The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.
On Sept. 15, President Trump’s administration announced a major shift in federal education funding by redirecting nearly $500 million toward Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and tribal colleges. However, this move came alongside deep cuts to other minority-serving institutions, especially those serving large Hispanic student populations.
What are the facts related to these two seemingly diametrically opposed policies of the Trump administration?
Q: Is this a one-time increase to HBCUs or a long-term increase, and how much is the increase?
The Trump administration’s $500 million boost to HBCUs and tribal colleges is a one-time discretionary investment, not a permanent increase. It represents a 48% funding increase for HBCUs and more than double the funding for tribal colleges. The total 2025 investment now exceeds $1.34 billion for HBCUs and $108 million for tribal colleges.
Q: What will the process be for determining which HBCUs get the funding and how much each will receive?
Specific allocation details have not been publicly released. However, the Education Department stated that funds will support infrastructure, lab equipment, student services, and faculty development. UNCF noted that the funding would help HBCUs acquire property, maintain facilities, and support academic programs.
Q: How and when were cuts made to minority-serving institutions, especially those serving large Hispanic student populations?
On Sept. 11, 2025, the Department of Education announced it would withhold $350 million in grants earmarked for Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) and other minority-serving colleges. These cuts reversed decades of precedent and affected programs created to address disparities in college access and graduation rates for Latino students.
Q: How did the Education Department justify these cuts?
The department argued that grants based on racial or ethnic enrollment thresholds were unconstitutional and amounted to racially discriminatory programs. It stated that federal funds should support student success without relying on race-based eligibility criteria.
Q: How did members of the Trump administration, particularly Education Secretary Linda McMahon, justify these cuts?
Secretary McMahon said the department was redirecting funds away from “ineffective and discriminatory programs” toward those that “promote merit and excellence.” She emphasized that students should be “judged as individuals, not prejudged by their membership of a racial group,” and she pledged to work with Congress to “reenvision” support for under-resourced students without race quotas.
Q: Are there any legal questions related to the cuts, and are there any pending legal actions?
A July 2025 memo from the Justice Department argued that HSI grants were unconstitutional because they were only open to colleges with at least 25% Hispanic enrollment. The department declined to defend the program in a lawsuit filed by Tennessee and Students for Fair Admissions, an anti-affirmative action group.
Q: What other education programs were affected by this reallocation?
In addition to MSI cuts, the administration redirected $500 million to charter schools and $137 million to American history and civics education. Programs supporting gifted students, magnet schools, international education, and teacher training were also targeted for elimination in the 2026 budget proposal.
Q: How have education leaders and stakeholders responded?
Reactions are mixed. UNCF praised the HBCU funding as “a godsend,” while critics—including former Biden officials—argued that the reallocation exceeded executive authority and undermined congressional intent. California State University leaders warned of “irreparable harm” to campuses serving Latino students.
Q: Have any Democrats commented on the funding for HBCU Colleges?
While some Democrats acknowledged the importance of increased funding for HBCUs, they criticized the administration’s decision to offset that investment by cutting grants to Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), and other minority-serving colleges, given that these programs have long enjoyed bipartisan support and are seen as critical to educational equity.
Amanda Fuchs Miller, former deputy assistant secretary for Higher Education Programs under President Biden, said the reallocation exceeded the Education Department’s authority, arguing that:
Ameshia Cross, a Democratic strategist, emphasized that while HBCUs are vital, Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), which often serve students in northern states without HBCUs, are now at risk. She warned that students who rely on affordable, local education options may lose access to tutoring, infrastructure, and student services due to the cuts.
Q: How have Republicans positioned themselves on the two issues?
Support for HBCUs: Many Republicans, including President Trump and Education Secretary Linda McMahon, have framed the $500 million boost to HBCUs and tribal colleges as part of a broader commitment to educational equity without race-based eligibility.
However, there has generally been silence on HSI Cuts: Despite the scale of the $350 million cuts to HSIs, no Republican senators or House members have issued statements opposing them. The Education Department’s justification that race-based eligibility violates constitutional principles has been echoed by Republican-aligned legal groups and state attorneys general, such as Tennessee’s involvement in a lawsuit challenging the HSI program. The administration and its allies have emphasized a shift toward “merit and excellence” and away from “racial quotas,” suggesting that support for HBCUs is consistent with this framework because HBCUs are open to all races and serve under-resourced students without race-based admissions criteria.
David Nevins is publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Rep. Lauren Underwood, a lead sponsor of the Momnibus package, said the title change reflects how people commonly refer to the legislation and emphasized that the bill continues to help Black women. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images)
At an April congressional hearing, Rep. Summer Lee questioned Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. about reports that organizations applying for federal dollars had been told to remove words including ‘Black’ from funding applications. (ALLISON BAILEY/NURPHOTO/AP)