U.S. Federal Policy Tracker

Updated as of July 4, 2025

The following is a list of executive actions and guidance issued by the Trump Administration. While uncertainty remains over the legality of some orders and the specifics on how the orders will be implemented, the federal policy tracker seeks to provide all the information we know at a particular point in time and will be updated frequently. In addition to executive actions, the tracker will also note legal challenges, legislative proposals, and provide additional resources to help advancement professionals stay informed on the latest developments. 

Direct Links to Sections: 

Additional Resources: 

 

Budget Reconciliation Package 

 

Executive Orders

“Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” - Issued Jan. 21, 2025 

What it says: 

  • This order seeks to route out DEI in the non-governmental sector. Specifically, the order:
    • Encourages agencies and the Attorney General to promote individual initiative, excellence, and hard work within the private sector.
    • Gives the Attorney General and agencies 120 days to provide recommendations for ending DEI in the private sector.
      • This report must constrain recommendations for enforcing Federal civil rights laws and other measures to encourage the private sector to end DEI preferences.
    • Within this report, agencies will also need to identify the following:
      • Key sectors of concern within an agency's jurisdiction;
      • Up to nine potential targets within each agency for civil compliance investigations into large companies, nonprofits, or institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion.
  • The order also directs the Attorney General and the Department of Education to, within 120 days, jointly issue guidance to institutions of higher education that receive Federal grants or participate in Federal student loan assistance programs, as well as state and local education agencies that receive Federal funds, on the measures and practices required to comply with Students for Fair Admissions case (ended affirmative action in admissions). 

Items to consider: 

  • On Feb. 21, a federal judge blocked much of this order and Trump’s order targeting DEI in government. The judge found the challengers were likely to succeed in their arguments that the orders violated the first amendment and were unconstitutionally vague.
  • On March 14th, a federal appeals court lifted the lower court’s order blocking enforcement of the DEI executive orders. The appeals court suggested the Trump Administration should be given the chance to demonstrate it will abide by anti-discrimination laws and respect First Amendment Protections as it implements the order, caveating that burdensome enforcement could violate the US Constitution.
    • The underlying case will still play out to determine the legality of the orders. The appeals court move simply enables the Administration to administer the orders while the litigation transpires.
  • The underlying policy recommendations to address DEI in the non-governmental sector and the guidance will not be available for some time. So, we currently do not know what new requirements this action could bestow on higher education and the legality of such efforts as legal challenges to the orders play out.
  • This lawsuit was brought by several higher education organizations, other industry groups, and the city of Baltimore against several government agencies, including the U.S. Department of Education, over the order.
    • The plaintiffs include the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education and the American Association of University Professors.

Additional resources: 

 

“Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism” - Issued Jan. 29, 2025 & Other Actions Targeting Antisemitism on Campus

What the Order says: 

  • All agencies are required to submit a report within 60 days detailing all criminal and civil authorities available to combat antisemitism.
    • For higher education, the report must include an inventory and analysis of all pending administrative complaints against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil rights violations related to post-Oct. 7 campus antisemitism.
  • The Attorney General’s report must include an inventory and analysis of all court cases against or involving institutions of higher education alleging civil rights violations related to post-Oct. 7 campus antisemitism.
  • The Department of Education report will also need to include an inventory and analysis of Title VI complaints, including in K-12 education, related to antisemitism that are pending or resolved after Oct. 7, 2023.
  • Agencies are also instructed to work together to provide recommendations for familiarizing institutions of higher education with the grounds for inadmissibility under visas so institutions can better monitor “alien” students and staff and ensure violations to current law lead to investigations and removals, if warranted. 

Items to consider: 

  • Institutions that receive federal funds must comply with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bars discrimination based on shared ancestry, ethnic characteristics, or national origin. While few institutions have lost federal funding for violating Title VI, the Trump Administration appears prepared to try and rigorously investigate complaints this year that concern antisemitism.
  • Outside of the executive actions, the Trump Administration has taken other investigatory actions on the issue of campus antisemitism, further highlighting how this will be a focus:
    • The US Department of Education launched five self-initiated investigations into antisemitism on the campuses of Columbia University, Northwestern University, Portland State University, University of California, Berkeley, and the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities.
  • On Feb. 28, the Justice Department announced that its new federal task force on combatting antisemitism will visit 10 college campuses that have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023. The task force will meet with college leadership, students and staff, local law enforcement, and community members to gather information about antisemitic incidents and determine “whether remedial action is warranted.”
  • On March 10, the US Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights sent letters to 60 universities warning them of potential enforcement actions if they "do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus.
    • On March 7th, the OCR also directed enforcement staff to immediately prioritize working through the backlog of Title VI complaints alleging antisemitic violence and harassment.
  • On May 1, the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee delayed votes on two antisemitism bills (below) targeted at colleges and universities after Sen Rand Paul (R-KY) clashed with his fellow Republicans over the bills, voicing concerns about how the legislation would quell free speech on campus. The Senate HELP bills are:
    • The Protecting Student on Campus Act (S. 163). This bill directs the Department of Education to carry out a public awareness regarding students’ rights under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination of shared ancestry.
    • Antisemitism Awareness Act (S. 558). This bill directs the Department of Education to use the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s (IHRA) definition of antisemitism when investigating antisemitic acts on campus.
  • The House Education and Workforce Committee will hold a May 7 hearing titled, “Beyond the Ivy League: Stopping the Spread of Antisemitism on American Campuses” featuring the presidents of DePaul, Haverford, and California Polytechnic State University.
  • With all of this in mind, institutions should be prepared for increased scrutiny from Washington on current and past allegations of antisemitism on campus. 

Additional resources:

 

“Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports” - Issued Feb. 5, 2025

What it says: 

  • The order directs the Secretary of Education to not enforce President Biden’s Title IX rule and take all appropriate action to affirmatively protect all-female athletic opportunities and all-female locker rooms. The order also directs the agency to update guidance and regulations to specify and clarify that women’s sports are reserved for women.
    • A previous order directed agencies to enforce sex-protective laws by an individual's immutable biological classification, meaning the sex belonging to them at conception.
  • The order calls on the Department of Education to prioritize Title IX enforcement actions against educational institutions that require them to compete with or against, or to appear unclothed before males.
  • The order calls on all agencies to review grants to educational programs and, when appropriate, rescind funding to programs that fail to comply. 

 

Items to consider: 

  • On Feb. 21, the U.S. Department of Education launched a probe into Maine’s Department of Education “amid allegations that it continues to allow male athletes to compete in girls’ interscholastic athletics and that it has denied female athletes female-only intimate facilities, thereby violating federal antidiscrimination law.”
    • The probe followed a testy exchange between President Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills where Mills refused to say whether she would comply with the order.
  • In a recently released letter, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) determined on February 25th that Maine’s sports governing for all public schools and some private schools in the state was in violation of Title IX of the Civil Rights Act. HHS alleges the body is violating Title IX by denying female student athletes equal opportunity to participate in and benefit from athletic opportunities offered by the state by allowing males to compete against them.
    • This investigation was opened on February 21st and completed on February 25th. Investigations by the Departments of Education and Agriculture are still ongoing.
    • Of note, Maine only received around $700,000 in federal funding from HHS in 2024. HHS referred its findings to the Justice Department, which has already vowed to take legal action to ensure compliance with President Trump’s order.
  • On March 19, the Trump Administration announced it was suspending $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania based on the university's "policies forcing women to compete with men in sports."
  • On March 31, the Department of Education sent its “final warning” to Maine’s Department of Education to comply with Title XI. The Education Department said that if Maine does not sign the proposed Resolution Agreement by April 11th, it will refer the matter to the DOJ for proceedings that could result in a termination of the state's education funding.
  • On April 11, the Department of Education referred its investigation to the Department of Justice for further enforcement action. The Department of Education said it will also move forward with a proceeding to adjudicate the termination of Maine’s federal K-12 education funding, including formula and discretionary grants over Title IX noncompliance.
  • On May 27, President Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from the State of California over a transgender high school athlete’s participation in girls’ sports, claiming it violates his executive order banning such competition. He criticized Governor Newsom and urged local officials to block the student from upcoming events. The move follows similar actions by the Administration against other states and institutions, including targeting funding at the University of Pennsylvania and the state of Maine. 

Additional resources: 

 

“Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families” - Issued Jan. 29, 2025

What it says: 

  • The order directs the Secretary of Education to expand school choice and education freedom and provide guidance to States within 60 days on how to use Federal formula funds to support K-12 educational choice initiatives.
  • The order also directs several other agencies, including the Departments of Labor and Health and Human Services, to issue guidance within 90 days for how existing grants programs and other funding streams can be used to support school choice. 

Additional resources:

 

“Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling” - Issued Jan. 29, 2025

What it says:

  • The order directs agencies to ensure recipients of Federal funding providing K-12 education comply with all laws prohibiting discrimination in various contexts and protecting parental rights.
  • Within 90 days, multiple agencies, including the Department of Education, are directed to develop an “Ending Indoctrination Strategy” that will advise the formulation of future policy.
    • The strategy will include eliminating federal funding for indoctrination in K-12 schools, including on topics like gender ideology and discriminatory equity ideology.
    • The strategy will also include an analysis of grants to prevent and rescind federal funds related to gender ideology, equity ideology, and that interfere with a parent’s right to information.
  • The order also encourages the use of federal programs to support the promotion of patriotic educations and establishes the “President's Advisory 1776 Commission and Promoting Patriotic Education.”

Additional resources: 

 

"Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities"  - Issued March 20, 2025

What it says:

  • The order directs US Department of Education Secretary Linda McMahon to take all necessary steps to close the department and return authority over education to the states and local communities to the maximum extent permissible by law. The order directs the secretary to do this while ensuring it does not disrupt the delivery of services, programs, and benefits which Americans rely on.
  • On Fri., March 21, President Trump announced his intention to move the US Department of Education's $1.8 trillion student loan portfolio to the Small Business Administration.
  • On March 11, the Department announced that it had initiated a reduction in force affecting nearly 50 percent of the agency's workforce. According to a press release, all divisions within the Department were impacted by the reduction. 

Items to consider: 

  • The complete closure of the Department and the transfer of its authorities to other departments will require congressional action that would need 60 votes to advance in the US Senate. It is unlikely that legislation shuttering the Department of Education could secure the requisite support needed to clear Congress.
    • On April 10, three Senate Republicans, led by Sen. Mike Rounds (R-SD), introduced legislation that would close the Department of Education. The bill would redirect portions of the agency to other federal agencies such as the Departments of Interior, Treasury, Health and Human Services, Labor, Defense, Justice, and State.
    • Other Republicans have introduced various proposals that also seek to close the department. Importantly, these measures would be subject to the Senate filibuster, ensuring Democrats can prevent it from advancing even if Republicans rally behind it.
    • Democrats have also responded with bills protecting the Department, and condemning efforts to terminate the agency.
  • At the same time as reports of this order are emerging, the Trump Administration is directing the Department of Education to take several other actions in these executive orders on topics not limited to antisemitism and Title IX. If the goal was to promptly dismantle the Agency, it is surprising to see the Administration assign so many tasks on high-profile issues, signaling this order may be more political than substantive.
  • Teachers unions and civil rights groups have filed separate lawsuits over the order. The challengers alleged the order is unlawful as the Administration has limited authorities under the law to modify the department and would irrevocably harm k-12 and postsecondary education across the country. In a separate but related case, the coalition of states suing to block mass layoffs (see below) at the agency requested that the court issue a preliminary injunction against the move in late March.
  • On March 11, the Department of Education announced it was beginning mass layoffs that will see 1,300 staff released. Cuts from the agency’s 4,130-person staff reportedly involved sizable reductions from the Office of Civil Rights.
    • Democratic Attorneys General in 21 states have promptly sued the Administration over the move. 

Additional resources: 

 

“Restoring Public Service Loan Forgiveness” - Issued March 7th

What it says: 

  • This order directs the Department of Education to undertake rulemaking clarifying that the definition of “public service” for the Public Service Loan Forgiveness Program (PSLF) excludes organizations that “engage in activities that have a substantially illegal purpose.”
  • As examples of activities that will be targeted, the order lists aiding violations of federal immigration laws, supporting terrorism, and aiding illegal discrimination. 

Items to consider: 

  • The order has no immediate effect on PSLF as the Department must first undertake a public, negotiated rulemaking process to make this change.
  • The order is targeted at nonprofit organizations that support the activities the Trump Administration has consistently targeted in executive actions, including DEI, gender ideology, and aiding illegal immigrants.
  • Any rule promulgated trying to carry out this order is expected to face legal challenges and legal observers have noted an order seeking to unilaterally alter a congressionally-authorized program could face a difficult task surviving in court. 

Additional resources: 

Funding Pause

What is said: 

  • On Jan. 27, the Office of Management and Budget sent a memo to all agency heads directing them to pause federal assistance funding to the extent permissible by law. The broad order with minimal guidance set off a wave of confusion, backlash, and legal challenges. The initial memo was ultimately withdrawn and multiple courts have imposed injunctions blocking it.
    • Before it was withdrawn, the Trump Administration clarified that Pell Grants and federal student loans were exempt from the broad pause, indicating that these funding streams will remain untouched in any spending pause effort.
  • On Feb. 25, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction of the OMB's freeze on federal grant funding. This court action prevents OMB from proceeding with the freeze while legal action is pending.
  • The Trump Administration later said that the funding pause remains in effect for items mentioned in Trump’s executive orders, including DEI, gender ideology, and climate issues.
  • On Feb. 6, the White House issued a memo instructing agencies to review all funding that agencies provide to “Nongovernment Organizations” to align future funding decisions with the interests of the United States and the goals of the Administration, as allowed by authorizing laws. While the term typically refers to organizations outside our borders, we interpret “Nongovernment Organizations” to include all nonprofit organizations, such as nonprofit colleges and universities. 

How institutions may be impacted: 

  • Research institutions may be experiencing pauses in federal research grant funding. Both the National Institute of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NIH) paused their reviews of grants on January 22nd. On February 3rd, NIH reportedly restarted reviewing grant applications. On Feb. 2, NSF reported access to its Award Cash Management System has been restored.
  • According to reports, some 10,000 research grants with NSF have been flagged for review. 

Other items to consider:

  • It remains unclear how the Trump Administration will define key terms in the topics covered in Trump’s orders and what grants will be terminated.
    • For example, will a job training program for women in STEM be considered DEI and revoked?
    • Courts have cited this vagueness in multiple rulings blocking Trump Administration orders.
  • For research institutions and those receiving federal funding, there may also be simple language changes that can be made to workaround the pauses once we have a better understanding of the covered topics and their definitions.
    • For example, if an institution reworded a study from Combating the Impacts of Climate Change to Extreme Weather Event Mitigation, would then suffice the Administration’s directive to pause climate funding?
  • All of this is to say that there is a lot of uncertainty at the time around the path forward but it will be important for any institutions that rely on federal grant funding to prepare for delays and lapses in funding. 

Additional resources:

 

Investigations and Funding 

Columbia University: 

  • On March 7th, the Trump Administration announced it would rescind more than $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University due to rising antisemitism on campus and the school’s failure to address it. Columbia currently holds more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments, but the targeted streams are within the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services.
    • The Trump Administration only notified Columbia that it was reviewing the university’s federal grants and contracts on March 3rd, marking another instance of the Administration moving rapidly in its investigatory process.
  • In response to pressures from the Trump Administration, Columbia announced a series of disciplinary actions on March 13th against current and former students that took over a campus building during protests last year.
  • Columbia later announced a series of policy changes, including overhauling its campus protests policies, security practices, and Middle Eastern studies department to appease the Trump Administration in an attempt to restore the funding.
    • However, as of April 1st, the Administration had yet to restore the funding.   
  • The American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers sued the Trump Administration in late March over its threats to defund Columbia University. The plaintiffs described the effort as  an “unlawful and unprecedented effort to overpower” Columbia University’s academic autonomy and “control the thought, association, scholarship, and expression of its faculty and students.”
  • The Trump Administration is planning to pursue entering a consent decree with Columbia University that would give a federal judge responsibility for ensuring Columbia changes its practices along lines laid out by the federal government.
    • For this to happen, which would mark a dramatic escalation in the government oversight at the school, Columbia would need to agree to enter it. Fighting the effort would likely lead to a lengthy court battle but the Administration could refuse to reinstate funding until the school acquiesces.
    • Columbia University's Acting President Claire Shipman issued a statement on April 14 making it clear that Columbia University has red lines in its negotiations with the Administration, particularly when it comes to "independence and autonomy as an educational institution." 

 

University of Pennsylvania:

  • On March 19th, the Trump Administration announced it suspended $175 million in federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, citing its athletics participation policies for transgender students.
    • The cuts are from discretionary spending from the Departments of Defense and HHS.
  • In February, the Education Department opened a Title IX probe into the school alleging it allowed transgender women and girls to participate on teams corresponding with their gender identity.
    • The school maintains its policies currently meet the NCAA’s participation requirements, and this effort seems to be motivated, at least in part, by Penn allowing trans athlete Lia Thomas to compete on its women’s swim team in 2022. The school said on March 25th it was working to understand and address the Administration’s concerns.
  • On March 25th, faculty at Penn said they received stop-work orders for $175 million in federal research contracts, equaling the amount of funding the Trump Administration said was suspended.
  • On April 28, the Department of Education determined that the University of Pennsylvania violated Title IX by allowing a transgender athlete to compete in women’s sports and use women’s facilities. Within 10 days, the university must agree to change athletics records and send apology letters to some female athletes or risk enforcement actions from the Department of Justice. 

 

Princeton University:

  • On April 1st, Princeton announced the Trump Administration had suspended several dozen research grants. The total value of the grants suspended and the Administration’s rationale are not yet known, according to the University.
  • Despite receiving little national attention for any allegations of antisemitism on campus, Princeton was one of the 59 schools to receive letters earlier this year warning the school of enforcement actions if they failed to fulfil their obligations under Title VI to protect jewish students on campus. 

    • Last month, Princeton University President Christopher Eisgruber, also penned a piece in the Atlantic critical of the Trump administration's threats toward colleges and universities, likening the actions to McCarthyism and the Red Scare.

       

Harvard University:

  • On March 31, the Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) announced a comprehensive review of federal contracts and grants at Harvard University and its affiliates as part of its effort to combat antisemitism. Collectively, the Trump Administration is reviewing around $9 billion in federal funding.
  • On April 14,  Harvard University President Alan Garber, denied the Administration's demands and said that the institution would not yield to the Trump Administration in order to maintain the $9 billion they receive in federal funding. He said the demands are a direct violation of their First Amendment rights and argued that the government has overstepped its authority.
    • The move has sparked outrage from the Trump Administration, who in response threatened to revoke the tax-exempt status of the university and pulled over $2.2 billion in federal funding.
    • On Wednesday, reports emerged that the Administration had directed the IRS to review Harvard’s tax-exempt status. Observers have noted the effort would be legally dubious.
  • US Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem later threatened Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, ordering the university to submit records for international student illegal and violent activities by April 30th. She said if they don’t comply, they would lose access to the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP).
  • In additional blowback for defiance, the US Department of Education has opened an investigation into the school’s reporting of foreign gifts and House Republicans have opened a probe over alleged noncompliance with civil rights laws.
  • Harvard’s stance against the Trump Administration is drawing praise from other schools and prominent figures. It seems possible it could mark a turning point for how colleges and universities and other institutions respond to scrutiny from the Trump Administration.
  • On April 21, Harvard University announced that the institution had a filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, arguing that the Administration had acted unlawfully in halting federal funding.
  • On April 27, the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services launched investigations in Harvard and the Harvard Law Review over allegations they are factoring race into editorial decisions at the journal.
  • On May 2,, President Trump said he will revoke Harvard University's tax-exempt status in a social media post. This threat comes after the school sued the Trump Administration over its decision to freeze $2.2 billion in grant funding.
  • On Monday, May 19, the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party and the House Committee on Education and Workforce accused Harvard University of partnering with foreign adversaries on research and training, including Chinese and Iranian institutions, raising national security and ethical concerns. The lawmakers demanded Harvard release internal documents by June 2, with the letter marking a continuation of Republicans growing scrutiny of the school.
  • On Monday, May 19 the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the termination of an additional $60 million in federal grants to Harvard University, citing the school's failure to address antisemitic harassment and race discrimination, escalating an ongoing conflict that has already resulted in the freeze of over $2.7 billion in federal funds and multiple investigations.
  • On May 22, the Department of Homeland Security announced that the department had terminated Harvard University's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, meaning the university can no longer enroll foreign students. DHS cited Harvard's campus environment and its refusal to provide requested information to the department. On Friday, May 23, Harvard University filed a lawsuit against DHS, arguing that the DHS decision was a violation of the law. That same day, a federal judge agreed to put a temporary restraining order blocking DHS's plan to strip Harvard of its ability to enroll international students.
  • On May 27 the Trump Administration directed federal agencies to review and potentially terminate Harvard University’s remaining $100 million in federal contracts, citing ethical concerns and the university’s handling of campus protests and admissions practices. This move follows the earlier withdrawal of $2.8 billion in federal funding. In response, Harvard committed $250 million to support affected research projects, though officials warn the funding is not a long-term solution.
  • On May 29, the Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard University’s ability to enroll international students, citing a “toxic campus climate” and alleged ties to the Chinese government — claims Harvard has called unlawful and retaliatory. The move affects nearly 6,800 international students and heightens tensions between the university and the Trump administration, which has already frozen billions in federal funding. In response, a federal judge extended an order blocking the administration’s move, ruling that the government’s 30-day delay in enforcement was insufficient to prevent potential harm or ensure fair procedures.

Cornell University and Northwestern University:

  • The week of April 7, the Trump Administration froze $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell University and $790 million for Northwestern University. On April 8, Cornell said it received 75 stop work orders from the Department of Defense Tuesday, but Northwestern said it received 100 stop work orders for scientific research. Cornell is the sixth Ivy to have funding frozen and both institutions are being probed over alleged civil rights violations, including around their responses to alleged antisemitism on campus.

    • Northwestern said it would continue funded research with grants frozen by the Trump Administration. 

Miscellaneous

US Department of Education - Race-Conscious Programs & Civil Rights Laws 
 

US Department of Education Dear Colleague Letter

  • On Feb. 14, the US Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights released a Dear Colleague letter outlining the Department’s views on the scope of the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions, a decision which effectively ended race-based preferences in admissions. 

  • In the letter, the Department takes a broad view of the 2023 decision, stating it outlaws all forms of race-conscious preferences, including scholarships, and that the Department plans to enforce this view of the law. Institutions have 14 days to “to take appropriate measures to assess compliance with the applicable statutes and regulations based on the understanding embodied in this letter beginning no later than 14 days from today’s date.”

     

Items to consider: 

  • On Feb. 25, the American Council on Education, along with CASE and 60 other higher education associations, sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education asking the Department to rescind the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague Letter, citing the concern and confusion that it has caused as well as the Department's misinterpretation of institutions' legal requirements.
  • On Feb 25, the American Federation of Teachers and other groups sued the US Department of Education over this guidance barring federally funded schools from considering race in their programs and policies or undertaking DEI efforts.
    • The lawsuit asserts the guidance in the Department’s February 14th letter is vague and overly broad, asking the judge to declare it unconstitutional and block the Department from enforcing it.
    • The Department couched the letter as its interpretation of the Student for Fair Admissions decision, but the challengers argue the guidance goes well beyond the ruling with the activities it prohibits and the settings to which it applies.
  • On March 1, the Department released a Frequently Asked Questions document which provides additional guidance on the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague Letter. The FAQs cover a number of issues, including how the Department will investigate schools that are determined to be out of compliance as well as more detail on the Department's interpretation of the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions.
  • On March 5, the National Education Association and American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration over the Department of Education’s February 14th Dear Colleague letter directing K-12 schools and colleges to cease DEI programs or risk losing federal funding.
    • They argue the letter is vague, changes the Education Department’s longstanding position on civil rights laws and infringes on schools’ authority over public education and the First Amendment rights of educators and students.
    • The challengers asked the court to block the Feb 14 letter, the new End DEI Portal for parents to submit allegations of DEI at local schools, and the recently released question-and-answer document.
  • On April 3rd, the Department sent a letter to state education officials saying they have 10 days to promise to comply with the Trump Administration's interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law or risk lawsuits, civil penalties and losing hundreds of millions of dollars in federal aid for their K-12 schools. The letter specifically mentions the roughly $18 billion Title I funding program for low-income students, and says schools’ continued receipt of that money “is conditioned with an assurance” that they comply with federal anti-discrimination laws.
    • Officials must also certify their compliance with the Trump administration’s interpretation of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which asserts federal law prohibits schools 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 education.
    • The Department agreed not to take any enforcement actions until April 24th pertaining to this letter. The National Education Association and civil rights groups filed an emergency order Monday seeking a restraining order that would stop the agency from enforcing the requirements, and New York has refused to comply. However, this pause stems from ongoing litigation surrounding the Valentine’s Day letter calling on schools to comply with the Administration’s interpretation of the Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision.
  • On March 14th, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights opened investigations into 45 colleges and universities over allegations these schools violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
    • Most of the allegations stem of allegations the schools partnered with The Ph.D. Project, an organization that offers support and networking services to doctoral students but limits eligibility based on the race of the participants, according to the Department of Education.
    • The Department also announced a separate investigation into six schools over alleged impermissible race-based scholarships and race-based segregation.
  • In late March, the Department of Justice announced it is investigating Stanford and several University of California campuses over the use of “DEI discrimination” in their admissions processes. The Trump Administration contends the schools’ practices may be in violation of the 2023 Students for Fair Admissions ruling.     

 

Historically Black Colleges and Universities 

Executive Order Establishing White House Initiative on HBCUs

International Students and Immigration

  • In late March, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said he had revoked 300 visas, including student visas, over foreign policy views and criminal activity. For college students, it appears the Trump Administration is prioritizing canceling visas for students that have been vocally against Israel concerning the conflict in Gaza, including participating/organizing protests and writing articles on the matter.
    • To find targets, the Administration is believed to be using AI to review social media accounts of student visa holders under a new program dubbed Catch and Revoke.
  • Other reports discuss emails student visa holders have received instructing them to self-deport or face arrest and deportation.
  • While the situation is fluid and legal ambiguity in some cases remains, like the effort to deport green card holder and former Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil, it would not be a surprise to see this crackdown on student visa holders dissuade some foreign students from wanting to attend college in the United States.
  • Furthermore, this crackdown is leading to increased law enforcement presence on campus that is likely negatively impacted campus morale and the student experience.
  • Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) has resumed efforts to terminate the legal status of international students on Optional Practical Training (OPT) visas, sending letters Thursday (May 15) night warning of Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS) terminations and possible deportation. At least 35 students have been affected so far, with more expected. Colleges are being urged to monitor SEVIS compliance closely as uncertainty and fear grow among students and international education staff.
  • On Wed., May 28, Politico reported that the Trump Administration plans to implement expanded social media vetting for all student visa applicants, pausing new visa interviews in preparation. Critics argue the policy, which follows recent actions against pro-Palestinian student protesters and visa terminations, unfairly targets international students and may violate free speech rights. Experts warn the move will strain resources, delay visa processing, and disrupt college enrollment, potentially harming U.S. higher education and international relations.

National Institutes of Health - Research Grants 

White House attempts to cap overhead costs:

  • On Feb. 7, the National Institutes of Health announced it was capping the Facilities and Administration rate at 15% for all existing and new grants beginning on Feb. 10. This limit on indirect costs would save the government around $4 billion and was ordered by the Department of Government Efficiency.
  • Currently, universities negotiate how much of the grants can cover indirect costs, such as facilities, equipment, and other overhead costs. On average, 27 to 28 percent of a grant covers indirect cost reimbursement. Lowering the cap would significantly increase the costs on universities to conduct research.
  • On Feb. 10, a federal judge blocked the Trump Administration from implementing the caps. The pause is limited to the 22 states that joined the lawsuit and will remain in place until the court issues a future order in regard to the underlying challenge.
  • On Feb. 21, the judge extended the emergency restraining order blocking the Administration from issuing the cap in the states that brought the lawsuit. The judge signaled he is considering a more permanent injunction against the plan.

  • On April 4, a federal judge permanently barred the NIH from capping funding for indirect research costs at a 15% rate. The judge ruled the effort was arbitrary and capricious, violated federal law, and the NIH failed to follow federal rulemaking procedures in doing it.

    • The NIH had asked the judge to make a final decision, which prompted the ruling, likely in an attempt to expedite the process to get the case before an appellate court, underscoring how more litigation will come. 

     

Items to consider:

  • Despite the pause in court shortly after the pause was announced, several research institutions have taken steps – ranging from hiring freezes to budget cuts – amid the uncertainty surrounding this funding stream and other looming threats.
  • NIH has reportedly laid off more than 1,000 employees, which could also hamper research institutions ability to receive research grants, at least in a timely manner, moving forward.
  • Reports emerged in early March that the Trump Administration is considering a plan B if the court ultimately rejects the plan to cap indirect costs at 15 percent. It would involve NIH negotiating indirect cost caps individually with each recipient university. In addition to leading to lower indirect cost caps, this process could significantly slow research grants being disbursed to institutions.
  • Despite the defeats in court, we anticipate the Trump Administration pursuing these caps government-wide for any agency that issues grants. 

Additional resources:

  • One-pager on the cap - The Council of Government Relations

 

US Department of Energy 

  • On April 11, the Energy Department followed NIH’s lead and released a memorandum capping indirect costs at 15 percent for grant recipients at colleges and universities. The department said the move would lead to $405 million in annual savings.
  • On April 14, the Association of American Universities, the American Council on Education, the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities, and other groups and research institutions filed a lawsuit to halt the move. They argued the effort was a carbon copy of NIH’s move that was blocked in court.
  • On April 16, a federal judge temporarily blocked the move, finding the challengers demonstrated they would sustain immediate and irreparable injury if the policy was allowed to proceed while the underlying lawsuit played out.
  • On May 22, a federal judge blocked the Energy Department from enforcing a 15 percent cap on indirect research cost reimbursements for colleges, ruling the policy likely violates federal law and was implemented without proper justification. This ruling extends a temporary freeze on the cap, following similar legal setbacks for the Trump Administration’s efforts to limit such funding at agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation. Meanwhile, the Department of Defense announced its own 15 percent cap, prompting criticism from academic groups who warn these cuts threaten national security and research progress.

Title IX 

Education Department enforcing previous rule: 

  • On Jan. 31, the U.S. Department of Education told school leaders that it will enforce the first Trump Administration’s rule on Title IX. The new directive means the Department will return to enforcing Title IX, which bars sex-based discrimination, on the basis of biological sex and not gender ideology. 

  • For sexual misconduct violations, the rule offered new due process rights to those accused of misconduct and required schools to respond to formal complaints with courtroom-like hearings. 

     

     

Foreign Gifts 

House passes DETERRENT Act (H.R. 1048): 

  • On March 27, the House advanced the Defending Education Transparency and Ending Rogue Regimes Engaging in Nefarious Transactions (DETERRENT) Act (H.R. 1048) in a bipartisan 241 to 169 vote. The bill would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 by lowering the foreign gift reporting threshold from $250,000 to $50,000 annually. The bill would also prohibit contracts between colleges and universities and certain foreign entities and countries of concern. The bill advanced along party lines in the Education and Workforce Committee but, just like last Congress, picked up sizable Democratic support on the House floor. It is unclear when the Senate may take up the measure.
  • On April 4, Senate HELP Committee Chair Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC) introduced the DETERRENT Act in the Senate (S. 1296). Ten of their Republican colleagues joined them in introducing the measure.

Reps. Comer and Foxx send letter to U.S. Department of Education on foreign funding of higher education

  • On Feb. 19, U.S. House Oversight and Government Reform Chairman James Comer (R-KY) and Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) sent a letter to the U.S. Department of Education asking the Department to provide information on all Section 117 of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (foreign gift reporting) compliance investigations opened since Jan. 20, 2021. The lawmakers claim in the letter that the Biden Administration did not effectively enforce the foreign gift disclosure requirements under Section 117. 

President Trump signs Executive Order on Foreign Gift Disclosure

  • On April 23, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities which directs agencies to fully enforce the foreign gift disclosure requirements in Section 117 of the Higher Education Act and directs agencies to freeze funding for noncompliance with the disclosure requirements. Section 117 requires U.S. colleges and universities to report gifts from foreign donors totalling $250,000 or above annually.

  • On the heels of the foreign gift Executive Order, the US Department of Education announced on April 25 that it was moving Section 117 enforcement back to the Department's Office of General Counsel and was initiating an investigation of the University of California, Berkeley for noncompliance with Section 117.

     

Tax Reform and Budget Reconciliation 

Republicans working on large tax package that could impact higher education:

  • Republicans are working on a large tax package the party is seeking to advance this year to extend the expiring provisions from the 2017 tax bill using a process – budget reconciliation – that will allow the party to advance the bill with a simple majority in both chambers.
    • Republicans are planning to incorporate other tax relief President Trump pitched on the campaign trail, such as no taxes on tips, increasing the bill’s cost.
  • In late February, House Republicans advanced a budget resolution – the first step in the reconciliation process – that would unlock a legislative vehicle for tax reform and spending legislation if adopted by the Senate.
    • The House budget resolution would enable the tax writing committees to add $4.5 trillion at most to the deficit to offset tax cuts. Any costs beyond that limit would need to be fully paid for with new revenue. The budget resolution, which provides a broad fiscal outline of the underlying bill, aims for up to $2 trillion in spending cuts.
  • In early April, the Senate released a budget resolution the chamber is seeking to quickly advance. The resolution would allot $5.3 trillion for tax reform, providing more breathing room for taxwriters than the House-version. It also does not include prescriptive spending cut targets. However, House Republicans have already voiced concerns about the resolution.
  • On April 10, the House passed the Senate-amended budget resolution, unlocking the budget reconciliation process. The resolution includes different instructions (detailed above) for each chamber to craft the bill. In not agreeing on the same or very similar instructions, Republicans punted on resolving key differences between the chambers. However, with the resolution adopted, committees will start moving forward with assembling and advancing the underlying portions of the bill when lawmakers return at the end of April. Given the potential implications of this bill for higher education, we will be tracking that process closely.
  • On April 28, the House Education and Labor Committee marked up and advanced its portion of Republicans’ reconciliation package in a party-line 21 to 14 vote. The bill includes major changes to federal student aid programs under the Higher Education Act of 1965 and is estimated to yield $330 billion in savings for the government. Democrats offered 33 amendments to the bill, all of which failed. Some of the major reforms, many of which come from the College Cost Reduction Act, are included below. The American Council on Education and other education groups sent a letter to the committee voicing objections to many of the proposals included. Major reforms included:
    • Repeals President Biden’s income-driven student loan repayment plan known as SAVE,
    • Terminates existing repayment plans and replace them with two pared-back options: one offering borrowers the option for a fixed monthly amount paid over a certain period of time based on debt load or one that is an income-based plan dubbed the “Repayment Assistance Plan,”
    • Requires institutions of higher education to make risk-sharing payments based on the non-repayment balance of their students’ federal loans, beginning with loans dispersed after July 1, 2027,
    • Expands eligibility for Pell Grants to short-term workforce training programs,
    • Changes eligibility for Pell Grants by defining a “full-time” student as enrolling in at least 30 semester hours each academic year and make students ineligible for the grant if they are enrolled less than half-time,
    • Limits the amount of federal loans a borrower could take out at $50,000 for undergrads, $100,000 for graduate students and $150,000 for students in professional programs, and
    • Largely restricts the use Parent and Grad Plus loans
  • Looking at tax issues, it remains unclear when the House Ways and Means Committee will release and markup its portion of the bill, which is expected to include an increase in the university endowment tax. House GOP leadership hopes to hold the tax mark-up the week of May 12.

What is at stake for higher education? 

  • Republicans have discussed targeting colleges and universities for revenue to help pay for the tax cuts in their reconciliation bill. Reports continue to emerge that Republicans are considering increasing the university endowment excise tax created in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
    • A menu of potential revenue raisers the party could pursue to pay for tax reform assembled by Republicans on the House Budget Committee that leaked earlier this year included a proposal to increase the tax tenfold, to 14 percent.
    • In Congress, Reps.. Troy Nehls (R-TX) and Lauren Boebert (R-CO) have introduced the Endowment Tax Fairness Act (H.R. 446), which would increase the university endowment excise tax from 1.4 percent to 21 percent, the current corporate tax rate.
    • Rep. Mike Lawler (R-NY) introduced the Endowment Accountability Act (H.R. 1128), which would increase the university endowment excise tax to 10 percent. The bill would also lower the endowment assets per student threshold used to determine which private colleges are subject to the tax from $500,000 to $200,000. This would subject several new schools to the tax.
    • Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) reintroduced the Woke Endowment Security Tax (WEST) Act (S. 936), which would impose a one-time 6 percent tax on the 2024 aggregate 2024 fair market value of 11 large college endowments. The list of colleges that would be hit can be found here.   
  • The House-passed resolution calls for aggressive spending cuts, including $330 billion from the Education and Workforce Committee. While their exact targets are unclear at this time, the menu of revenue raisers released by House Republicans earlier this year included multiple proposals targeting higher education, including:
    • Establish risk sharing for student loans, requiring institutions to make annual payments to participate in federal loan programs
    • Establish loan limits for student loans
    • Make all scholarship and fellowship income taxable
  • In a potential positive outcome for education in this tax reconciliation package, the charitable sector is pushing to include the Charitable Act (S. 317, H.R. 801), which would restore and expand the non-itemizer charitable deduction. This bill would provide all taxpayers, not just the approximately 10 percent that itemize their returns, a tax incentive to give to nonprofits, including schools, colleges, and universities.
    • The Charitable Giving Coalition is playing a central role in advocating for the restoration of the non-itemizer charitable deduction. The Charitable Act which would restore the deduction and cap it at one-third of the standard deduction (roughly $5,000 for individuals and $10,000 for joint filers), enjoys strong bipartisan support in Congress. As of April 18, the House version of the bill has 43 cosponsors (22R, 21D) and the Senate version has 21 cosponsors (11R, 10D)

 

Accreditation

Executive Order on Accreditation 

  • On April 23, President Trump signed an Executive Order titled Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education which directs Secretary of Education to reform the accreditation process, investigate accreditors who require "unlawful diversity, equity, and inclusion requirements," and approve new accreditors.
  • On May 1, the U.S. Department of Education released guidance aimed at making it easier for colleges to change accreditors and lifted the department’s pause on reviewing applications for new accrediting agencies. These moves stem from President Trump’s April 23 Executive Order aiming to reform the college accreditation process, primarily to rout out any DEI practices employed by accreditors. Critics of the new guidance argue the lax new rules will make it easier for institutions to switch to accreditors with less rigorous standards.