On June 3, 2026, the NAEd filed an amicus brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in E.K. v. Department of Defense Education Activity, opposing the Department of Defense Education Activity (DoDEA)’s censorship of curriculum, removal of books, and restriction of Advanced Placement Psychology content in schools serving the children of military families.

On May 18, 2026, the NAEd joined 96 fellow organizations in signing a joint letter to U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Office of Management and Budget Director Russell Vought, expressing deep concern that approximately $289 million—about 36 percent—of FY25 funding for the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) remains unobligated and is at risk of lapsing on September 30, 2026. The letter urges the Department of Education and the Office of Management and Budget to take immediate action to apportion and obligate the remaining FY25 IES funds before they expire.

On April 29, 2026, the NAEd Board of Directors issued a statement expressing deep concern about the dismissal of all members of the National Science Board (NSB), the independent governing body of the National Science Foundation (NSF). The dismissal of all Board members interrupts that structure at a particularly consequential time. The NAEd Board urges Congress and the administration to reaffirm the statutory role and preserve the integrity of the National Science Board and to act promptly to restore stable, independent leadership at NSF.

On March 30, 2026, the NAEd, together with 28 other scholarly and professional societies representing more than 165,000 individual members and more than 170 colleges and universities, submitted a urging the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to withdraw proposed changes to the System for Award Management (SAM) certification requirements for applicants and recipients of federal financial assistance. In particular, the comment raises concerns about proposed provisions related to so-called “DEI” activities, immigration-related conduct, public safety, executive branch guidance, and heightened false claims liability.

In March 2026, the NAEd filed a response to the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education’s Request for Information regarding the proposed definitions of “professional student” and “graduate student” in connection with the implementation of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act (OBBA). Specifically, the NAEd explained how ED’s proposed operationalization of “professional” to excluded most graduate programs in education, school-based professions, and education-adjacent professions: (1) lacks coherence with the criteria of the proposed definition of “professional student;” (2) foreseeably harms the K-12 educator workforce supply; and (3) negatively impacts graduate access and career pathways, particularly for first-generation students and students from low-income households.

On February 17, 2026, the NAEd sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) urging them to enact practices to ensure that all students feel safe and secure attending school and all parents and guardians feel safe bringing their children to and from school. Education has long been recognized as the backbone of our American democracy, and we have a strong legal and moral tradition of educating all children, regardless of their or their family’s immigration status. Historically, schools have been protected spaces in our society designed to nurture healthy development and educate and socialize future generations to democratic values. Grounded in research on child development, school climate, and student well-being, the letter summarizes evidence showing that heightened enforcement activity negatively affects student attendance, achievement, engagement, and mental health. Research documents increases in absenteeism following enforcement raids, as well as long-term harms associated with fear of family separation including toxic stress. Moreover, these effects extend beyond students in immigrant families and impact entire school communities.

In October 2025, in its response to the RFI seeking input on “how IES can modernize its programs, processes, and priorities to better serve the needs of the field and American students,” the NAEd underscored that any redesign must comply with IES’s Congressional mandates. The NAEd also endorsed recommendations from the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM)’s report, The Future of Education Research at IES: Advancing an Equity-Oriented Science, and offered additional recommendations to ensure that IES continues to play “a critical role in supporting the development of scientifically warranted research to inform the practice of education within schools and across community sites of practice.”

In October 2025, responding to the Department’s priority of promoting patriotic education that will guide its grantmaking, the NAEd drew upon robust research evidence from its synthesis report Educating for Civic Reasoning and Discourse and related efforts and called for a more expansive approach to “patriotic” education. In addition to suggesting changing the name of the priority to “civic education,” the Academy also provided the research support concerning the benefits of civic education. The Academy’s recommendations urge the Department to expand its priority to ensure that “education in the United States…cultivate[s] a sense of national unity while also embracing the rich cultural diversity and heterogeneity of points of view that define the American experience of democratic pluralism.”

In October 2025, the NAEd submitted a formal response objecting to the U.S. Department of Education’s proposal to no longer require states to report “Significant Disproportionality” data or alterations to their methodologies for calculating such data pursuant to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). There is a long history of racial disparities concerning students with disabilities, including the overidentification of students of color in certain disability categories; the placement of these students in particular (and often restrictive) educational settings; and the disciplinary actions imposed on them. Congress – acknowledging these concerns – added provisions addressing “significant disproportionality” in the 1997 reauthorization of the IDEA and further strengthened these requirements in 2004. Pursuant to the IDEA, states are required to collect, report, and evaluate data on significant disproportionality. The NAEd response articulates the history and importance of collecting and evaluating “significant disproportionality” data. Additionally, it questions how the Department can perform its monitoring and enforcement mandates without this critical data. Ultimately, the NAEd urges the Department to reconsider its decision so that it can carry out its statutorily required obligations, as well as its mission of “fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.”

In September 2025, the NAEd filed an amicus brief with the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit opposing Oklahoma’s classroom censorship law. Oklahoma’s law (H.B. 1775) limits public school curricula, pedagogy, and dialogue related to race and sex—running counter to well-established research on how students learn. The Act’s disruption of evidence-based pedagogical strategies severely restricts educators’ ability to teach core concepts, thereby denying students’ First Amendment right to access information that supports their learning. The Act clearly denies the next generation of Oklahomans access to inclusive curricula and pedagogical practices that further their successful cognitive, social, and emotional development, academic achievement, and preparation for democratic civic engagement. The NAEd brief, supported pro bono by Holland & Hart LLP, advocates for a multiracial group of students and educators – including the Oklahoma State Conference of the NAACP and the American Indian Movement Indian Territory – represented by the ACLU, the ACLU of Oklahoma, the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, and McDermott Will and Schulte LLP in their efforts to quash this harmful legislation.