New "Defend the Spend" Requirements Could Create Delays and Administrative Burden for Districts

The U.S. Department of Education has released new guidance implementing the federal grant payment requirements established under Executive Order 14222, commonly referred to as "Defend the Spend." The initiative requires all agencies to provide additional justification and review before federal grant funds can be drawn down by grantees, with the stated goal of increasing transparency and accountability in federal spending.

According to the Department's guidance, all education grant recipients will be subject to a new layer of review in the funding process. Similar requirements implemented by the Department of Labor for career and technical education funding have reportedly resulted in payment delays for some states. Expanding this approach to major formula programs such as Title I, IDEA, and other ESEA funds raises concerns about the timely delivery of federal resources to schools, given the significantly larger volume of funding and the thousands of districts that depend on these funds to support students, staff, and core educational services.

Because federal education funds are drawn down through state agencies, the new justification requirements would create additional administrative work for both states and school districts. States would need to develop guidance, provide technical assistance, and review submissions, while district teams could be required to generate detailed explanations for routine expenditures that have already been approved through existing federal budgeting processes. Depending on how the requirements are implemented, states may need to prepare separate justifications for individual districts and programs, creating substantial delays in accessing funds that Congress has already appropriated and allocated by formula.

At the same time, the U.S. Department of Education would face a dramatically larger workload reviewing and approving drawdown requests with very limited staff to review and process these new funds. As approval timelines lengthen, districts could experience cash-flow challenges and may be forced to rely on state or local funds to cover essential expenses, including payroll, transportation, and student services, while awaiting reimbursement from the federal level. Any requests from the Department for additional information or clarification could extend review timelines and further delay districts' access to federal funds.

Perhaps most concerning, these new requirements appear largely duplicative of accountability measures that already exist. Federal formula funds like Title I are subject to extensive oversight, including detailed application and budget approvals, monitoring requirements, audits, and fiscal reviews. Adding another layer of pre-approval paperwork increases administrative burden without meaningfully improving accountability, redirecting limited administrative capacity away from teaching, learning, and student services. 

AASA will continue to raise concerns with the Department about the practical impact of these requirements and advocate for a more balanced approach that maintains accountability while minimizing administrative burden and ensuring districts can access federal funds in a timely manner.