WASHINGTON — The Trump administration’s campaign over higher education has taken a new tack. After a year of targeting individual campuses for federal funding cuts, the White House now uses regulatory authority to set policy standards that could affect every U.S. university. The Department of Education is proposing a redesign of the accreditation system that would require schools to demonstrate “intellectual diversity” – a constraint interpreted by critics as a push for more conservative viewpoints.
The Office of Management and Budget is also drafting a rule that would direct federal agencies to ensure that grant recipients pursue the President’s agenda. According to the proposal, grants cannot be used for programs the administration labels as “anti‑American values,” “diversity, equity and inclusion” initiatives or any policies that challenge the sex binary. An OMB spokesperson says the rule adds transparency, but scholars see it as a gate‑keeping tool.
A General Services Administration proposal will make universities certify they do not have DEI policies deemed unlawful by the administration. Coupled with the OMB rule, the two measures could cut federal support to institutions that keep such programs operational.
In total, the Education Department has put forward more than a dozen rule‑making bills. One targets the process that determines which schools receive federal money and trims funds for schools whose policies are deemed in conflict with the administration’s interpretation of civil‑rights law. The procedural nature of rule‑making offers a quicker path to law without needing congressional approval.
According to Nicholas Kent, the department’s under‑secretary, the new approach gives the government “a tool to correct the higher‑education system.” He presented himself as a scalpel that will excise practices that violate the administration’s standards rather than a blunt instrument. Kent also said that schools have “started to come to heel” on the new priorities.
The Justice Department, meanwhile, has scaled back the number of new investigations. While the department announced more than 70 investigations in 2024, the current year only sees roughly a dozen. An executive release noted that previous investigations remain largely open, but a few major universities – including Harvard and UCLA – have reached deals with the White House to continue receiving federal research funding.
Admissions policy has become a focus. The administration is building cases against universities that use race as a factor in admissions – a practice the Supreme Court has permitted in certain contexts, though its guidance was clarified in a 2024 ruling that upheld the right for schools to assess applicants’ broader qualities. The Justice Department recently held that Yale medical schools admit disproportionately fewer white and Asian American students, allegedly favoring Black and Latino applicants. Yale has defended its admissions criteria as merit‑based.
Campuses’ reactions have varied. In the wake of last year’s scrutiny, dozens of universities quietly closed DEI offices; the NCAA trimmed its transgender‑athletes policy; and many institutions introduced stricter protest rules. Several universities also declined a White House invitation to endorse the administration’s agenda in exchange for more research funding.
Fed by this climate, the American Council on Education’s president Ted Mitchell stated that the new regulatory path “opens the door for a conversation," contrasting it with previous, “direct attacks.” He noted that the existing rule‑making process could provide a structured arena for dialogue, a significant shift from the Last year’s aggressive tactics.
Meanwhile, the American Association of University Professors’ president, Todd Wolfson, cautions that the regulations could “chill” academic freedom. He maintains that the sector is strengthening as students and faculty push back against the White House’s attempts to politicalize campus policies.
}
