For Jonathan Moody, superintendent of the rural Maine School Administrative District 54 (MSAD 54) in central Maine, federal funding isn’t supplemental—it’s essential. In a region defined by its rugged beauty and deep-rooted communities, his schools rely heavily on federal dollars to provide basic services: classroom instruction, school meals, mental health support, and after-school programming.

Now, that lifeline is at risk.

Following Gov. Janet Mills’ refusal to enforce a federal executive order banning transgender athletes from girls’ school sports, President Donald Trump has threatened to cut all federal education funding to Maine, which totals hundreds of millions of dollars annually. In a public exchange, Trump warned Mills that “you’re not going to get any federal funding at all” unless the state complies. Her response: “See you in court,” NPR reported.

For Moody, whose district includes more than 70 federally funded staff positions and depends on Title I and special education funding to serve high-poverty communities, the threat hits hard.

“These funds are the backbone of our intervention system,” Moody told NPR. “They help students get on pace. They help educate our most needy students.”

A Political Showdown with Real-World Impact

What began as a legal dispute over gender inclusion in sports has escalated into a nationwide debate over the limits of federal power and the future of educational equity, with rural districts like Moody’s caught in the middle.

“This is the Trump administration basically holding funding for our most vulnerable students, largely low-income students, hostage,” said Rebecca Sibilia, founder of the education finance nonprofit EdFund, in an interview with NPR. “This is completely unprecedented.”

According to a 2018 U.S. Government Accountability Office report, between 6% and 13% of a school district’s funding comes from the federal government. These dollars are disproportionately critical in low-income and rural areas, where property tax revenue can’t keep pace with community needs.

In Moody’s district, Title I funds pay for interventionists, teaching assistants, and educators like Barbara Welch, a 37-year district veteran whose entire salary is covered by federal grants. Welch helps teachers tailor interventions for struggling students and works directly with children in kindergarten through second grade—a formative period the district has targeted to reduce long-term learning gaps.

“Our data reveals that we’re doing the right thing,” Welch told NPR. “Our students enter third grade not needing Title I interventions.”

The Domino Effect of Funding Threats

Federal grants also fund community programming like “Learning Paloozas”—school events that provide families with enrichment activities, books, and school supplies. They support school meals for students facing food insecurity. And increasingly, they provide mental health services for students who have no other access.

Moody’s district used funding from the 2022 Bipartisan Safer Communities Act to hire three licensed mental health counselors. But earlier this month, the Trump administration announced a $1 billion cut to school mental health funding—a move that will prematurely end those grants in December, nearly two years earlier than expected.

“I was disappointed, and just devastated for the kids,” said counselor Jordan Chighali in an interview with NPR. Many of her students live in unstable housing or struggle with depression, anxiety, and other challenges exacerbated by poverty and substance use in the community.

Despite these setbacks, Moody says he’s determined to maintain staffing levels for counseling services, even if that means cutting elsewhere.

“We are already at a bare minimum,” he said. “If you’re going to reduce, you reduce staffing, which is programming for kids.”

Legal Challenges Ahead

The Biden-era U.S. Department of Education has previously attempted to enforce civil rights protections for transgender students under Title IX. But the Trump administration has taken a more restrictive interpretation, using executive orders to compel state compliance. While Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)  funding are mandated by law, the ongoing litigation could determine how—or if—those funds are distributed moving forward.

Sibilia warns that while cutting federal education dollars may seem politically motivated, the ripple effects could be long-lasting.

“It becomes very tangible when you think about laying off one out of 10 teachers, when you think about reducing classrooms or cutting school meals,” she told NPR.

The Role of Higher Education in the Debate

For higher education leaders, the events unfolding in Maine offer a cautionary tale of how political mandates can jeopardize educational access and autonomy. Colleges of education, particularly those focused on rural teacher training, must grapple with the potential downstream effects of losing K-12 partnerships and support systems.

“Schools are this really important funnel for resources,” said Catharine Biddle, an education researcher at the University of Maine. “They need funds to be able to deliver those services.”

As litigation continues, educators in Maine—and across the country—are bracing for impact.

“Federal funding of education is an investment worth making,” Moody said. “It changes lives. It absolutely is essential.”