Since taking office, the Trump administration has taken steps to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at institutions of higher education (“IHE”) nationwide. The administration characterizes DEI initiatives as vehicles for unlawful discrimination and pursues its agenda through tactics including executive orders, reduction or elimination of federal funding (actual or threatened), investigations by the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) and Department of Education (“DOE”), and reverse-discrimination litigation.
In March 2026, for example, President Trump issued Executive Order 14398, “Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors” (“EO 14398”), which prohibits federal contractors from engaging in “racially discriminatory DEI activities” and threatens contract termination for noncompliance. This emphasized the need for IHEs with federal contracts or “contract-like instruments” to follow developments in the DEI space and ensure compliance with the latest guidance. In response to EO 14398, a group of academic and minority trade associations filed a lawsuit alleging that the Order violates the First Amendment because it restricts and deters lawful discussions on race in academic and professional settings. Although the outcome of legal challenges to EO 14398 remains uncertain, public and private IHEs both stand to be affected.
IHEs face important decisions on programming, recruitment, and admission practices. Three matters illustrate how institutions are approaching this unstable landscape.
EEOC v. University of Pennsylvania
In December 2023, Andrea Lucas, the Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”), issued a discrimination charge against the University of Pennsylvania (“UPenn”), alleging that it maintained a hostile work environment for Jewish employees in violation of Title VII. The EEOC issued an administrative subpoena during its investigation, seeking contact information for UPenn employees who are members of Jewish groups or organizations. UPenn refused to comply, arguing the underlying charge of discrimination is invalid and that the subpoena for employee-level information violates the employees’ First Amendment rights to religious freedom and free exercise. The EEOC sought judicial enforcement of the subpoena, and on April 27, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania granted enforcement but stayed its order pending appeal. The court found that while an appeal from UPenn did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, the public interest warrants addressing the case at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. A date has yet to be set to hear UPenn’s appeal, but IHEs should be watching closely.
DOE’s Investigation of Stanford University
On April 29, 2026, the DOE’s Office for Civil Rights opened an investigation into Stanford University’s Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) Cohort program. The program was established at Stanford’s Graduate School of Education to increase diversity among National Board Certified Teachers by offering targeted certification support and financial resources to K-12 teachers who identify as persons of color. The DOE’s ongoing investigation examines whether the program’s race-based eligibility criteria violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Upon learning of the investigation, Stanford announced plans to disband the program.
DOJ’s Investigation of UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine
On May 6, 2026, the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division announced the completion of an investigation into the admissions practices of the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA (“DGSOM”). The investigation focused on whether DGSOM’s admissions practices for the classes of 2023-2025 violated Title VI, as interpreted by the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023). In that ruling, the Court held that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions program is unconstitutional, as it violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The DOJ investigation found that DGSOM’s admissions office engaged in workarounds to achieve “diversity goals” in defiance of the Supreme Court’s ruling, including the use of racial proxies and “holistic review practices” designed to uncover and consider an applicant’s race. Evidence showed that admitted Black and Hispanic applicants had lower median MCAT scores and GPAs than White and Asian applicants, supporting the DOJ’s conclusion that DGSOM’s consideration of race benefitted certain applicants at the expense of others. The DOJ is now seeking a voluntary resolution agreement with DGSOM to bring its admissions practices into compliance without specifying a fine. This follows the DOJ’s August 2025 demand that UCLA pay a $1.2B settlement after the agency suspended $584M in research grants to the campus for alleged federal law violations, including the use of race in admissions. In September 2025, a U.S. District Judge ordered the grants restored.
Next Steps for IHEs
The expanded DEI scrutiny from federal agencies is not enforced by a single executive order, agency action, or court decision but rather an array of institutional levers. The matters above illustrate how some IHEs are responding to the Trump administration’s approach, though the most effective strategy will vary by institution.
IHEs should expect continued federal scrutiny across campus operations. Proactive review of programs, policies, and compliance infrastructure is advisable in all areas (even those not traditionally associated with DEI) given the recent investigations, litigation, executive orders, and DOE and DOJ guidance. Federal reviews are likely to look beyond individual programs to governance structures, reporting practices, compliance systems, and institutional decision-making. IHEs should carefully document decision-making processes and supporting rationale, particularly when maintaining or modifying programs with race-conscious elements. Ultimately, IHEs should assess their risk tolerance in accordance with their mission, state laws, funding sources, and governance.
All IHE attorneys and administrators should watch for further guidance from the Trump administration as well as at the state level. Several states have enacted their own laws regarding DEI practices in higher education. These approaches range from restricting to protecting DEI-related programs, practices, and initiatives. Because federal and state requirements may interact differently across jurisdictions, institutions should evaluate their obligations and potential exposure under both frameworks.
The Labor and Employment team at Broadfield U.S. can help IHEs prepare for, manage, and defend DEI-related investigations and lawsuits. Institutional attorneys and administrators with questions about how to ensure compliance with the evolving DEI landscape are encouraged to reach out to a member of the team.
