What’s behind her startling decision to back Trump’s education tax credit — and what might it mean for Democrats across the U.S.?
Speaking recently at an event hosted by Agudath Israel, an Orthodox Jewish organization, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul announced that she intended to opt into the Education Freedom Tax Credit (EFTC) program, which was fiercely opposed by Congressional Democrats. Enacted as part of the president’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” EFTC authorizes a dollar-for-dollar tax credit to anyone who donates up to $1,700 towards the largest federal school choice program in history. The funds collected will be administered through private scholarship-granting organizations and made available to parents whose family income does not exceed 300% of their area median income. The money can be used for tuition at private and religious schools and a host of other education-related services.
Hochul’s surprising decision is not only politically important for Democrats; it could shape policy in profound ways in New York City and State for generations to come.
As a concession to Democrats who caucused against the bill, the EFTC program grants state leaders discretion to opt into the program or refuse to do so. At the time of Hochul’s announcement, only one of the 27 states that opted in had a Democratic governor: Colorado, led by Jared Polis. When Democratic Govs. Andy Beshear of Kentucky and Laura Kelly of Kansas refused to participate, their decisions were overturned by Republican-controlled state legislatures.
It’s little wonder why most Democratic governors have turned a cold shoulder to the program.The program has been vehemently opposed by national teachers union president Randi Weingarten, a longtime opponent of private school choice and a prominent voice in the Democratic Party. She claims that the EFTC will drain resources and students from public schools like those in New York City, where enrollment has declined by 160,000 since 2020.
Sympathetic labor leaders have lined up behind Weingarten. Democratic State Sen. John Liu, who chairs his chamber’s education committee, has threatened to challenge the governor’s decision in the state legislature.
Why isn’t Hochul toeing the line? Since launching her reelection campaign, the governor has brandished an uncharacteristic independent streak. Last year, she broke with U.S. Sens. Chuck Schumer and Kirsten Gillibrand, as well as the state party chair Jay Jacobs, to endorse the left-leaning mayoral campaign of Zohran Mamdani against party stalwart Andrew Cuomo. While the two still bicker over heavier taxes on the rich, the governor and the mayor overall seem to have a productive relationship. After endorsing her reelection campaign, Mamdani was able to secure state funding to support his childcare program and other campaign promises.
But this feels like a bigger break. Why would a centrist politician like Hochul defy the powerful teachers union president and other labor leaders who have routinely aligned with her?Perhaps it was a purely political calculation. Where else do the EFTC’s opponents have to go if they have problems with her position? Her Republican challenger in this year’s gubernatorial race, Bruce Blakeman, declared support for the federal funding long before the governor did. While Hochul is polling favorably, it is still early in the election season. Blakeman’s campaign recently got a boost when a state judge ruled that he qualifies for $3.5 million in public funding after a state board denied it. Hochul may be thinking that the issue could neuter a perceived Blakeman advantage.
It wasn’t just a coincidence that Hochul made her provocative announcement to a powerful conservative Jewish organization. Their members, many of whom could well be swing voters in the gubernatorial election, have a lot to gain from a federal program, which will provide tuition relief to parents whose children attend yeshivas. Then there is the larger Catholic school lobby with its own financially strapped school system. It has been a reliable supporter of school choice in the past, not to mention Republican officeholders.
But the support for school choice does not end there. It is also popular within Black and Latino communities because children from those communities are more likely to get trapped in chronically failing public schools with no reasonable options. Generations of Black and Brown parents have come up with their own tuition payments to find better opportunities in Catholic schools; but not all can afford it, so they remain consigned to underperforming institutions. Democrats generally have ignored their pleas for alternatives. It is not a winning election strategy at a time when their party has been hemorrhaging support in Black and Latino voting districts.
The dynamic is fascinating and worth following: Notwithstanding the thumbs-down from municipal labor leaders in sympathy with the teachers, many parents who stand to benefit from the federal aid are members of these very unions.
It remains to be seen whether Hochul’s decision will encourage other Democratic governors to welcome the infusion of federal funding. Private school choice has been the third rail of Democratic politics ever since the first voucher program appeared in Milwaukee back in 1990.
Since then, the idea has gained enormous momentum across the country. It is likely to grow in popularity with national test scores sliding to record low levels and more parents questioning the quality of public schools.
Today, some 75 school choice programs are active in 35 mostly red states, and they differ in purpose and scope from the earlier ones.
The original programs that came about in Milwaukee and Cleveland were the result of odd coalitions between Black activists and moderate Republicans. They targeted children from low-income families who sought alternatives to failing public schools. A progressive model of school choice evolved, setting standards for participating schools and protecting the rights of students and teachers. Despite their orientation, mainstream Democrats continued to oppose these programs. Even charter schools, public schools of choice with clear standards that tend to have positive records of academic performance serving underprivileged children, have been a point of contention for Democrats.
The more recent state programs differ in purpose and scope. They include vouchers, tax credits and education savings accounts. More expansive than the early school choice programs, they fund private and religious school tuition, attendance at micro-schools, homeschooling, and a wide range of education- related expenses. Many are universal in scope, making them available to all students. Many lack accountability provisions to ensure sound education standards.
It was in the spirit of these state laws that the federal tax credit program was enacted.
Until very recently, it was widely assumed that the regulations eventually produced by the Trump Treasury Department would mimic the more recent brand of choice programs — sweeping programs available to all with fewer government regulations. Then, on May 14, appearing before the House Education and Workforce Committee, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon stated that states would be authorized to set their own conditions for administering the program. If true,
this could be a game-changer that brings still more Democrats into the fold, assuming they can finally come to terms with the choice issue. Was this the thinking behind the Secretary of Education’s turnaround on the regulations? Did the surprise announcement by the governor from the deep blue state of New York alert Republicans to a fresh opportunity to expand the choice regime? Or was MacMahon’s statement merely a ploy to isolate Democrats from some of their own constituents?
Hochul was wise enough to give herself some wiggle room when, after making her original surprise announcement, she said that she would look out for “poison pills” within the regulations before signing on.
To make her case among fellow Democrats, she will need to ask more pointed questions about the scope of the regulations. She has argued that no funding would be taken from public schools and that money appropriated to the state could be used by public school students for items like tutoring, transportation and after-school activities. If permitted, might it also possibly be used to underwrite Mayor Mamdani’s plans to offer universal childcare?
Under existing federal laws, the city Department of Education spends $1.5 billion annually in tuition payments to send students with disabilities to private institutions that public schools do not have the capacity to serve. Might there be some mechanism to apply EFTC funding toward these costs as well? Such opportunities could bring savings to overburdened state and city budgets and make funds available for other favored programs of the governor and mayor.
There will be other, more difficult questions that Democrats, including the governor, will need to wrestle with as the federal program proceeds. Assuming limited funds are available, would it be possible to prioritize federal vouchers for low-income families whose children attend low-performing schools? Will states be able to hold participating private schools to existing educational standards? Will these standards be sufficient to hold newly opened institutions to acceptable levels of performance?
And what would happen if a private or religious school participating in the program refused to hire a teacher who is gay or admit a student who identifies as transgender? Assuming that the U.S. Supreme Court is no longer so reliable a protector of individual rights, will plaintiffs in such cases have adequate safeguards through state laws and regulations?
The school choice train left the station decades ago. It has barreled across the country and is gaining increasing momentum. Rather than jump on board and steer it in a safe direction, Democrats have generally chosen to lie in its path, and it has passed over them. Gov. Hochul may have a chance to change its course by asking the right questions and marshaling its resources to address the learning gap defined by race and class that has been a national disgrace for generations. It is a bold wager in an election year.
