (D-OR) and U.S. Representatives Shontel Brown (D-OH-11), André Carson (D-IN-07), Judy Chu (D-CA-28), Yvette Clarke (D-NY-09), Danny Davis (D-IL-07), Mark DeSaulnier (D-CA-10), Debbie Dingell (D-MI-06), Dwight Evans (D-PA-03), Jesús García (D-IL-04), Daniel Goldman (D-NY-10), Josh Gottheimer (D-NJ-05), Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL-08), Seth Magaziner (D-RI-02), Jennifer McClellan (D-VA-04), Del. Eleanor Holmes Norton (D-D.C.-AL), Chellie Pingree (D-ME-01), Andrea Salinas (D-OR-06), Lateefah Simon (D-CA-12), Suhas Subramanyam (D-VA-10), Dina Titus (D-NV-01), Paul Tonko (D-NY-20), and Frederica Wilson (D-FL-24).

Full text of the letter can be found here and below:

Dear Secretary McMahon:

We write to express our strong opposition to the Department of Education's (Department, or ED) decision on July 23, 2026, to rescind guidelines from 1979 that worked to eliminate discrimination and denied services based on race, color, national origin, sex, and disability for career and technical education (CTE) programs, and urge you to reinstate the guidelines. As proponents of CTE, we know that fair and equitable access is critical to our students and the strength of our economy.

Before 1979, the provisions of Title VI (34 C.F.R. Part 100, Appendix B), Section 504 (34 C.F.R. Part 104, Appendix B), and Title IX (34 C.F.R. Part 106, Appendix A) were not adequately enforced in CTE programs. The Department of Health, Education and Welfare was sued in 1973 for failing to enforce Title VI. As a result of injunctive orders from the U.S. District Court of D.C., the 1979 Guidelines for Eliminating Discrimination and Denial of Services on the Basis of Race, Color, National Origin, Sex and Handicap in Vocational Education Programs (Guidelines) established the Methods of Administration between states and the federal government to provide a framework for CTE programs to proactively root out discrimination. To date, this is the only mechanism within ED that actively works to prevent discrimination, as the Department's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) responds retroactively to filed complaints.

The Guidelinesrequire each state CTE agency to run a compliance program that collects and analyzes civil rights data, conducts periodic reviews of local programs, provides technical assistance, and reports findings to OCR. While Title VI, Title IX, and Section 504 prohibit discrimination, the Guidelinesturn those prohibitions into a working system of prevention, monitoring, and remedy, so that no student is steered into or shut out of a career path because of race, color, national origin, sex, or disability. The Guidelineswere issued with a clear purpose, in the government's own words: to end unlawful discrimination against people "seeking the skills necessary for gainful and meaningful employment."

Career and technical education continues to grow nationwide, currently serving nearly 12 million students in K-12 and higher education. Congress annually recognizes the significant benefit CTE provides students in academic rigor, high school completion, employability skills, and college readiness. Despite the overall benefits, it is vital that the enforcement of nondiscrimination protections remains in place to end occupational segregation. Although Black students enroll in CTE programs at rates that roughly match their share of the overall student population, they tend to cluster in service-focused fields that often have lower earning potential. Research shows that students with disabilities who take at least four CTE courses in high school have better academic and employment outcomes, yet there are significant gaps in enrollment. Women continue to be significantly underrepresented in male-dominated, higher-paying fields6 , and middle and high school girls make up one in three students in STEM CTE programs, one in four in manufacturing and construction-related programs, and one in four in transportation, distribution, and logistics programs.

The Guidelinesare also valuable to students who do not participate in CTE, as these programs are offered at 86% of public schools nationwide. For example, ensuring that facilities are accessible to CTE students with disabilities consequently ensures accessibility for all students with disabilities, regardless of their course enrollment. The Department's argument is that it will continue to enforce federal civil rights laws. Yet ED announced, through an Interagency Agreement (IAA) in June 2026, that OCR would move to the Department of Justice. DOJ's enforcement approach to civil rights differs significantly from ED's, which raises concerns even if the Guidelineswere still in effect. Prior to the announcement, OCR at ED had already been a target of this administration, with nearly half of its staff placed on administrative leave and seven of its 12 regional offices closing in March 2025. Meanwhile, the agency dismissed about 90 percent of the complaints it received over a seven-month period and reached zero resolution agreements involving seclusion and restraint, sexual harassment or violence, racial harassment, or discriminatory school discipline in all of 2025.

This is occurring while the administration systematically strips away other sweeping civil rights protections. When the Office of Career, Technical, and Adult Education, which oversees CTE programs, was transferred by IAA to the Department of Labor (DOL) last summer, the transfer was not officially announced by ED or DOL officials; it was only disclosed in court documents. The Department has now compounded that disruption to federal CTE oversight by rescinding the Guidelinesthat established the proactive civil rights compliance framework specifically applicable to CTE programs.

Furthermore, the Department rescinded the Guidelineswithout following the law. While the Administrative Procedure Act(APA) includes an exception for notice-and-comment rulemaking before issuing or rescinding a final rule when the matter relates to "public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts", this exception does not apply in this case. Section 437 of the General Education Provisions Act(GEPA), which governs ED programs, explicitly overrides this APA exception for ED programs and states that the exception only applies in two limited circumstances. The first circumstance is for regulations that "govern the first grant competition under a new or substantially revised program authority," which is not at issue here because no authority has been revised. The second circumstance is where the Secretary determines that following the APA procedures would "cause extreme hardship to the intended beneficiaries of the program affected by such regulations".

ED's final rule does not make that claim under GEPA, includes no finding that grantees would be under "extreme hardship," and, in fact, has no mention of GEPA at all. Therefore, ED is required to go through notice-and-comment rulemaking before rescinding the Guidelines. This is all taking place while ED is being dismantled illegally without congressional input or oversight.

At the same time, the Department has implemented other measures that weaken civil rights protections for CTE students. These include eliminating longstanding disparate impact provisions from Title VI regulations and proposing to rescind the rules governing Equity Assistance Centers. These centers provide technical assistance to state and local educational agencies to address discrimination and desegregation challenges. Together, these actions weaken established systems of CTE oversight, civil rights enforcement, and technical assistance that have historically prevented discrimination that otherwise might have denied CTE students educational and career opportunities.

Despite the rescission of the Guidelines, the underlying nondiscrimination statutes remain in force, and we are hopeful that states will continue to fulfill their duty to prioritize practices adopted under the Guidelines. We believe the Guidelinesremain critical, and we urge you to rescind your final rule.

We also respectfully request responses to the following questions by October 5, 2026.

1. What analysis led the Department to the decision to rescind the 1979 Guidelines?
2. What legal authority did the Department rely on to rescind the Guidelines?
3. Did the Department consult with any state CTE directors or civil rights organizations before rescinding the Guidelines, and if so, who?
4. What alternative mechanism will replace the Guidelinesframework for proactive monitoring?
5. Was any equity or impact analysis conducted on how rescission would affect students of color, students with disabilities, and girls and women in CTE programs?
6. Will the Department commit to a public comment period before any permanent replacement policy is issued?

Thank you for your attention to this important matter.