Key Takeaways

• Diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs serve diverse student populations at colleges and universities across the nation. DEI programs in higher education have traditionally supported first-generation college students, students with disabilities, veterans, low-income students, and racial and ethnic minorities through offices, scholarships, cultural centers, and accessibility services.
• Federal initiatives, such as TRIO or the Full-Service Community Schools program, are facing cuts to funding due to DEI-related federal policy, affecting students across the nation.

Defining DEI

From debates surrounding race-conscious admission policies to questions about the role and funding of identity-based student centers, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) has become a widely debated topic in higher education policy. DEI refers to institutional policies and programs–such as mentorship opportunities, cultural centers, and support programs–which improve campus climate and student access for underrepresented groups. Though many colleges and universities across the United States have developed DEI initiatives aimed at shaping student access and institutional priorities, recent legal and policy developments have raised questions about how these efforts align with federal law.

Federal DEI Initiatives in Education

Understanding DEI in higher education requires examining its connection to longstanding civil rights laws defining nondiscrimination requirements and the federal government’s role in oversight and enforcement. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin in programs receiving federal funding. Similarly, Title IX prohibits discrimination based on sex and the Americans with Disabilities Act requires institutions to provide accommodations and ensure access for individuals with disabilities. These laws form the foundation of federal nondiscrimination policy in education, shaping how institutions design policies and programs related to access and participation and the expansion of DEI initiatives across higher education.

As federal civil rights laws were implemented, they set nondiscrimination requirements and shaped how colleges and universities created accessible, supportive campuses. Federal agencies like the U.S. Department of Education interpreted these laws, issued guidance, and responded to complaints of unequal treatment while institutions developed programs and policies that supported student participation and improved campus experiences. These efforts gradually became more formalized and grouped under the broader umbrella of DEI initiatives.

The role of these initiatives has recently come under increased legal and political scrutiny focused in part on programs considering race as a factor in decision-making. This debate intensified following Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (2023), in which the Supreme Court decided that race-conscious admissions policies are not permissible under the current interpretations of federal law.

How Are Cuts to DEI Programs Impacting Universities?

President Trump’s executive order characterizing DEI programs as “illegal and immoral discrimination” has led to over 400 colleges and universities eliminating or rebranding their DEI programs. MOST Policy Initiative finds that this change affects dedicated offices, chief diversity officer positions, diversity training, cultural centers, accessibility services for students with disabilities, support for first-generation students and faculty members’ perceived academic freedom. PBS News reports that universities face billions in cuts and freezes, with Columbia University losing $400 million and Johns Hopkins cutting 2,000 jobs after losing over $800 million in federal grants. Higher Ed Dive and Campus Reform have also reported large scale cuts such as the University of Florida’s closing its Office of the Chief Diversity Officer and laying off all DEI-related employees; the University of North Carolina system’s suspension of all general education and major-specific requirements tied to DEI; and the closure of cultural centers, living-learning communities for certain demographic groups, and other student support spaces.

How Are Cuts to DEI Programs Enforced?

Enforcement mechanisms for DEI cuts are based on a February 14, 2025 “Dear Colleague” letter issued by Acting Assistant for Civil Rights Craig Trainor. The letter warned that federal law “prohibits covered entities from using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” promising to cut federal funding from any institution found in violation and giving schools until the end of February to end all practices related to DEI. Its stated purpose was to “provide clarity to the public regarding existing legal requirements” under the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admission v. Harvard (2023) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act,which prohibits racial discrimination in federally financed programs..

Beyond program eliminations, the Trump administration has pursued enforcement by investigating universities and threatening to remove their funding. In 2025, Inside Higher Ed reported that the State Department proposed suspending 38 universities–including Harvard, Yale, and Duke–from its Diplomacy Lab program over alleged “clear DEI hiring policies,” though it remains unclear how the department determined which institutions met this criteria or what specific practices constitute violations. In March of this year, CNN reported that the Justice Department opened investigations into the medical schools at Stanford University, Ohio State, and UC San Diego for possible race discrimination in admissions, requesting seven years of detailed admissions data on admitted students’ race, MCAT scores, and information on diversity policies.

The threat of investigations leads some universities to pay costly settlements. US News reports that Columbia University agreed to pay $200 million over three years and commit to not promoting “unlawful DEI goals” to restore access to billions in frozen federal grants. Harvard University rejected similar demands after facing a $2.2 billion grant freeze, refusing to reform hiring practices, restructure governance, or end DEI programs. These contrasting approaches demonstrate the difficulties universities face when choosing between accepting costly settlements with program restrictions or forfeiting billions in federal research funding.

How are Program Cuts Changing Cross-Sectoral DEI Policy?

Several DEI programs run by non-profits have ended their collaboration with universities and other partners as an indirect result of the Trump administration’s policies. The PhD Project, a non-profit that aids students of color in obtaining doctoral degrees, saw its collaborations with 31 universities end after the Trump administration classified their work as racially discriminatory. Following investigations by the Office of Civil Rights, those same universities agreed to review their collaborations with all external organizations to ensure that none violated the Trump Administration’s classification of discrimination.The State Department’s Diplomacy Lab, a program that allows students and educators to research foreign policy crises, faced similar scrutiny. The lab was forced to rework their university collaborations after a number of projects were classified as DEI initiatives by the federal government. These actions show that DEI programs are least supported in educational environments that receive direct federal funding.

Cuts to programs like the above have made programs run outside of the federal umbrella all the more impactful. While nonprofits, public universities and K-12 schools that receive federal funding have guidelines for abiding by federal regulations, private sector programs are largely able to set their own agendas. For example, Ben and Jerry’s commits to DEI programs that dismantle systems of inequality while the W.K. Kellogg Foundation provides private sector stakeholders with DEI training and programming.

As programs intended to combat inequality and prejudice are forced out of publicly funded spaces, the demand for them is greater within the private sector, where the Trump administration’s pursuits against DEI are cultural, not legal. While these programs have always existed in the private sphere, the scaling back of public sector DEI programs makes those run by private organizations even more significant.

How are DEI Cuts Impacting Federally Funded Programs?

The TRIO Program is a federal grant program that identifies and provides services for individuals from disadvantaged backgrounds, named for its original three initiatives: Upward Bound, Talent Search, and Student Support Services. Recipients of these grants include higher education institutions, public and private agencies, and community-based organizations predominantly serving disadvantaged youth. In the fall of 2025, the Trump administration delayed funding for thousands of TRIO programs and canceled nearly 100 grants, affecting over 43,000 students. This resulted in the cancellation of several educational resources and services as well as staff layoffs at colleges that administered TRIO programs. While the administration reinstated funds earlier this year following a federal court order and increasing political pressure, it reaffirmed its stance that TRIO programs are no longer a priority of the federal government.

The Full Service Community Schools Program provides educational institutions with grants to improve the facilities, accessibility, and effectiveness of school services, particularly in high-poverty areas. In December of 2025, EducationWeek reported that 19 grantees received non-continuation letters, losing funding for their programs because they had included DEI initiatives. These cancellations totaled a $168 million cut affecting schools across the country.

DEI cuts have also impacted governmental branches themselves. The Department of Education underwent internal changes related to DEI councils and programs, dissolving its Diversity & Inclusion and Employee Engagement Diversity Equity Inclusion Accessibility Councils, removed over 200 web pages that had DEI content, and discontinued the Department’s Equity Action Plan. President Trump has also signed an executive order asking federal contractors and their subcontractors to terminate DEI inclusion initiatives. If contractors fail to comply, agencies have been granted the authority to cancel or suspend contracts.

Limitations to Program Cuts

Though the Trump administration’s efforts have significantly changed the way that organizations and schools can sponsor DEI initiatives, its cutbacks have not proceeded without limits. ChalkBeat reports that the “Dear Colleague” letter’s ambiguous language created confusion on campuses about schools’ compliance responsibilities, resulting in legal challenges alleging that the letter infringed on free speech and free association rights, violated existing civil rights law, and failed to follow required administrative procedures for changing federal policy. Federal judges blocked the Department from enforcing the Dear Colleague letter on three separate cases and entirely invalidated the guidance almost a year later. However, institutions should not interpret this as a full retreat from federal DEI scrutiny. The DOJ’s July 2025 guidance memo covering the same substantive ground under Titles VI, VII, and IX continue to inform federal enforcement priorities, meaning the practical compliance pressure on institutions largely remains intact.

Overview of Popular Arguments and Future Outlook

As reported by The Heritage Foundation and The American Mind, opponents of DEI deem it a waste of taxpayer money which fails to promote racial tolerance and an end to racial tension while spreading misinformation about racial discrimination’s function in America. Therefore, they claim it is not worth investing federal dollars in. On the other hand, advocates argue that DEI initiatives are extremely important to prevent prejudice on an individual level and keep people informed about America’s legacy of systemic discrimination. They believe it fosters inclusion and empowers people from underrepresented or marginalized groups.

The future outlook surrounding DEI cuts at universities is uncertain as universities have responded inconsistently. Some have eliminated offices entirely, while others have rebranded them as “inclusive excellence” or “belonging” offices. These measures ensure that diversity work can continue under different terminology and that students in need of assistance can still access those resources.

-

The Future of DEI in Higher Education: Unpacking Recent Federal Restrictions was first published by ACE and was republished with permission.