Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Trump’s Executive Order Targets Civil Rights and Academic Freedom in Higher Education

Trump’s Executive Order Targets Civil Rights and Academic Freedom in Higher Education
people standing and taking photo during daytime
Photo by Colin Lloyd on Unsplash

This essay is part of a series by Lawyers Defending American Democracy where we demonstrate the link between the administration’s sweeping executive actions and their roots in the authoritarian blueprint, Project 2025, and show how these actions harm individuals and families throughout the country.

Trump’s Attack on Civil Rights and Academic Freedom in Higher Education


From the very start of his second term, President Trump has been on the attack against colleges and universities over two of the most precious cornerstones of our democracy: civil rights and academic freedom.

On January 21, Trump issued Executive Order 14173, entitled Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity. The executive order targets but does not define the phrase “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI).

Instead, the executive order uses highly charged and subjective language to demean DEI programs and policies throughout the economy including in higher education, calling them “dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences” and claiming that they can violate federal civil rights laws. The executive order requires any federal aid recipient including colleges and universities and state and local education agencies to certify in any federal contract or grant that it “does not operate any programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal anti-discrimination laws.”

Trump Turns DEI and Civil Rights Laws Upside Down

DEI policies and programs are not quotas or “preferences.” They are strategies to equalize opportunities for groups of people who are unfairly disadvantaged. An example includes conducting broader outreach and recruitment to expand a college applicant pool.

The goal of DEI policies and programs is to ensure fair treatment, not to give one group an unfair advantage over another. DEI enriches colleges and universities by attracting students of different experiences, backgrounds, and perspectives.

The U.S. Constitution and civil rights laws establish equal opportunity and antidiscrimination obligations. Colleges and universities that roll back DEI policies and programs risk violating anti-discrimination laws if unfair barriers persist. The executive order inhibits and even precludes lawful efforts to address discrimination and advance equal opportunity.

The executive order also undermines academic freedom and free speech by discouraging colleges and universities from teaching subjects such as the evils of slavery and the history of racism in America that illustrate the need for DEI policies and programs.

Trump’s Executive Order Stems from Project 2025

The president's executive order on DEI is tied directly to Project 2025,

whose Foreword states: “Bureaucrats at the Department of Education inject racist, anti-American, ahistorical propaganda into America’s classrooms.”

“The next conservative President must make the institutions of American civil society hard targets for woke culture warriors,” the Foreword adds, calling for the deletion of the term DEI from "every federal rule, agency regulation, contract, grant, regulation, and piece of legislation that exists.”

Chapter 11 of Project 2025, which addresses higher education in detail, calls on the next President to issue executive orders requiring an accounting of how federal programs and grants “spread DEI” and a report on “the negative influence of action civics” on students’ understanding of history and civics and their views of the United States.

Project 2025 Undermines Civil Rights Enforcement

Chapter 11 also states that enforcement of civil rights “should be based on a proper understanding of those laws.” Instead, current enforcement is based on what the Trump administration thinks a civil rights violation is, rather than on what the law says it is. The core purpose is no longer equalizing access for those historically subject to discrimination.

How the Executive Order Discriminates Against People of Color

The underlying rationale of the executive order is that racial disparities are due to innate differences in abilities, not discrimination. This long discredited and discriminatory theory is based on the contention that some races have greater abilities than others.

Some Colleges Are Caving, While Others Are Fighting Back

Shortly after Trump’s executive order was issued, Columbia University capitulated by removing DEI language from several of its websites. Then, On July 23, in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal funds the Trump administration had cut from the university after accusing it of not addressing antisemitism on campus, Columbia agreed to take steps that, in effect, significantly impaired its academic freedom. The university will pay $220 million to the federal government, place an academic department under receivership, and accept oversight by an independent monitor.

Harvard University fought back by refusing to comply with the executive order. The Trump administration retaliated by freezing about $2.3 billion in federal funding for Harvard research on such deadly and debilitating illnesses as pediatric cancer, Alzheimer's, and Parkinson's disease. Studies on health issues impacting diverse communities, such as cancer risks in underserved areas, were also affected.

Harvard sued to stop the funding freeze. Arguing that the Trump administration’s actions violated the university’s constitutional right to free speech, the university also asserted that the government cannot dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study they can pursue.

The University of Virginia is facing similar pressures. On June 27, Jim Ryan, its highly respected president, responded to criticism from the Trump administration over the school’s DEI practices by announcing his resignation, rather than “fight[ing] the federal government.”

Why This Matters

Academic freedom is a key pillar of democracy for all schools, not just Columbia, Harvard, and the University of Virginia. The Trump administration’s attack on a school’s right to determine what it teaches, the students it admits, and the professors it hires not only narrows the richness of the educational experience, it threatens the dissemination of knowledge. If America’s schools cannot properly provide for intellectual engagement, they will decline, and America’s students will be unable to compete and unable to think critically.

If Trump can tell schools what to teach, he can tell us what we can think. Without the freedom to think and to learn, we will no longer have a free country.

Ellen R. Hornstein is an attorney who recently retired after 35 years of service from the United States Department of Agriculture, Office of the General Counsel. For most of her career she represented the United States Forest Service. Ellen Hornstein is also a volunteer with Lawyers Defending American Democracy.

Read More

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals
Photo illustration by Lisa Larson-Walker/ProPublica

Veterans’ Care at Risk Under Trump As Hundreds of Doctors and Nurses Reject Working at VA Hospitals

Veterans hospitals are struggling to replace hundreds of doctors and nurses who have left the health care system this year as the Trump administration pursues its pledge to simultaneously slash Department of Veterans Affairs staff and improve care.

Many job applicants are turning down offers, worried that the positions are not stable and uneasy with the overall direction of the agency, according to internal documents examined by ProPublica. The records show nearly 4 in 10 of the roughly 2,000 doctors offered jobs from January through March of this year turned them down. That is quadruple the rate of doctors rejecting offers during the same time period last year.

Keep ReadingShow less
Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The Protect Reporters from Excessive State Suppression (PRESS) Act aims to fill the national shield law gap by providing two protections for journalists.

Getty Images, Manu Vega

Protecting the U.S. Press: The PRESS Act and What It Could Mean for Journalists

The First Amendment protects journalists during the news-gathering and publication processes. For example, under the First Amendment, reporters cannot be forced to report on an issue. However, the press is not entitled to different legal protections compared to a general member of the public under the First Amendment.

In the United States, there are protections for journalists beyond the First Amendment, including shield laws that protect journalists from pressure to reveal sources or information during news-gathering. 48 states and the District of Columbia have shield laws, but protections vary widely. There is currently no federal shield law. As of 2019, at least 22 journalists have been jailed in the U.S. for refusing to comply with requests to reveal sources of information. Seven other journalists have been jailed and fined for the same reason.

Keep ReadingShow less
Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrat Donkey is winning arm wrestling match against Republican elephant

AI generated image

Democrats Score Strategic Wins Amid Redistricting Battles

Democrats are quietly building momentum in the 2025 election cycle, notching two key legislative flips in special elections and gaining ground in early polling ahead of the 2026 midterms. While the victories are modest in number, they signal a potential shift in voter sentiment — and a brewing backlash against Republican-led redistricting efforts.

Out of 40 special elections held across the United States so far in 2025, only two seats have changed party control — both flipping from Republican to Democrat.

Keep ReadingShow less
Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

A DC Metropolitan Police Department car is parked near a rally against the Trump Administration's federal takeover of the District of Columbia, outside of the AFL-CIO on August 11, 2025 in Washington, DC.

(Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

Policing or Occupation? Trump’s Militarizing America’s Cities Sets a Dangerous Precedent

President Trump announced the activation of hundreds of National Guard troops in Washington, D.C., along with the deployment of federal agents—including more than 100 from the FBI. This comes despite Justice Department data showing that violent crime in D.C. fell 35% from 2023 to 2024, reaching its lowest point in over three decades. These aren’t abstract numbers—they paint a picture of a city safer than it has been in a generation, with fewer homicides, assaults, and robberies than at any point since the early 1990s.

The contradiction could not be more glaring: the same president who, on January 6, 2021, stalled for hours as a violent uprising engulfed the Capitol is now rushing to “liberate” a city that—based on federal data—hasn’t been this safe in more than thirty years. Then, when democracy itself was under siege, urgency gave way to dithering; today, with no comparable emergency—only vague claims of lawlessness—he mobilizes troops for a mission that looks less like public safety and more like political theater. The disparity between those two moments is more than irony; it is a blueprint for how power can be selectively applied, depending on whose power is threatened.

Keep ReadingShow less