Updated as of June 21, 2026

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. 

Additional Resources: 

• Presidential Actions - White House
• Executive Orders Affecting Charitable Nonprofits - National Council of Nonprofits
• OMB FUNDING PAUSE, MORE EOS MARK HECTIC WEEK FOR HIGHER ED - American Council on Education, February 3rd
• Tracking the Lawsuits Against the Trump Administration - New York Times, updated regularly 

 

Budget Reconciliation Package 

• On July 4, 2025, President Donald Trump signed H.R. 1, The One, Big, Beautiful Bill into law, a major budget reconciliation package with significant implications for schools, colleges, and universities. The bill passed the U.S. House on May 22, 2025, the Senate on July 1, 2025, and then the House passed the Senate version on July 3, 2025.  Below are resources outlining key provisions of the new law affecting advancement offices.
  • Summary of Key Tax Provisions in H.R. 1, the Budget Reconciliation Package (3 July 2025)
  • H.R. 1 - Budget Reconciliation Package Final Text
  • CASE Statement on Final Passage of Reconciliation Bill (4 July 2025)

 

 

Executive Actions

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.
  • 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.
    • As of September 2025, these lists have not been publicized. 

 

Items to consider:

• On March 14th, a federal appeals court lifted a 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.
• Lawsuits were 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: 

• White House Fact Sheet
• Recent Executive Actions on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) - Congressional Research Service
• U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate DEI - Department of Education 

 

“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.
• As of September 2025, this report or its findings have yet to be publicized. 

 

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 is rigorously investigating complaints of antisemitism.
• Outside of the executive actions, the Trump Administration has taken additional actions focused on campus antisemitism:
• On Feb. 28, the Department of Justice announced that its new federal task force on combatting antisemitism will visit 10 college campuses that have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023.
• 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.
• There is more below on the higher profile investigations of antisemitism the Trump Administration has initiated on colleges and universities. With this in mind, institutions should remain prepared for increased scrutiny from Washington on current and past allegations of antisemitism on campus.  

 

Additional resources:

• White House Fact Sheet
• Justice Department Announces Formation of Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism - Department of Justice
• Trump is targeting antisemitism in schools. Experts fear other civil rights will be ignored - AP News, Feb. 5

 

“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 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.
• 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.
• Despite these announcements, the state of Maine is still receiving federal funding as of September 2025.
• 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.
• In early June, the Department of Education elevated its Title IX investigations into the Minnesota Department of Education and the Minnesota State High School League to its new Title IX Special Investigations Team. The investigations focus on whether Minnesota’s policies allowing athletes to compete based on gender identity violate federal Title IX protections for women and girls, which could put the state’s federal education funding at risk.
• On June 25, the Department of Education announced that a policy in California that allows transgender athletes to compete in women’s sports violates federal civil rights law. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said the state must swiftly come into compliance with Title IX or face consequences.
• On July 25, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced that it opened a Title IX investigation into the Oregon Department of Education over allegations that the state department allows males to compete in female sports in violation of Title IX.
• On Mon. September 30, the Trump Administration announced that the Minnesota Department of Education (MDE) and the Minnesota State High School League (MSHSL) are both in violation of Title IX due to allowing males to compete in female sports and occupy female intimate facilities. The agencies sent a proposed resolution to the entities, warning that failure to comply with Title IX puts their federal funding at risk.
• On March 30, 2026, the Trump Administration sued the Minnesota Department of Education and the state’s high school sports authority over their transgender athlete policies.
  • The Administration is seeking the court to rule that the state violated Title IX, which could put its federal education funding in jeopardy. 

 

Additional resources: 

• Statement on President Trump’s Executive Order Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports -  U.S. Department of Education
• White House Fact Sheet

 

“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:

• White House Fact Sheet

 

“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.
  • As of September 2025, the strategy has yet to be released publicly.
• 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: 

• New Executive Order Aims to End “Radical Indoctrination” in K-12 Schools - McGuire Woods 

 

"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.
  • Republicans have introduced various proposals that 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 responded with bills protecting the Department, and condemning efforts to terminate the agency.
• At the same time as this order was released, the Trump Administration directed 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.
• 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 promptly sued the Administration over the move, with the courts temporarily pausing the reductions at that time.
  • In July, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed the Trump Administration to proceed with laying off nearly half of the Department of Education’s workforce. The ruling, issued in New York v. McMahon, permits the layoffs to move forward while legal challenges continue in lower courts.
    • The downsizing comes as the Department faces a lengthy to-do list implementing provisions from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which include establishing two new student loan repayment programs, extending Pell Grants to cover short-term workforce training programs, and setting borrowing limits for graduate students.
  • On July 15, the Departments of Education and Labor announced a new partnership they say will streamline federal education and workforce programs. Under the agreement, the Department of Labor will help administer adult education and career and technical education programs, while the Department of Education retains oversight.
    • Officials say the move will reduce bureaucracy, improve coordination, and better serve students and workers. 

• On November 18, the Department announced six new interagency agreements with the Departments of Labor, Interior, Health and Human Services (HHS), and State as part of the Trump Administration’s effort to shutter the Education Department. 

  • Under the agreements, the Department will offload several key programs and functions, including moving the office of elementary and secondary education, as well as its postsecondary education office, to the Labor Department.
    • Labor would also receive the massive Title I funding program.
  • The Interior Department would take over the Office of Indian Education.
  • Federal student loan and grant programs, in addition to civil rights work, were touched in the agreements and will remain at the Education Department.
  • The agreements will likely face legal challenges.
    • An Administration official described them as a proof of concept strategy they intended to work with Congress on to implement permanently, reinforcing that acts of Congress will likely be needed to undertake the more ambitious reforms the Administration is pursuing at the agency. 

   

Additional resources: 

• How Dismantling the Department of Education Would Harm Students - National Education Association 

 

“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 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 updates: 

• On August 18, the Education Department proposed new rules to restrict Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) benefits from going to employees of organizations engaged in illegal activities. Under the changes, employers with a “substantial illegal purpose”, such as supporting terrorism, violating immigration laws, or enabling discrimination or child abuse, would no longer qualify as public service employers. The proposal follows President Trump’s executive order directing reforms to ensure PSLF only supports genuine public service work.
  • Public comments on the draft rules were open until September 17, 2025.
  • On Sept. 17, CASE joined an American Council on Education comment letter to the Department expressing strong opposition to the changes proposed for the PSLF program.
• On October 30, the Department released a final rule revising the PSLF program to ensure that benefits go only to borrowers employed by organizations that “genuinely serve the public.” The rule will take effect July 1, 2026.
  • The final rule mirrors much of the executive order, excluding employers engaged in unlawful activities, such as supporting terrorism or aiding illegal immigration, from qualifying for PSLF.
• On November 3, two lawsuits were filed against the Trump Administration over the rule.
  • The lawsuits argue the rule targets organizations serving LGBTQ people, immigrants, and transgender youth, violates the Higher Education Act, and infringes on First Amendment rights, effectively using PSLF as a political tool.
• On May 20, the Senate rejected a Congressional Review Act resolution aimed at overturning the rule. 

  • The vote was largely symbolic, and the Administration maintains it will continue to implement the rule.  

     

Additional resources:

• White House Fact Sheet

   

“Transparency Regarding Foreign Influence at American Universities” - Issued April 23rd

What it says:

• The order 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.

 

Additional Updates

• In response to the EO, 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.

 

“White House Initiative to Promote Excellence and Innovation at Historically Black Colleges and Universities” - Issued April 23rd

What is says:

• The order calls for the establishment of the White House Initiative on HBCUs to work with agencies to increase capacity at HBCUs to serve more students and upgrade institutional infrastructure.

Items to consider:

• The order strikes similar notes to past administration’s HBCU executive orders, emphasizing their importance in driving educational access and outlining several goals, like strengthening institutional capacity.
  • Yet, observers have noted that unlike previous efforts to bolster HBCUs like we saw during the Biden Administration, the effort was not paired with fiscal investments that could turn the goals into a reality.

 

“Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking” - Issued August 7th

What it says:

• The order directs political appointees at each agency to designate a senior official to review every funding opportunity before it is posted and every grant before it is disbursed.
  • The Trump Administration says the order will combat “wasteful grantmaking.”
• The order, which applies to new grants and the renewal of existing grants, directs the reviewer to ensure all grants and funding opportunities advance the President's priorities, where possible, and don’t support items the Administration has targeted, such as gender affirming care or racial discrimination.
  • The order also directs the Office of Management and Budget to revise uniform guidance to clarify and require that all discretionary awards permit termination by the government for convenience at any time.

 

Items to consider:

• This new review process will apply to research grants that colleges and universities receive. While the impacts are unclear at this time, this enhanced review process could make it more challenging for colleges and universities to have grants approved and slow the disbursement of funds. 

 

Investigations

Columbia University: Antisemitism - Resolved 

• 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. This kicked off a lengthy negotiation between the Administration and the university.
• 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.
• 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.
• On June 4, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights (OCR) found Columbia University in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws, specifically Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, for failing to address the harassment of Jewish students after the October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.
  • As a result, the Administration claimed the university no longer meets accreditation standards set by the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and reached out to the accreditor.
• On July 23, Columbia reached a settlement agreement with the Trump Administration to end civil rights investigations into allegations of antisemitism on campus and restart the flow of federal grant dollars.

  • As part of the agreement, the school will pay the government $221 million over three years and undertake a series of policy changes. The reforms include decreasing its financial dependence on international students, providing admissions data to the government on accepted and rejected students, and codifying a series of measures it announced in March, such as banning masks to seal one's identity. Observers raised concerns about the precedent the deal sets.

     

University of Pennsylvania: Title IX - Resolved.

• 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.
• 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.
• On July 1, the University of Pennsylvania reached an agreement with the Trump Administration to resolve the Title IX investigation. The school agreed to follow Title IX as interpreted by the Trump Administration defining sex as biological and prohibiting transgender women from participating in female sports. The school also agreed to apologize and remove any transgender woman’s swimming records and titles from the record book. 

 

Brown University: Multiple Issues Cited - Resolved

• In April, the Trump Administration froze over $500 million in federal grants and contracts to Brown, citing antisemitism on campus.
• On July 30, Brown University reached an agreement with the Trump Administration to restore about $510 million in frozen federal funds related to investigations into antisemitism on campus and the use of race in admissions.
  • Unlike Columbia University, Brown will not pay a settlement to the government but pledged $50 million over the next decade to fund workforce development programs in Rhode Island.
  • The school made several other concessions to the Administration in the deal, including adopting its definitions of male and female, sharing admissions data with the Administration, and codifying previously announced reforms to address discrimination on campus. 

 

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.
• 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.
  • 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.
  • Reports emerged in April that the Administration had directed the IRS to review Harvard’s tax-exempt status.
• 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.
• On April 21, Harvard University announced that the institution had filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration, arguing that the Administration had acted unlawfully in halting federal funding.
• 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. 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.
• On June 4, President Trump issued an order barring foreign students from entering the U.S. to study at Harvard University, citing national security concerns and accusing the school of withholding information about alleged illegal activity by international students. He also authorized the State Department to begin revoking current visas. Harvard has called the order illegal and retaliatory, and a federal judge promptly blocked it, ruling the university would face immediate and irreparable harm.
• On July 9, the Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services notified Harvard’s accreditor – the New England Commission of Higher Education (NECHE) – that they have “strong evidence to suggest” the school no longer meets its accreditation standards. The agencies assert Harvard is violating civil rights laws due to antisemitism and discrimination on campus and calls on NECHE to enforce its policies to ensure the school is in compliance with federal law.
• On July 9, the Department of Homeland Security sent subpoenas to Harvard in an effort to force the school to turn over information about its international students.
  • Sec. Noem has previously sought to bar the school’s ability to enroll foreign students and demanded disciplinary records for students on foreign visas. DHS said the school has refused requests for this information, and they are now seeking to force Harvard to turn over ”relevant records, communications and other documents relevant to the enforcement of immigration laws” since Jan. 1, 2020.
• Reports emerged in August that the school and the Trump Administration were making progress on a $500 million settlement agreement to resolve the lengthy feud and restore frozen federal funding. The school would also undertake a series of reforms, and rather than going to the government, the settlement funds would go to vocational and education training programs in the state, similar to Brown’s deal, according to reports.
  • As of September, a settlement had yet to be reached. However, the school has also begun undertaking changes the Trump Administration is seeking as part of a settlement agreement, including eliminating diversity offices and ousting some program leaders.
• On Mon. September 29, the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) Office for Civil Rights submitted Harvard for suspension and debarment, which could cut the university off from all federal grants and contracts, over Title VI violations concerning antisemitism. Harvard has 20 days to request a formal hearing, which would be conducted by an administrative law judge.
• On February 2, 2026, President Trump escalated his clash with Harvard University, saying he is now seeking $1 billion in damages over the university’s alleged failure to address campus antisemitism, up from a previously demanded $500 million settlement after reports emerged that the Administration was no longer seeking a cash settlement in negotiations.
• On February 6, 2026, the Department of Defense announced it will end fellowships, certification programs, and graduate-level military education partnerships with Harvard beginning in the 2026-27 academic year.
  • It is unclear whether U.S. Department of Defense research funding will be impacted.
• On Fri. February 13, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice sued Harvard University, alleging the school failed to comply with a federal investigation into whether its admissions practices violate civil rights laws following the Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
• On Fri. March 20, 2026 the Trump administration sued Harvard, alleging it failed to address antisemitism and discriminated against Jewish and Israeli students in violation of Title VI.
  • The Justice Department is seeking to halt federal funding, recover past grant payments, and impose court-ordered reforms.
• On March 23, 2026, the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) launched new probes into Harvard University over allegedly discriminating against students in its admissions process by using “illegal race-based preferences.”

  • OCR will also investigate alleged ongoing antisemitic harassment on Harvard’s campus and the institution’s purported failure to protect Jewish students. 

     

Cornell University and Northwestern University:  Antisemitism - Resolved

• In April, 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.
• As of August, both schools were still experiencing federal funding pauses and had yet to reach a deal with the Trump Administration.
  • Bloomberg reported in early August that Cornell was near a deal with the Trump Administration to end the probe that would involve the school paying a $100 million fine.But a deal has yet to be reached, and reports emerged in late August that the school was planning a restructuring amid declining federal funding.
  • In late July, Northwestern cut over 400 faculty amid the ongoing funding pause. Still, faculty were urging the school not to give in to the Administration’s demands as of September.       
• On November 7, Cornell reached a $30 million settlement with the Trump administration to restore millions in frozen federal research grants and end federal investigations into its handling of antisemitic incidents. 

 

UCLA:  Antisemitism - Ongoing

• In late July, the UCLA announced the Trump Administration was suspending over $500 million in research funding to the school. That same week, the Justice Department announced it had determined that the school violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to protect Jewish students on campus.
  • According to multiple reports, the Trump Administration is demanding a $1 billion settlement coupled with other reforms to resolve the investigation.
• On August 12, a federal judge ordered the National Science Foundation (NSF) to restore the roughly $81 million in grants suspended for UCLA researchers, citing a lawsuit challenging prior mass terminations of NSF funding.
• In late October, details emerged on the proposed $1.2 billion settlement after a court order, with the Administration seeking major changes to the university’s DEI, admissions, and campus policies.
  • The proposed settlement calls for eliminating “identity-based preferences" in faculty hiring, scholarships, and admissions, banning references to racial identity, and restricting transgender policies, including care for minors and participation in women’s sports, among other reforms.
• On February 13, 2026, the Trump Administration agreed to drop its appeal of a federal court injunction that blocked its attempt to freeze hundreds of millions in research grants and seek a roughly $1 billion penalty from the University of California system.
• On February 24, 2026, the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division sued the University of California system, alleging its Los Angeles campus (UCLA) failed to adequately address workplace antisemitism and properly investigate complaints from Jewish and Israeli employees following the October 7 attacks.
• On May 26, the Justice Department filed a lawsuit against the school, alleging UCLA violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by failing to adequately respond to antisemitic harassment and discrimination against Jewish and Israeli students following the October 7 Hamas attacks.
  • The DOJ alleges UCLA allowed a hostile educational environment to persist, including incidents involving physical assaults and protest encampments that blocked Jewish and Israeli students from accessing academic buildings.

 

Duke University: Racial Discrimination - Ongoing

• In late July, the Trump Administration froze just over $100 million in research funding to Duke over allegations of racial discrimination in the form of affirmative action.
  • The Trump Administration accuses Duke of providing racial preferences in recruiting, admissions, scholarships, hiring and more. But it refers to allegations of discrimination without offering specific examples.

As of late August, the funding still remained frozen. Duke has taken cost cutting measures in response to the financial uncertainty the school is facing.

 

Other Investigations to Note:

• Haverford - Antisemitism: On August 20, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights launched an investigation into Haverford College for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by “tolerating anti-semtic harassment.”
  • The department says it has heard from credible sources that senior leaders at Haverford told Jewish students who were reporting harassment not to expect to be safe.

 

• George Mason University - Hiring/Promoting Practices: In early July, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights initiated a Title VI probe into GMU based on complaints from multiple professors alleging the school is illegally considering race in its hiring and promotion process.
• On August 22, the Office of Civil Rights announced it determined that GMU violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act because of race-based discrimination in its hiring and promotion policies.
• GMU has ten days to agree to a Resolution Agreement that would force the school to issue an apology and review its internal policies to ensure they are in compliance with Title VI to resolve the investigation. 

 

Miscellaneous - Trump Administration

"Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education"

• On Wed. October 1, the Trump Administration unveiled a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” a 10-point plan offering nine universities preferential access to federal funds if they agree to specific conditions. The compact would require schools to freeze tuition for five years, cap international enrollment, mandate standardized testing, address grade inflation, and prohibit the use of race or sex in admissions and hiring. The pact also seeks to reshape campus politics.
  • A top office overseeing the University of Texas system welcomed the offer, signaling they may be open to agreeing to the compact.
• The Massachusetts Institute of Technology was the first of the nine universities to publicly reject the compact.
• California Gov. Gavin Newsom pledged to withhold state funding from any colleges that agree to the proposal – USC was one of the schools invited to sign it.
• Two Pennsylvania state lawmakers are proposing legislation to block state-funded colleges from signing the compact.
• The faculty senates at the University of Virginia and University of Arizona have formally opposed the compact, and other universities, including Penn, Brown, Dartmouth, and Vanderbilt, are reviewing the proposal amid pushback to schools signing on.
• On October 15, Brown University became the second institution to decline the compact.
• On October 16, the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Southern California became the third and fourth institutions to reject the compact.
• On October 17, the University of Virginia declined the invitation to sign the compact.
• On October 17, Dartmouth University announced that it would not sign the compact.
• On October 20, the University of Arizona declined to sign the compact. 

• As of October 24, just two schools – Vanderbilt and UT Austin – of the initial nine sent the compact have yet to respond to the offer. All other institutions have rejected it. 

   

Tax-Exempt Status Rulemaking

• In early June, reports emerged that the Treasury Department is considering releasing new guidance that could lead to private colleges and universities losing their tax-exempt status if they factor race into admissions, scholarships, and other programs.
• This move would seek to significantly broaden the impact of the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling against race-based admissions and could impact over 1,500 institutions. The Office of Tax Policy was reportedly reviewing draft language as the Trump Administration continues its push to remake higher education. If promulgated as reported on, schools would likely adopt race-neutral policies and end programs that try to aid minority groups. Importantly, any guidance in this effect would likely face a legal challenge.
  • As of mid-September, no rule of this matter has been issued and no additional updates about whether Treasury is still considering issuing it have emerged. 

 

International Students and Immigration

• International students have not been spared from the Trump Administration’s crackdown on immigration. The Administration has targeted students for overstaying visas, expressing foreign policy views contradicting the Administration, and those that have engaged in any criminal or prohibited activity.
  • As of late August, the State Department said it has revoked over 6,000 international student visas this year, mostly for alleged law violations and visa overstays. The State Department added that 200 to 300 of these visas were revoked over terrorism-related claims.
• Other reports discuss emails student visa holders have received instructing them to self-deport or face arrest and deportation. These efforts to encourage self deportation could be bolstered by high-profile cases of students the Administration has sought to deport.
• In May, reports emerged the Trump Administration was enhancing vetting of student visas to include social media scrubbing.
• Amid the crackdown on foreign students, NAFSA estimates international enrollment could be down by 15 percent this fall compared to last year.
• On August 28, the Department of Homeland Security proposed a rule that would limit the amount of time a foreign student visa holder could stay in the country to 4 years.
  • If finalized, the rule would require foreign students to be regularly assessed by DHS to remain in the U.S. for a longer period.

 

H1-B Visas

• In late September, President Trump signed a proclamation adding a $100,000 fee for high-skilled workers to enter the country through the H-1B visa program. The order, which mentions abuse of the program, will only apply to new requests.
  • As of June 30, colleges and universities employed more than 16,000 workers on approved H-1B visas, making up about 5 percent of the total.
• Immigration lawyers are planning to launch a lawsuit over the change, seeking to block it.
  • In the interim, some industries, such as healthcare, are seeking exemptions for their workers from the new fee.
• On Fri. October 3, several higher education and labor groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas, arguing it could cause major setbacks to U.S. research, graduate programs, and clinical care.
  • Plaintiffs, including the American Association of University Professors, claim the administration overstepped its authority and did not follow proper procedures.
  • The lawsuit seeks to have the fee declared unlawful.On Fri. October 3, several higher education and labor groups filed a lawsuit challenging the Trump administration’s new $100,000 fee for H-1B visas, arguing it could cause major setbacks to U.S. research, graduate programs, and clinical care.
• On October 16, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration to block a newly imposed $100,000 fee on H-1B visa applications, arguing that it violates the Immigration and Nationality Act and exceeds executive authority.
• On October 21, a group of bipartisan House members sent a letter to the Trump Administration pushing back on its new $100,000 fee for new H-1B and urging Congress and the Administration to instead pursue bipartisan reforms to the program.
• On October 23, CASE signed onto an American Council on Education letter with nearly three dozen higher education groups sent to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem calling on the Administration to exempt colleges and universities from the new visa fee..
• On October 28, the Treasury Department launched an online portal for employers to pay the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee. The Administration clarified that the fee applies to new H-1B petitions for workers outside the U.S., but not to amendments or extensions for those already in the country, unless the request is denied.
• On December 23, 2025 a federal district court ruled that President Trump acted within his authority in issuing a proclamation requiring employers to pay an additional $100,000 before new H-1B visas can be processed, finding the action was permitted under the broad discretion granted by the Immigration and Nationality Act.
  • The plaintiffs in the case appealed the ruling.
• In March 2026, the Department of Labor proposed a rule that would increase prevailing wage rates for H-1B visa holders and similar foreign worker classifications.
  • Experts believe that the proposal would make it more costly for employers to hire workers via the H-1B Visa Program. The proposal is open to public comments until late May 2026.
• In June, 2026, a federal judge struck down the fee,  ruling that the policy amounted to an unlawful tax that only Congress has the authority to impose. 

  • While this marks a setback to the Administration’s efforts, the decision is expected to be appealed. 

     

Title IX

US Department of Education 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. 

 

US Department of Education  

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.
• Update: On August 14, a Trump-appointed federal judge ruled the Trump Administration’s attempts to impose a conservative interpretation of federal anti-discrimination law on schools was unlawful.
  • The ruling vacated the Department of Education’s February 14 Dear Colleague Letter to educational institutions receiving federal funds, instructing them that they must cease using race preferences and stereotypes as a factor in their admissions, scholarships, hiring, promotions, and many other activities to comply with the Administration’s interpretation of the Students for Fair Emissions decision.
  • The courts had previously blocked the Administration from enforcing the letter.

 

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.
• On March 1, the Department released a Frequently Asked Questions document which provides additional guidance on the Feb. 14 Dear Colleague Letter.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
  • The Department also announced a separate investigation into six schools over alleged impermissible race-based scholarships and race-based segregation.

 

Other Efforts Concerning DEI and Civil Rights Laws 

• On July 29, 2025 the Department of Justice sent a memo to federal funding recipients that included guidance on DEI programs and single-sex spaces that clarifies when a school could be at risk of losing its federal funding.
  • The guidance says Race-based scholarships and programs are likely illegal and instructs institutions to no longer prioritize “underrepresented groups” for admissions or hiring, especially if they are considering race or proxies for it, like asking about lived experience.
  • For single sex spaces, the guidance clarifies that federally-funded institutions cannot “allow males, including those self-identifying as ‘women,’” to use single-sex spaces that are designated for women.
  • While non-binding, the memo warns that violating the guidance could result in the revocation of federal grant funding.
• On January 14, 2026, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced investigations into 18 educational entities across 10 states over alleged Title IX violations related to policies allowing students to participate in sports based on gender identity rather than biological sex.
• On February 19, 2026, the Department’s Office for Civil Rights announced it reached resolution agreements with 31 universities to end partnerships with The PhD Project after the OCR determined that the institutions violated Title VI by collaborating with an organization that allegedly restricted participation based on race.
  • The institutions have either already severed ties or agreed to do so and to review other partnerships. Investigations remain ongoing at 14 other institutions over connections to The PhD Project.
• In February 2026, the General Services Administration proposed a rule targeting the DEI programs of federal grantees, including colleges and universities.
  • The proposal would update the certification requirements for registering for the federal grant portal SAM.Gov to incorporate President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders and other Administration priorities.
  • Federal grantees would need to certify they are in compliance with all federal laws and relevant executive orders that prohibit unlawful discrimination on the basis of race or color in federally funded programs.

  • The proposal is open to public comment until March 30, 2026.

     

Admissions Data Reporting

• On August 14, the Education Department released a draft proposal implementing President Trump’s new order requiring certain four-year colleges with selective admissions to report detailed, racially disaggregated data on applicants and admissions decisions.
  • Under the proposal, covered schools would need to report data from the last five years as part of the 2025-26 Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System reporting cycle, including race, sex, GPA, test scores, application timing, and financial aid status, but not legacy admissions.
  • The Department of Education is seeking public comment on the plan until early October, including requesting feedback on which institutions should be covered and the potential administrative burden.
• On November 12, the Department issued a notice that clarified the enhanced reporting requirements would not apply to two-year colleges and open-enrollment institutions that only award aid based on financial need
• On March 11, 2026 17 Democratic state attorneys general sued over the agency’s new requirement that four-year colleges provide detailed admissions and applicant data broken down by race and sex.
  • The lawsuit argues that the Department is unlawfully expanding IPEDS data collection to further “partisan ends” and didn’t follow proper procedural steps.
• On March 24, 2026, a federal judge again pushed back the deadline for colleges and universities to provide this data until April 6 as part of the suit brought by the 17 Democratic state AGs.
  • The judge said they expect to issue a decision next week on the request for a preliminary injunction against the requirements, which could provide some longer-term relief.
• On April 3, 2026,  a federal judge issued a preliminary injunction temporarily blocking the Department from enforcing a deadline for public colleges in 17 states to submit admissions data broken down by race and sex.
  • The judge concluded that while gathering this data is likely within the Department’s legal authority, the rushed timeline likely violated the Administrative Procedures Act. The underlying case will continue to make its way through the courts.
• On April 13, 2026,  a federal judge gave members of six higher education associations and six private schools more time (until April 24) to submit their admissions date.
  • The judge said he was extending the deadline for these institutions to report while he considers whether to block the data collection efforts against them. The covered associations and schools can be found here. 

• On April 27, 2026, a federal judge blocked the Department of Education from requiring over 170 additional colleges to submit detailed race and sex data on applicants and enrollees while a lawsuit against the agency’s new enhanced data collection efforts played out.

   

Accreditation

• 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.
• On. January 26, 2026, the Department announced plans to form the Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization (AIM) negotiated rulemaking committee to develop proposed regulations aimed at overhauling the higher education accreditation system.
  • The reforms the panel will consider are consistent with the items laid out in President Trump’s Executive Order, including making it easier for new accreditors to be recognized and ensuring accreditors' standards fully comply with federal civil rights laws to address DEI concerns.
• On February 26, 2026, the Department issued a new interpretive rule designed to reduce barriers for new and emerging accrediting agencies seeking federal recognition, aiming to increase competition and expand options for colleges.
• On Mon. March 16, 2026 the Department directed two accrediting bodies–the Middle States Commission on Higher Education and the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education–to eliminate DEI standards, arguing they may violate civil rights law.
• On April 6, 2026, the Department released draft regulations to overhaul the accreditation system ahead of a negotiated rulemaking session on the proposal.
  • The proposed changes include streamlining the process for new accreditors to be recognized and requiring that accreditors ensure colleges have policies that allow for “a range of academic perspectives” to be expressed.
  • The proposal would also require accreditors to comply with all federal and state laws, including “the prohibition of preferential treatment based on protected characteristics.”

• On May 21, the Department advanced its major overhaul of the higher education accreditation system after negotiators reached consensus on a 173-page regulatory package, moving the proposal toward formal rulemaking and public comment. 

  • The plan would expand accreditor responsibilities to include oversight of First Amendment compliance, academic research integrity, intellectual diversity measures, and new transparency requirements for transfer credit policies.  

   

Student Loans

• In July, the Education Department announced that starting in August, about 8 million borrowers enrolled in the Biden-era SAVE student loan repayment program will begin accruing interest on their loans, ending a year-long pause.
  • The average borrower is expected to face up to $3,500 in annual interest charges. The Department is urging borrowers to switch plans, though processing delays are expected due to a backlog of income-driven repayment applications.
• In January 2026, the Department completed a negotiated rulemaking session to implement a provision from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that requires programs to show graduates earn more than workers with just a high school diploma to retain access to federal student loans.
  • The rule that would also bar low-earning programs of access to Pell Grants in addition to direct student loans if they fail the accountability tests
• On. January 29, 2026, the Department issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement student loan reforms from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
  • The proposal would eliminate Grad PLUS loans, impose new annual and lifetime borrowing caps for graduate and professional students, and consolidate loan repayment plans into two options, among other reforms.
  • Comments for the proposal are due by March 2, 2026.
• On March 6, 2026, the Education Department released a proposed rule to implement the Workforce Pell Grant program, expanding Pell eligibility to short-term workforce training programs as brief as eight weeks.
  • The proposal also changes broader Pell eligibility rules by barring students whose scholarships already cover their full cost of attendance from receiving additional Pell aid.
• Colleges, professional organizations, and others submitted over 65,000 in response to the Department rule implementing OBBBA-reforms defining which graduate programs qualify as “professional” degrees under new federal student loan caps, primarily expressing concerns that the definition of professional student, currently limited to 11 fields, is too narrow.
  • More than 150 lawmakers also weighed in, calling on the Department to reverse course and deem post-baccalaureate nursing degrees a professional degree.
• In late April 2026, the Department reached out to financial aid administrators to let them know that borrowers who took out Grad PLUS loans will have those loans counted against the new lifetime loan limit of $257,500.
  • This marks a departure from regulations proposed in January. NASFAA criticized the move and said the Department needs to issue formal guidance on the reversal.
• On April 30, 2026, the Department  finalized its implementing the reforms to student loan programs enacted in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
  • The final rule contains the same definition of what constitutes a “professional” program as the Department initially proposed for student loan borrowing caps, only considering 11 fields as professional.
  • Maintaining this narrow definition drew swift pushback, and some advocacy groups are reportedly considering legal challenges to the narrow definition.
• On May 7, 2026, Congressional Democrats announced plans to introduce a Congressional Review Act resolution repealing the rule implementing the student loan changes from the One Big Beautiful Bill Act.
  • While the resolution is unlikely to pass through the GOP-controlled Congress, it will be noteworthy to see how much GOP support it gets if it is brought up for a vote, given the narrow definition of professional programs eligible for higher loan caps drew bipartisan pushback.
• On May 19, more than 20 states filed suit against the Department over this rule.
  • The rule is being challenged for narrowing the scope of qualifying programs, which states argue could restrict access to funding for a broader range of graduate and professional degrees.

• In June, 2026, House appropriators adopted an amendment to FY27 spending legislation for the Department of Education that would designate graduate nursing programs as professional degrees, allowing them to borrow up to higher federal student loan limits enacted in the OBBBA.

   

Miscellaneous 

• On January 15, 2026, the Departments of Education (ED) and Labor (DOL) announced a new partnership to integrate federal postsecondary education and workforce development programs. Starting in late January 2026, ED staff will be detailed to DOL, and affected grants will transition to DOL’s grants management and payment systems to align oversight across agencies.
• On February 23, 2026, the Department announced two new interagency agreements to further “break up the federal education bureaucracy” by partnering with the State Department and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to streamline the delivery of certain federal education programs and reduce administrative burdens.
  • Under the agreements, the State Department will help the agency with Section 117 foreign gift disclosure, including assessing industry companies with their legal requirements.
• On Thurs. March 19, 2026, the Department and the Treasury Department announced the new Federal Student Assistance Partnership to improve management of the federal student loan portfolio and help return borrowers in default to repayment.
  • Under the agreement, Treasury will take on a larger operational role, beginning with collecting defaulted loans and potentially expanding other loan servicing functions.
  • The move is intended to address challenges in overseeing the $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio, including high default rates and low repayment participation, while bringing greater financial oversight and efficiency to federal aid programs.
• On April 17, 2026, the Department  proposed a rule implementing the OBBBA provision requiring  undergraduate programs to demonstrate that graduates earn more than workers with only a high school diploma to retain access to federal student loans. Graduate programs would also be required to lead to earnings above those of an average bachelor’s degree holder.
  • Programs that fail this new accountability metric for two out of three consecutive years would lose access to federal student loans.
  • The proposal will be open to public comments until May 20, 2026
• On June 16, 2026,  the Department announced that it will shift key civil rights investigation and enforcement functions to the Justice Department through a new interagency partnership, while transferring certain special education and rehabilitation responsibilities to the Department of Health and Human Services. 

  • The move is part of the Trump Administration’s broader effort to reduce the Department’s role by delegating responsibilities to other agencies, though the Department will retain formal oversight of its Office for Civil Rights. 

     

Research Funding

National Institutes of Health (NIH)

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, 2025 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, 2025 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, 2025 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.
• On June 16, 2025 a federal judge overturned the National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) decision to terminate research funding for projects related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), LGBTQ+ issues, and gender identity. The NIH had canceled around 2,300 grants in total, but a U.S. District Court judge found no evidence to support a claim that DEI grants promoted discrimination and ordered the reinstatement of funding for the plaintiffs, affecting about 1,200 grants.
  • On August 21, 2025 the Supreme Court voted 5-4 to overturn the lower court’s order directing the Trump Administration to restore the canceled research grants in question. This ruling was not a final decision on the legality of the grant terminations but will allow the Trump Administration to continue to withhold the funding as the litigation plays out.
  • The American Council on Education and eight other higher education groups had urged the Supreme Court to uphold a lower court’s order.
• On December 29, 2025, the NIH reached a settlement with 16 states to resolve delays in reviewing over 5,000 research grant applications, following litigation over the Trump administration’s February directive that halted or canceled grants related to DEI, and other targeted topics.
• On January 5, 2026, a federal appeals court ruled that NIH cannot impose a universal 15 percent cap on indirect research cost reimbursements, upholding an earlier lower court decision. 

 

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.
• On July 25, Sen. Katie Britt (R-AL) and 13 Republican senators sent a letter to the White House urging faster disbursement of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding approved in the March spending bill, warning that delays could disrupt critical biomedical research and erode public trust.
  • While voicing support for the Administration’s commitment to ensure NIH funds are disbursed responsibly, the senators emphasized that withholding funds jeopardizes ongoing research and the nation’s leadership in medical innovation.
  • While Democrats have decried these interruptions in research funding from the start, this letter marked some of the most forceful, public pushback from congressional Republicans. 

 

Additional resources:

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

 

National Science Foundation (NSF)

• In early May, The National Science Foundation said that it will cap reimbursement for indirect research costs at 15% for all new grants awarded to colleges, following similar moves at other agencies like NIH.
  • On June 20, a federal judge struck down the National Science Foundation’s 15 percent cap on indirect cost reimbursements for new college research grants.
  • The judge ruled that the policy is arbitrary and capricious and does not align with federal laws or regulations. With this ruling, all four major agencies that tried to cap indirect costs on research grants have seen those efforts blocked or struck down in the courts.
• In May, a group of Democrat-led states sued the NSF over the indirect cost cap and paused or canceled grants.
  • On August 1, a federal judge ruled the National Science Foundation can continue to withhold research funds while litigation aiming to restore canceled funding plays out.
• In July, the Urban Institute released a report on NSF grants, finding the agency had canceled over 1,500 grants this year, totaling over $1 billion in research funding, overwhelmingly for projects related to DEI.
  • Through May of this year, The New York Times reported that NSF grant funding had declined by over 50 percent compared to previous years.
• In May, the National Science Foundation (NSF) imposed new rules barring grants to universities that support DEI efforts violating federal anti-discrimination laws or that boycott Israel or companies doing business with it. These restrictions apply to new grants and amendments.

 

Items to consider: 

• The Trump Administration fired 10 percent of NSF staff in February and has continued layoffs throughout the year. Former employees estimate that one-third of the staff has been let go. 

  • Downsizing at the agency could slow the review and disbursement of grants. 

     

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 extended the temporary freeze on the cap and followed similar rulings on caps imposed at NIH and NSF.
• The Department of Defense announced its own 15 percent cap in May that was also blocked in the courts in June.

 

Congress

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.
• In May, 2026, Rep. Scott Perry (R-PA) recently introduced the Protecting Academic Integrity Act (H.R. 9074), which would require colleges and universities to disclose any foreign gifts or contracts over $50,000.
  • The bill would require institutions to identify the foreign government source, and, where possible, the purpose or intended use of the funds. If no purpose is provided, institutions must report how the funds are being used internally and which department receives them.
  • The proposal has no cosponsors as of June 2026. 

 

Government Funding

• On July 31, the Senate Appropriations Committee advanced a FY26 funding bill that would provide $79 billion for the Education Department in a 26 to 3 vote.
• The bill ignores many of President Trump’s proposed cuts to programs like TRIO, Pell Grants, and early childhood education.
  • The bill includes $22.4 billion for Pell Grants and maintains the maximum Pell Grant award at $7,395 for the 2026-27 award year, rejecting the White House’s proposal to reduce the award to $5,710.
  • The bill also includes measures aiming to push back against some of the Administration's moves at the department, including new requirements that the agency make formula grants in a timely manner.
• During the week of January 12, 2026 Senate committees have advanced bipartisan spending bills for FY26 that would largely preserve federal scientific research funding, rejecting the Trump Administration’s proposed deep cuts.
  • The bills would provide $188.3 billion for research and include slight increases for agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health.

• On February 3, 2026, President Trump signed a $79 billion FY26 funding bill for the Department of Education within a broader spending package ending the short partial government shutdown. 

  • The bill maintains funding for Pell Grants, TRIO, FSEOG, Gear Up, Federal Work-Study, and the Office for Civil Rights, all of which Trump had proposed cutting or defunding.

   

Miscellaneous Congress

• 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.
• On March 10, Rep. John James (R-MI) reintroduced the Disclose Getting Investments in Foreign Transactions (GIFTs) Act (H.R. 1999). The bill would amend the Higher Education Act to require faculty and staff working at high research institutions as well as Title VI recipient institutions to report gifts and contracts from foreign nations.
  • Institutions would be required to publicize the disclosures, and failure to do so would result in fines and the potential loss of Title VI eligibility.
• On July 29, Sens. Bill Cassidy (R-LA) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Reps. Mike Kelly (R-PA) and Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) reintroduced the College Transparency Act (S. 2511, H.R. 4806) to provide students and families with clearer, more accurate data on college enrollment, graduation rates, and post-college earnings.
  • The bill aims to modernize higher education reporting by directing the Commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics to establish a postsecondary student data system that would include everything from student enrollment patterns to analyses of federal aid programs. The bill was introduced in both chambers with strong bipartisan support and is backed by several education groups.
• On November 10, Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), joined by several Democratic colleagues, sent a letter to Treasury Secretary and Acting IRS Commissioner Scott Bessent, urging him to use existing IRS authority to prevent a looming “tax bomb” for borrowers receiving student loan forgiveness under income-driven repayment (IDR) plans.
  • A 2021 law that makes forgiven student debt exempt from taxation expires at the end of the year (Dec. 31, 2025).
• On November 17, Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-WA), a senior taxwriter on the Senate Finance Committee, sent a letter to the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) requesting the examination of the tax-exempt status of college athletics and the implications of no longer allowing the NCAA, member institutions, and associated conferences to operate as tax-exempt.
  • Her request seeks analysis of federal tax rules, the effectiveness of excise taxes on excessive coach compensation, and whether Congress should codify tax rules for NIL collectives.
• On January 7, 2026, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) released a report accusing the Trump administration of violating or likely violating the First Amendment in 17 campus-related cases, including efforts to cut nearly $3 billion in higher education funding, revoke visas for at least 6,000 students, and push out faculty and staff for their views. Read the full report here.