The White House has turned its sights on Los Angeles’s public schools, accusing the district of hiding student secrets from parents and calling the practice a violation of federal law. The move revives the explosive controversy over the Biden administration’s handling of angry parents at school-board meetings, after a national group representing school boards suggested some conduct amounted to “a form of domestic terrorism.”
“Under the Biden Administration, parents were the enemy. They were labeled as terrorists, targeted, and investigated by a government weaponized against them.”
That line, from US Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, signals the administration’s view that the era of treating parents as adversaries is finally over. The action announced Monday by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice targets the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD), the nation’s second-largest district, over policies the Trump administration says improperly hide sensitive student information from parents.
The Enforcement Action Against LAUSD
The enforcement action focuses on specific LAUSD policies that the administration says go beyond what federal law allows. The departments cite a directive telling employees to “privately ask the student how they want to be referred to when communicating with parents/legal guardians” and another requiring a student’s self-professed “gender identity” to be kept “private” or “confidential,” including from parents.
Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet K. Dhillon framed the dispute in stark terms. “The Biden-Harris DOJ labeled concerned parents as threats for exercising their right to know what was happening at their kids’ schools,” she said.
McMahon went further, urging all state attorneys general to work with the administration “in upholding the letter of the law,” noting the partnership with the Department of Justice to hold “rogue schools accountable.” The administration’s message is simple: schools that refuse to share information with parents risk losing federal funding.
What the Laws Require
The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) are the legal basis for the enforcement action. Both laws cover different aspects of student information.
FERPA protects the privacy of students’ education records while giving parents the right to access those records and, in certain circumstances, control who else can see them. PPRA gives parents additional protections when schools question children about sensitive subjects, including mental health, sexual behavior and attitudes, religion and political beliefs.
The administration’s letter to state attorneys general states: “Many superintendents and school officials continue to behave as though they will not be held accountable for maintaining policies that infringe parents’ rights. The conditions of federal funding under FERPA and PPRA are nonnegotiable.”
The letter also addresses mental-health screenings. “Schools conducting covered mental-health screenings or similar evaluations must obtain prior written parental consent rather than simply giving parents the opportunity to opt out,” McMahon and Dhillon wrote. “Opt-outs are not sufficient in this regard.”
The Domestic Terrorism Row Re-Emerges
The timing of the action lands on top of renewed tension over how schools respond to angry parents at board meetings. The National School Boards Association (NSBA) previously characterized some conduct as potentially amounting to “a form of domestic terrorism.”
That language drew sharp criticism from Republicans and conservatives who argued the Biden administration had turned parents into enemies. The new administration appears determined to change course. “That era is over,” McMahon said.
The Political Fight Over Parental Rights
The move has energized a Republican candidate who has made parental rights a central issue in her campaign. Sonja Shaw, a Republican candidate for California superintendent of public instruction and president of the Chino Valley Unified School District board, said the federal action validated her fight.
“Today, the Trump administration’s Department of Education and Department of Justice are saying what parents have known all along: Parents are not terrorists,” Shaw said.
The Administration’s Letter to State Attorneys General
The administration’s joint letter to state attorneys general nationwide warns schools must comply with federal laws protecting parents’ rights to access information about their children. The letter cites FERPA and PPRA.
The administration’s argument is straightforward: parents have a right to know what happens at their children’s schools, and schools that withhold information are breaking the law.
The 2021 FBI Investigation
The controversy dates back to 2021, when Attorney General Merrick Garland directed the FBI and US attorneys to address reported threats against school officials. The move followed an NSBA letter to President Biden suggesting some threats and acts of violence against school officials could amount to “a form of domestic terrorism.”
Emails later made public showed NSBA officials had communicated with White House staff before sending the letter. Garland responded by insisting parents had the First Amendment right to vigorously challenge school policies and said the DOJ memorandum was not aimed at parents simply complaining about their children’s education.
Garland said at the time: “I can’t imagine any circumstance in which the Patriot Act would be used in the circumstances of parents complaining about their children. Nor can I imagine a circumstance where they would be labeled as domestic terrorism.”
The Stakes for LAUSD
LAUSD faces a serious problem if the administration follows through on its threat to cut funding. The district’s policies appear to conflict with federal law, and the administration has signaled it is willing to enforce those laws.
The action puts LAUSD in an uncomfortable position. The district has not responded publicly to the enforcement action, and there is no timeline for a reply. Whether LAUSD complies with the federal demand or fights it remains unclear.
What is clear is the political context. The administration is using this case to signal a shift in how it handles parent-school conflicts. McMahon’s framing — that parents were treated as enemies under the previous administration — sets the tone for the coming fight.
The enforcement action is the administration’s attempt to reset the relationship between parents and schools. By targeting LAUSD, the administration is sending a message to districts across the country: follow federal law or lose funding.
The domestic-terrorism row is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. The NSBA’s characterization of some parent conduct remains on the record, and the FBI investigation remains a touchstone for conservatives who believe the federal government overreacted to ordinary school-board activism.
Shaw’s role in the fight adds a personal dimension. She described becoming involved almost seven years ago, when she was “just a mom who wanted a seat at the table in my own child’s education and was sidelined.” She showed up at school board meetings because she believed parents deserved a voice.
Her campaign for California superintendent of public instruction now carries that fight forward. She has made parental rights a central issue, and the federal action gives her ammunition.
The administration’s letter to state attorneys general is a warning to all schools, not just LAUSD. By naming both FERPA and PPRA, the letter reminds schools that federal funding is tied to compliance with both laws.
The opt-out provision is particularly significant. Schools conducting mental-health screenings must obtain prior written parental consent rather than simply giving parents the opportunity to opt out. That requirement goes beyond the usual opt-in approach, placing a heavier burden on schools to secure parental agreement before proceeding.
The enforcement action is part of a broader pattern. The administration is using federal power to reshape how schools handle parent complaints. The domestic-terrorism row is one front in that battle, and the enforcement action against LAUSD is another.
Whether LAUSD complies with the federal demand or fights it remains an open question. The district has not yet responded publicly, and there is no timeline for a reply.
The administration’s argument is straightforward: parents have a right to know what happens at their children’s schools, and schools that withhold information are breaking the law. That is the core of the enforcement action, and it is the core of the administration’s message to schools nationwide.
Where the paper stands
The paper backs Los Angeles’s public schools and is against the White House accusing the district of hiding student secrets from parents, citing federal law. The administration’s claim that LAUSD policies improperly hide sensitive student information from parents is a direct attack on local control, and the paper opposes that.
The enforcement action, announced Monday by the Department of Education and the Department of Justice, targets LAUSD based on policies the Trump administration says go beyond what federal law allows. The administration’s joint letter to state attorneys general warns schools must comply with federal laws protecting parents’ rights to access information about their children, citing FERPA and PPRA.
This is the latest chapter in a long-running political fight over who controls school policy, and the paper believes local districts should make these calls, not Washington.
Source material: “White House targets LAUSD over twisted policies hiding kids’ secrets from families — as ‘domestic terrorists’ row erupts again,” the New York Post.
Get the Notebook.
The day's best stories and every fresh verdict, in plain English, in your inbox by seven. One email a day, no more.