NEW YORK — Opponents of President Donald Trump’s administration took to the streets of communities large and small across the U.S. on Saturday, decrying what they see as threats to the nation’s democratic ideals.

The disparate events ranged from a march through midtown Manhattan and a rally in front of the White House to a demonstration at a Massachusetts commemoration marking the start of the American Revolutionary War 250 years ago. In San Francisco, protesters formed a human banner reading “Impeach & Remove” on the sands of Ocean Beach overlooking the Pacific Ocean.

Thomas Bassford was among those who joined demonstrators at the reenactment of the Battles of Lexington and Concord outside of Boston. “The shot heard ’round the world” on April 19, 1775, heralded the start of the nation’s war for independence from Britain.

The 80-year-old retired mason from Maine said he believed Americans today are under attack from their own government and need to stand up against it.

“This is a very perilous time in America for liberty,” Bassford said, as he attended the event with his partner, daughter and two grandsons. “I wanted the boys to learn about the origins of this country and that sometimes we have to fight for freedom.”

Elsewhere, protests were planned outside Tesla car dealerships against billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk and his role in downsizing the federal government. Others organized more community-service events, such as food drives, teach-ins and volunteering at local shelters.

The protests come just two weeks after similar nationwide protests against the Trump administration drew thousands to the streets across the country.

Organizers say they’re protesting what they call Trump’s civil rights violations and constitutional violations, including efforts to deport scores of immigrants and to scale back the federal government by firing thousands of government workers and effectively shutter entire agencies.

Some of the events drew on the spirit of the American Revolutionary War, calling for “no kings” and resistance to tyranny.

Boston resident George Bryant, who was among those protesting in Concord, Massachusetts, said he was concerned Trump was creating a “police state” in America as he held up a sign saying, “Trump fascist regime must go now!”

“He’s defying the courts. He’s kidnapping students. He’s eviscerating the checks and balances,” Bryant said. “This is fascism.”

In Washington, Bob Fasick said he came out to the rally by the White House out of concern about threats to constitutionally protected due process rights, as well as Social Security and other federal safety-net programs.

The Trump administration, among other things, has moved to shutter Social Security Administration field offices, cut funding for government health programs and scale back protections for transgender people.

“I cannot sit still knowing that if I don’t do anything and everybody doesn’t do something to change this, that the world that we collectively are leaving for the little children, for our neighbors is simply not one that I would want to live,” said the 76-year-old retired federal employee from Springfield, Virginia.

In Columbia, South Carolina, several hundred people protested at the statehouse. They held signs that said “Fight Fiercely, Harvard, Fight” and “Save SSA,” in reference to the Social Security Administration.

And in Manhattan, protesters rallied against continued deportations of immigrants as they marched from the New York Public Library north towards Central Park past Trump Tower.

“No fear, no hate, no ICE in our state,” they chanted to the steady beat of drums, referring to the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Marshall Green, who was among the protesters, said he was most concerned that Trump has invoked the wartime Alien Enemies Act of 1798 by claiming the country is at war with Venezuelan gangs linked to the South American nation’s government.

“Congress should be stepping up and saying no, we are not at war. You cannot use that,” said the 61-year-old from Morristown, New Jersey. “You cannot deport people without due process, and everyone in this country has the right to due process no matter what.”

Meanwhile Melinda Charles, of Connecticut, said she worried about Trump’s “executive overreach,” citing clashes with the federal courts to Harvard University and other elite colleges.

“We’re supposed to have three equal branches of government and to have the executive branch become so strong,” she said. “I mean, it’s just unbelievable.”

__

Associated Press reporters Claire Rush in Oregon, Joseph Frederick in New York, Rodrique Ngowi in Massachusetts, Nathan Ellgren in Washington and Meg Kinnard in Columbia, South Carolina contributed to this story.

Fresh from a courtroom loss over The Associated Press’ access to the presidency, the White House on Tuesday put forward a new media policy that sharply curtails access to Donald Trump by news agencies that serve media outlets around the world. It was the latest attempt by the new administration to control coverage of its activities.

The move would block the AP and other wire services that serve billions of readers through thousands of news outlets. It comes after a judge ruled the White House had violated the organization’s free speech by banning it because it disagreed with the outlet’s decision not to rename the Gulf of Mexico.

While outlining a new “pool coverage” policy for small spaces like the Oval Office and Air Force One, the White House also said it will ultimately give press secretary Karoline Leavitt the final say over who gets to question her boss, according to people who have seen the plan.

The White House did not return messages for comment on Tuesday evening.

A federal judge last week ruled the White House improperly punished the AP for refusing to rename the Gulf of Mexico by blocking its reporters and photographers from covering the events. U.S. District Judge Trevor N. McFadden ordered the administration to treat the AP as it does other news organizations.

A day after defying McFadden’s ruling and continuing AP’s ban when Trump and El Salvador President Nayib Bukele met with reporters in the Oval Office, the White House leaked a new policy to selected journalists.

For many years, the White House Correspondents Association has run the pool for the limited space events, and each time it has included reporters from the wire services AP, Reuters and Bloomberg. One print reporter was also allowed, selected on a rotating basis from more than 30 news outlets.

The White House now says it will lump the three wire services with print reporters for two slots — meaning roughly three dozen reporters will rotate for two regular slots. Wire services typically report and write stories that are used in multiple locations around the country and the planet.

Even with the rotation, the White House said Trump’s press secretary “shall retain day-to-day discretion to determine composition of the pool.” The new policy says reporters will also be allowed in “irrespective of the substantive viewpoint expressed by an outlet.”

In a statement, the AP’s Lauren Easton said the outlet was deeply disappointed that rather than restore the AP’s access, the White House instead chose restrictions over all of the wire services.

“The wire services represent thousands of news organizations across the U.S. and the world over,” said Easton, an AP spokeswoman. “Our coverage is used by local newspapers and television stations in all 50 states to inform their communities.

“The administration’s actions continue to disregard the fundamental American freedom to speak without government control or retaliation,” Easton said Tuesday night.

The independent White House Correspondents’ Association said the administration’s insistence on retaining control over who covers the president shows that it is unwilling to guarantee that it would not continue “viewpoint discrimination.”

“The government should not be able to control the independent media that covers it,” said Eugene Daniels, the association’s president.

Under Leavitt, the White House has given greater access to news outlets friendly to Trump. That was visible Tuesday, when the first reporter Leavitt addressed during a briefing asked two questions while also praising Trump policy.

At Monday’s Oval Office meeting, Trump bristled at questions from CNN’s Kaitlan Collins about a man deported to an El Salvador prison, at one point accusing CNN of “hating our country.” He made it a point to contrast her questions with a non-pointed one from another reporter.

Despite the occasional fireworks, Trump has made himself accessible to the media more than his predecessor, former President Joe Biden. Cramped-quarters events, particularly in the Oval Office, are some of his favorite places to talk — rendering the new access policy all the more impactful.

The new policy advanced on Tuesday did not address access for photographers. At an earlier court hearing about the AP’s case, the outlet’s chief White House photographer, Evan Vucci, and correspondent Zeke Miller testified about how the ban has hurt the business of a news agency built to quickly get news and images to its customers.

The dispute stems from AP’s decision not to follow the president’s executive order to rename the Gulf of Mexico, although AP style does cite Trump’s wish that it be called the Gulf of America. McFadden agreed with AP’s argument that the government cannot punish the news organization for what it says — for exercising its right to free speech.

The White House has argued that press access to the president is a privilege, not a right, that it should control — much like it decides to whom Trump gives one-on-one interviews. In court papers filed last weekend, his lawyers signaled that even with McFadden’s decision, the AP’s days of unchallenged access to open presidential events were over.

“No other news organization in the United States receives the level of guaranteed access previously bestowed upon the AP,” the administration argued. “The AP may have grown accustomed to its favored status, but the Constitution does not require that such status endure in perpetuity.”

The administration has appealed McFadden’s ruling, and is scheduled to be in an appeals court on Thursday to argue that ruling should be put on hold until the merits of the case are fully decided, perhaps by the U.S. Supreme Court.

The administration has not curtailed AP access to Leavitt’s briefings over the past two months. It has blocked access to events in the East Room to White House-credentialed AP reporters — until Tuesday, when one was allowed into an event that involved the Navy football team.

___

David Bauder writes about media for the AP. Follow him at http://x.com/dbauder and https://bsky.app/profile/dbauder.bsky.social

PORTLAND, Maine — The deadline has arrived for Maine officials to reach a resolution with the U.S. Education Department over a finding that the state violated antidiscrimination laws by allowing transgender athletes to participate in girls’ sports.

The Education Department said in March that an investigation concluded the Maine Department of Education violated the federal Title IX law by allowing transgender girls to participate on girls’ teams. The investigation followed a public disagreement between Democratic Maine Gov. Janet Mills and President Donald Trump at a February meeting of governors.

The U.S. Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights issued a final warning on March 31 telling the state it needed to comply with the law in 10 business days or face enforcement from the U.S. Justice Department. That deadline arrived Friday.

Maine education officials have declined to comment on the investigation. Trump has said the state risks losing federal funding if it does not come into compliance.

“The Maine Department of Education’s indifference to its past, current, and future female athletes is astonishing. By refusing to comply with Title IX, MDOE allows — indeed, encourages — male competitors to threaten the safety of female athletes, wrongfully obtain girls’ hard-earned accolades, and deny females equal opportunity in educational activities to which they are guaranteed under Title IX,” said Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights.

Federal funding is critical to Maine schools. Maine got $358 million in federal funding for K-12 schools in 2021-22, or 10% of its budget, according to data from the Census. About 13% of that money went to Title I, 14% to special education and 20% to child nutrition programs such as school lunches.

Almost half of federal funds were simply marked as “other,” which likely points to the substantial COVID relief funds schools got that year. Prior to the pandemic, Maine got 6% of its funding from federal sources, almost $185 million in 2018-19.

The issue of school funding and transgender participation in sports in Maine began to bubble up when Mills and Trump sparred over the subject during the February meeting at the White House. During the meeting, Trump threatened to pull federal funding from Maine if the state did not comply with his executive order barring transgender athletes from sports.

Mills responded: “We’ll see you in court.”

Soon after, the Education Department and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services launched investigations into the state.

Health and Human Services officials said in March that the Maine Department of Education, Maine Principals’ Association and a high school are each in violation of Title IX because of the participation of transgender athletes. The Health Department has already referred the issue to the Justice Department for enforcement in court.

The principals’ association and school district both said they would not comply with a proposed agreement to ban the athletes. The Maine education department declined to comment.

Maine Republicans, who are in the minority in both houses of the Legislature, have put pressure on state Democrats to resolve the investigations. House Republican Leader Billy Bob Faulkingham, speaking during a news conference, said Mills has created a “hostage situation” that jeopardizes federal funding.

“The governor, and her administration, is holding Maine schools and Maine education under hostage,” Faulkingham said. “This standoff is not going to end well for the state of Maine and its education funding.”

LGBTQ+ rights groups in Maine have defended the state’s approach. “We’re not giving in, and we’re not giving up on our trans community,” EqualityMaine said in a social media post.

Federal authorities have also said they are investigating Maine due to claims school districts in the state violate federal law by withholding information about students’ gender transitioning from parents.

___

Associated Press writer Sharon Lurye in New Orleans contributed to this report.

WASHINGTON — More than $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell University and around $790 million for Northwestern University have been frozen while the government investigates alleged civil rights violations at both schools, the White House says.

It’s part of a broader push to use government funding to get major academic institutions to comply with President Donald Trump ’s political agenda. The White House confirmed the funding pauses late Tuesday night, but offered no further details on what it entails, or what grants to the schools are being affected.

The moves come as the Trump administration has increasingly begun using governmental grant funding as a spigot to try and influence campus policy — previously cutting off money to schools including Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania.

That has left universities across the country struggling to navigate cuts to grants for research institutions.

In a statement, Cornell said it had received more than 75 stop work orders earlier Tuesday from the Defense Department related to research “profoundly significant to American national defense, cybersecurity, and health” but that it had not otherwise received any information confirming $1 billion in frozen grants.

“We are actively seeking information from federal officials to learn more about the basis for these decisions,” said the statement from Michael I. Kotlikoff, the university president, and other top school officials.

In an email to the Northwestern community, university president Michael Schill said it had not been notified by the federal government of the cuts, according to The Daily Northwestern, the campus newspaper.

Last month, the Education Department sent letters to more than 60 universities — including Cornell and Northwestern — warning of “potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations” under federal law to “protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities.”

The Trump administration has threatened to cut off federal funding for universities allowing alleged antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests last year against Israel’s war with Hamas in Gaza — accusations the universities have denied.

Officials have already singled out Columbia University, making an example of it with threats to withhold $400 million in federal funds.

The administration repeatedly accused Columbia of failing to stop antisemitism during protests against Israel that began at the New York City university last spring and quickly spread to other campuses — a characterization disputed by those involved in the demonstrations.

As a precondition for restoring that money — along with billions more in future grants — the Republican administration demanded unprecedented changes in university policy.

Columbia’s decision to bow to those demands, in part to salvage ongoing research projects at its labs and medical center, has been criticized by some faculty and free speech groups as capitulating to an intrusion on academic freedom.

SANTA FE, N.M. — A New Mexico court is weighing whether to block the disclosure of an array of records from an investigation into the deaths of actor Gene Hackman and his wife, Betsy Arakawa, at the request of the couple’s estate.

Santa Fe-based Judge Matthew Wilson scheduled a hearing Monday to consider a request from estate representative Julia Peters to seal photos, video and documents to protect the family’s constitutional right to privacy. The court put a temporary hold on the release of records pending the hearing.

The partially mummified remains of Hackman and Arakawa were found in their Santa Fe home on Feb. 26, when maintenance and security workers showed up at the home and alerted police. Authorities have confirmed Hackman, 95, died of heart disease with complications from Alzheimer’s disease about a week after his wife’s death. Hackman may have been unaware Arakawa, 65, was dead.

Her cause of death was listed as hantavirus pulmonary syndrome, which is a rare, rodent-borne disease.

New Mexico’s open records law blocks public access to sensitive images, including depictions of dead bodies. Experts also say some medical information is not considered public record under the state Inspection of Public Records Act.

Peters has emphasized the possibly shocking nature of photographs and video in the investigation and potential for their dissemination by media in the bid to block them from being released.

The Hackman family estate’s lawsuit also seeks to block the release of autopsy reports by the Office of the Medical Investigator and death investigation reports by the Santa Fe County Sheriff’s Office.

The bulk of death investigations by law enforcement and autopsy reports by medical investigators are typically considered public records under state law in the spirit of ensuring government transparency and accountability.

Authorities unraveled the mysterious circumstances of the couple’s deaths and described their conclusions at a March 7 news conference without releasing most related written and photographic records.

One of the couple’s three dogs, a kelpie mix named Zinna, also was found dead in a crate in a bathroom closet near Arakawa. Two other dogs survived.

The written request to seal the records notes the couple placed “a significant value on their privacy and took affirmative vigilant steps” to safeguard it during their lives, including after they moved to Santa Fe and Hackman retired. The state capital is known as a refuge for celebrities, artists and authors.

Arakawa had no children, while Hackman is survived by three children from a previous marriage. Privacy likely also will play a role as the couple’s estate is settled. According to probate court documents, Hackman signed an updated will in 2005 leaving his estate to his wife, while the will she signed that same year directed her estate to him. With both of them dying, management of the estate is in Peters’ hands.

A request is pending to appoint a trustee to administer assets in two trusts associated with the estate. Without trust documents being made public, it’s unclear who the beneficiaries are and how the assets will be divided.

Attorneys who specialize in estate planning in New Mexico say it’s possible more details could come out if there were any legal disputes over the assets. Even then, they said, the parties likely would ask the court to seal the documents.

COLUMBUS, Ohio — The 6th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati will hear arguments Wednesday in a legal dispute that pits a suburban Ohio school district’s policy requiring use of students’ preferred pronouns against the free speech rights of classmates who believe there are only two genders.

The lawsuit brought by Parents Defending Education, a national Christian organization, against the Olentangy Local School District in 2023 has captured broad national attention from groups ranging from the American Civil Liberties Union to the conservative Manhattan Institute. Ohio’s solicitor general has asked to participate in oral arguments on behalf of 22 U.S. states that have interests in the case.

A lower court rejected the group’s arguments that the policies violated students’ First Amendment and Fourteenth Amendment rights, and a three-judge panel of the 6th Circuit affirmed that decision in July.

The full court will reconsider that decision in a rare en banc hearing Wednesday. Here’s what you need to know:

The lawsuit takes issue with overlapping district policies that prohibit the use of gender-related language that other students might deem insulting, dehumanizing, unwanted or offensive and call for the use of peers’ “preferred pronouns.”

The district’s electronic devices policy — which applies both on and off school time — prohibits transmitting “disruptive” material or material that could be seen as harassing or disparaging other students based on their gender identity or sexual orientation, among other categories.

A separate antidiscrimination policy prohibits students from engaging in “discriminatory language” during times when they’re under the school’s authority. That is defined as “verbal or written comments, jokes, and slurs that are derogatory towards an individual or group based on one or more of the following characteristics: race, color, national origin, sex (including sexual orientation and transgender identity), disability, age, religion, ancestry, or genetic information.”

The district’s code of conduct echoes many of the same themes a third time.

Parents Defending Education, founded in 2021 amid the culture wars over schools’ teachings on race, diversity and sexuality, argues that the policies compel students and parents who belong to their group to “affirm an idea that gender is fluid” in contradiction of their religious beliefs.

“These students have views that the District disfavors,” the group wrote in a court filing. “Specifically, they believe that people are either male or female, that biological sex is immutable, and that sex does not change based on someone’s internal feelings. Accordingly, they ‘d(o) not want to be forced to ‘affirm’ that a biologically female classmate is actually a male — or vice versa — or that a classmate is ’nonbinary’ and neither male nor female.”

The group argues that the policies unconstitutionally compel “viewpoint-based” speech by forcing students who believe in only two genders to use pronouns that suggest otherwise. They say that violates the First Amendment’s guarantees to free speech and similar protections contained in the 14th Amendment, particularly since students are subject to punishment for violating the policies.

Parents Defending Education further challenges the electronic devices policy for applying outside school hours and off school property. The ACLU has sided with the parents’ group on this point, arguing the district’s policies are overbroad.

Olentangy Local School District outside Columbus, one of the state’s largest districts, maintains the policies protect students against abuse and harassment and asserts that Parents Defending Education represents “Christian, cisgender” students “seeking dispensation under the free speech clause of the First Amendment to harass other students based on their gender identity.”

“They are not illegal immigrants subject to deportation. They are not gay soldiers under Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. They’re not African Americans in the Jim Crow south. They’ve not been systematically oppressed,” the district’s lawyers told the lower court. “They’re members of the majority who want to — under the guise of the First Amendment — openly voice their opposition to an historically maligned minority group, transgendered people.”

Olentangy argues that Parents Defending Education has failed to provide evidence of injury — as the lawsuit was filed before disciplinary action had been brought against any student. The district also says that its policies leave open other options for students who don’t wish to use someone’s preferred pronouns. That includes calling the person by their first name, using a gender-neutral pronoun or simply not referring to them at all.

The availability of such options, an argument against the policies unconstitutionally compelling students to say certain things, played a role in the three-judge panel’s 2-1 ruling in favor of the district last summer.

NEW YORK — To billionaire Elon Musk and his cost-cutting team at the Department of Government Efficiency, Karen Ortiz may just be one of many faceless bureaucrats. But to some of her colleagues, she is giving a voice to those who feel they can’t speak out.

Ortiz is an administrative judge at the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission — the federal agency in charge of enforcing U.S. workplace anti-discrimination laws that has undergone tumultuous change since President Donald Trump took office. Like millions of other federal employees, Ortiz opened an ominous email on Jan. 28 titled “Fork in the Road” giving them the option to resign from their positions as part of the government’s cost-cutting measures directed by Trump and carried out by DOGE under Musk, an unelected official.

Her alarm grew when her supervisor directed administrative judges in her New York district office to pause all their current LGBTQ+ cases and send them to Washington for further review in order to comply with Trump’s executive order declaring that the government would recognize only two “immutable” sexes — male and female.

Ortiz decried management’s lack of action in response to the directive, which she said was antithetical to the EEOC’s mission, and called upon some 185 colleagues in an email to “resist” complying with “illegal mandates.” But that email was “mysteriously” deleted, she said.

The next day, after yet another frustrating “Fork in the Road” update, Ortiz decided to go big, emailing the EEOC’s acting chair Andrea Lucas directly and copying more than 1,000 colleagues with the subject line, “A Spoon is Better than a Fork.” In it, Ortiz questioned Lucas’s fitness to serve as acting chair, “much less hold a license to practice law.”

“I know I take a great personal risk in sending out this message. But, at the end of the day, my actions align with what the EEOC was charged with doing under the law,” Ortiz wrote. “I will not compromise my ethics and my duty to uphold the law. I will not cower to bullying and intimidation.”

Ortiz is just one person, but her email represents a larger pushback against the Trump administration’s sweeping changes to federal agencies amid an environment of confusion, anger and chaos. It is also Ortiz’s way of taking a stand against the leadership of a civil rights agency that last month moved to dismiss seven of its own cases representing transgender workers, marking a major departure from its prior interpretation of the law.

Right after sending her mass email, Ortiz said she received a few supportive responses from colleagues — and one calling her unprofessional. Within an hour, though, the message disappeared and she lost her ability to send any further emails.

But it still made it onto the internet. The email was recirculated on Bluesky and it received more than 10,000 “upvotes” on Reddit after someone posted it with the comment, “Wow I wish I had that courage.”

“AN AMERICAN HERO,” one Reddit user deemed Ortiz, a sentiment that was seconded by more than 2,000 upvoters. “Who is this freedom fighter bringing on the fire?” wrote another.

The EEOC did not feel the same way. The agency revoked her email privileges for about a week and issued her a written reprimand for “discourteous conduct.”

Contacted by The AP, a spokesperson for the EEOC said: “We will refrain from commenting on internal communications and personnel matters. However, we would note that the agency has a long-standing policy prohibiting unauthorized all-employee emails, and all employees were reminded of that policy recently.”

A month later, Ortiz has no regrets.

“It was not really planned out, it was just from the heart,” the 53-year-old told The Associated Press in an interview, adding that partisan politics have nothing to do with her objections and that the public deserves the EEOC’s protection, including transgender workers. “This is how I feel and I’m not pulling any punches. And I will stand by what I wrote every day of the week, all day on Sunday.”

Ortiz said she never intended for her email to go beyond the EEOC, describing it as a “love letter” to her colleagues. But, she added, “I hope that it lights a fire under people.”

Ortiz said she has received “a ton” of support privately in the month since sending her email, including a thank-you letter from a California retiree telling her to “keep the faith.” Open support among her EEOC colleagues beyond Reddit and Bluesky, however, has proven more elusive.

“I think people are just really scared,” she said.

William Resh, a University of Southern California Sol Price School of Public Policy professor who studies how administrative structure and political environments affect civil servants, weighed in on why federal workers may choose to say nothing even if they feel their mission is being undermined.

“We can talk pie in the sky, mission orientation and all these other things. But at the end of the day, people have a paycheck to bring home, and food to put on a table and a rent to pay,” Resh said.

The more immediate danger, he said, is the threat to one’s livelihood, or inviting a manager’s ire.

“And so then that’s where you get this kind of muted response on behalf of federal employees, that you don’t see a lot of people speaking out within these positions because they don’t want to lose their job,” Resh said. “Who would?”

Richard LeClear, a U.S. Air Force veteran and EEOC staffer who is retiring early at 64 to avoid serving under the Trump administration, said Ortiz’s email was “spot on,” but added that other colleagues who agreed with her may fear speaking out themselves.

“Retaliation is a very real thing,” LeClear said.

Ortiz, who has been a federal employee for 14 years and at the EEOC for six, said she isn’t naive about the potential fallout. She has hired attorneys, and maintains that her actions are protected whistleblower activity. As of Friday, she still had a job but she is not a lifetime appointee and is aware that her health care, pension and source of income could all be at risk.

Ortiz is nonetheless steadfast: “If they fire me, I’ll find another avenue to do this kind of work, and I’ll be okay. They will have to physically march me out of the office.”

Many of Ortiz’s colleagues have children to support and protect, which puts them in a more difficult position than her to speak out, Ortiz acknowledged. She said her legal education and American citizenship also put her in a position to be able to make change.

Her parents, who came to the United States from Puerto Rico in the 1950s with limited English skills, ingrained in her the value of standing up for others. Their firsthand experience with the Civil Rights Movement, and her own experience growing up in mostly white spaces in Garden City on Long Island, primed Ortiz to defend herself and others.

“It’s in my DNA,” she said. “I will use every shred of privilege that I have to lean into this.”

Ortiz received her undergraduate degree at Columbia University, and her law degree at Fordham University. She knew she wanted to become a judge ever since her high school mock trial as a Supreme Court justice.

Civil rights has been a throughline in her career, and Ortiz said she was “super excited” when she landed her job at the EEOC.

“This is how I wanted to finish up my career,” she said. “We’ll see if that happens.”

________

The Associated Press’ women in the workforce and state government coverage receives financial support from Pivotal Ventures. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images

Eyad Baba/AFP via Getty Images

WASHINGTON — Schools and colleges across the U.S. face a Friday deadline to end diversity programs or risk having their federal money pulled by the Trump administration, yet few are openly rushing to make changes. Many believe they’re on solid legal ground, and they know it would be all but unprecedented — and extremely time-consuming — for the government to cut off funding.

State officials in Washington and California urged schools not to make changes, saying it doesn’t change federal law and doesn’t require any action. New York City schools have taken the same approach and said district policies and curriculum have not changed.

Leaders of some colleges shrugged the memo off entirely. Antioch University ’s chief said “most of higher education” won’t comply with the memo unless federal law is changed. Western Michigan University’s president told his campus to “please proceed as usual.”

A memo issued Feb. 14 by President Donald Trump’s administration, formally known as a Dear Colleague Letter, gave schools two weeks to halt any practice that treats people differently because of their race.

Opponents say it’s an overreach meant to have a chilling effect. The guidance appears to forbid everything from classroom lessons on racism to colleges’ efforts to recruit in diverse areas, and even voluntary student groups like Black student unions.

Education organizations have been urging a measured approach, warning institutions not to make any hasty cuts that would be difficult to undo. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, is telling colleges that if they were in compliance with federal law before the memo, they still are.

“There’s nothing to act on until we see the administration or its agencies try to stop something,” Mitchell said. “And then we’ll have the argument.”

A loss of federal money would be devastating for schools and colleges, but imposing that penalty would not be quick or simple.

The Education Department office that conducts civil rights investigations had fewer than 600 employees last year — before the Trump administration began cutting staff — while the U.S. has more than 18,000 school districts and 6,000 colleges.

Even when a school or state faces an investigation, it can take years to terminate funding. Under former President Joe Biden, the Education Department tried to pull federal money from Michigan’s education agency after finding it violated the rights of students with disabilities. The investigation began in 2022 and is still tied up in federal court.

“I hope very much that schools charged with providing inclusive, equal education to every student in their school community will stand for that principle,” said Catherine Lhamon, who led the department’s Office for Civil Rights under Biden.

Still, some education leaders say resistance is too risky. At the University of Cincinnati, President Neville G. Pinto said officials are evaluating jobs related to diversity, equity and inclusion, and removing DEI references from school websites.

“Given this new landscape, Ohio public and federally supported institutions like ours have little choice but to follow the laws that govern us,” Pinto wrote.

Tony Frank, chancellor of the Colorado State University system, wrote in a campus letter that he weighed taking a stand against the department. But he advised the system’s campuses to comply, saying there’s too much at stake for students and staff. “If we gamble here and are wrong, someone else will pay the price,” he wrote.

In many Republican-led states, education chiefs applauded the memo.

“We never felt it was appropriate to use race in making these types of decisions in the first case, so I do not foresee any interruptions in our day-to-day business,” Alabama’s state superintendent, Eric G. Mackey, said in a statement released by the Trump administration.

The memo said schools have promoted DEI efforts often at the expense of white and Asian American students.

It doesn’t carry the weight of law but explains how the new administration will interpret nondiscrimination laws. It dramatically expands a 2023 Supreme Court decision barring the use of race in college admissions to all aspects of education — including, hiring, promotion, scholarships, housing, graduation ceremonies and campus life.

The guidance is being challenged in court by the American Federation of Teachers, which said the memo violates free speech laws.

While some schools are keeping quiet out of fear of being targeted, many leaders also are still struggling to grasp the implications.

“We are looking to our attorney general for guidance because it’s very confusing,” said Christine Tucci Osorio, superintendent of the North St. Paul School District in Minnesota. When a teacher asked if their school could still mark African American History Month, she assured them they could.

Despite concerns that schools would rush to comply, it appears “cooler heads are largely prevailing,” said Liz King, senior director for the education equity program at the Leadership Conference on Civil and Human Rights.

“Once a school sends the message that they are not going to stand up for a member, a community within their school, that is broken trust, that is a lost relationship,” King said.

Trump has vowed to use education funding as political leverage on several fronts, threatening cuts for schools that do not get in line with his agenda on topics including transgender girls’ participation in girls’ sports and instruction related to race.

Usually, civil rights investigations by the Education Department take at least six months and often much longer. If a school is found in violation of federal law, department policy offers a chance to come into compliance and sign a resolution — typically a 90-day process.

Only if a school refuses to comply can the department move to revoke federal money. That can be done in the Education Department through a court-like process decided by an administrative law judge. If the judge decides the penalty is justified, the school can appeal it to the education secretary and, after that, challenge it in court.

Instead of handling it internally, the department can also refer cases to the Justice Department for prosecution. That route is no faster.

The last time the Education Department was granted approval to cut federal funding was in 1992, against the Capistrano Unified School District in California, which was found to have retaliated against a teacher for filing sex discrimination complaints.

Before the penalty was carried out, the district reinstated the teacher and effectively ended the case. It never lost any money.

___

Gecker reported from San Francisco, and Mumphrey from Phoenix.

___

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

LOS ANGELES — Former Vice President Kamala Harris stepped on the NAACP Image Awards stage Saturday night with a sobering message, calling the civil rights organization a pillar of the Black community and urging people to stay resilient and hold onto their faith during the tenure of President Donald Trump.

“While we have no illusions about what we are up against in this chapter in our American story, this chapter will be written not simply by whoever occupies the oval office nor by the wealthiest among us,” Harris said after receiving the NAACP’s Chairman’s Award. “The American story will be written by you. Written by us. By we the people.”

The 56th annual Image Awards was held at the Pasadena Civic Auditorium in the Los Angeles area.

Harris, defeated by Trump in last year’s presidential election, was the first woman and the first person of color to serve as vice president. She had previously been a U.S. senator from California and the state’s attorney general.

In her first major public appearance since leaving office, Harris did not reference her election loss or Trump’s actions since entering the Oval Office, although Trump mocked her earlier in the day at the Conservative Political Action Conference.

Harris spoke about eternal vigilance, the price of liberty, staying alert, seeking the truth and America’s future.

“Some see the flames on our horizons, the rising waters in our cities, the shadows gathering over our democracy and ask ‘What do we do now?’” Harris said. “But we know exactly what to do, because we have done it before. And we will do it again. We use our power. We organize, mobilize. We educate. We advocate. Our power has never come from having an easy path.”

Other winners of the Chairman’s prize have included former President Barack Obama, the late Rep. John Lewis and the late actor Ruby Dee.

Harris was honored during the ceremony along with the Wayans family. The family was inducted into the NAACP Image Awards Hall of Fame in recognition of pioneering contributions to film, TV, sketch and stand-up comedy that have shaped Hollywood for decades.

Keenen Ivory Wayans, Damon Wayans Sr., Marlon Wayans, Shawn Wayans, Kim Wayans and Damon Wayans Jr. each were recognized.

Marlon Wayans, whose guest appearance on Peacock’s “Bel-Air” was up for an NAACP award, shared how Keenen Ivory Wayans sparked the family’s rise.

“He raised us all like Jedis,” he said. “We wouldn’t be here if it wasn’t for our big brother.”

Marlon Wayans joked that when his brother told their mom he was leaving college for comedy, she said, ”Boy, I’ve known you your whole life, and you ain’t never said nothing funny. That’s the funniest thing you’ve said.”

The crowd erupted in laughter, a fitting tribute to a family that has kept audiences laughing for more than three decades.

The family has a long list of credits. Keenen Ivory Wayans created the sketch comedy series “In Living Color” in 1990 and directed the 2000 slasher spoof “Scary Movie,” which was written by Marlon Wayans and Shawn Wayans, who also wrote and starred in “White Chicks” in 2004. Damon Wayan’s had a starring role in the 1995 comedy “Major Payne,” and currently co-stars with son Damon Wayans Jr. in the CBS sitcom “Poppa’s House,” which was nominated for an NAACP Award. The pair also were nominated for their acting on the show.

Damon Wayans Jr. has acted in two of the most critically acclaimed comedies in recent years: “Happy Endings” and “New Girl.” Kim Wayans, a comedian, actor and director, also received praise for her work in the 2011 drama “Pariah.”

Keke Palmer expressed her surprise after her name was called as winner of the coveted entertainment of the year.

“Oh my gosh. Guys, I didn’t think I was going to win,” said Palmer, who paid homage to fellow nominee Cynthia Erivo’s Oscar-nominated performance in “Wicked.”

Palmer starred in the buddy comedy “One of Them Days,” which debuted No. 1 at the box office last month. She also won an Emmy for her hosting efforts on NBC’s “Password.”

“It’s such an amazing category to be in with all these people,” Palmer said. “It’s a beautiful night. It’s Black History Month, y’all. It’s so important we all come here together and celebrate one another with one another.”

Other nominees included Kendrick Lamar, Kevin Hart and Shannon Sharpe.

Image Awards host Deon Cole honored residents of the nearby Altadena neighborhood who were affected by January’s devastating Los Angeles-area wildfires.

A video of the fire devastation played before actor Morris Chestnut took the stage.

“Homes were lost, stores destroyed, countless lives shattered and over two dozens souls gone forever,” said Chestnut, a Los Angeles native who referenced impacted areas such as Altadena, the Pacific Palisades and Malibu.

“But what was not lost is the spirit of our community,” said Chestnut, who noted 22 Altadena residents attended the show on Saturday. Many in the audience stood and applauded.

Cole shifted tone and brightened the mood with a comedic prayer for Kanye West’s wife to find more clothes after her barely-there Grammys look and for Shannon Sharpe to finally size up his T-shirts.

The opening act was a lead-up to the evening’s first award: Queen Latifah as best actress in a drama series for her role in “The Equalizer.”

Dave Chappelle was honored with the President’s Award for his “thought-provoking humor.”

Accepting the award, Chappelle talked about the NAACP’s push against negative portrayals of Black people in media and the importance of representation.

“Every opportunity we get, we just keep chipping away at this monster of a machine,” he said.

Past recipients of the President’s Award include Jay-Z, Lauryn Hill, Usher, Rihanna and John Legend.