TRUMP ADMINISTRATION ADOPTS NEW REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER RACE IS BEING USED IN ADMISSIONS

• U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Directs National Center for Education Statistics to Collect Universities’ Data on Race Discrimination in Admissions 
• Fact Sheet: President Donald J. Trump Ensures Transparency in Higher Education Admissions

 

OVERVIEW

On August 7, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education, under Secretary Linda McMahon, issued a sweeping directive requiring all federally funded colleges and universities to submit expanded admissions data to the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). The move follows Trump’s memorandum titled “Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions.” which instructed agencies to increase oversight and transparency in postsecondary admissions practices.
 

This order significantly broadens existing Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) reporting to include detailed race and sex breakdowns for applicants, admitted students, and enrollees, along with academic metrics such as standardized test scores and GPAs. The Department has framed the move as an effort to ensure compliance with the Supreme Court’s ban on race-based admissions, but it also establishes a new audit system to verify accuracy and makes the data publicly accessible. 

 

Institutions that fail to provide complete, timely, and accurate data now face potential remedial action under Title IV of the Higher Education Act, including the loss of federal student aid eligibility. 

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The Department of Education’s new directive represents a significant expansion of federal oversight into admissions practices at colleges and universities. It draws on the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA), which prohibits institutions from explicitly considering race in admissions, and leverages Title IV of the Higher Education Act — the statute governing access to federal student aid — as its primary enforcement mechanism.

 

By conditioning federal aid eligibility on compliance with these new reporting and audit requirements, the administration is using regulatory mechanisms to create de facto enforcement standards that go beyond the Court’s holding. Institutions that fail to comply — whether due to administrative burden, data discrepancies, or objections to the scope of the mandate — risk severe financial penalties, including the potential loss of access to Title IV funds.

 

The Department’s requirements mandate granular reporting of race and sex demographics tied to applicant qualifications and admissions outcomes. While this level of reporting is not required by SFFA, it is framed as necessary to enforce compliance. Additionally, the public release of the data could lead to greater reputational exposure for institutions — even in the absence of legal findings of noncompliance.

 

These developments raise potential constitutional and statutory questions regarding federal overreach into institutional governance. Specifically, they may invite legal challenges concerning compelled disclosure of sensitive data, the chilling of holistic admissions practices that remain lawful under SFFA, or undue interference with institutional autonomy. In the short term, institutions will need to review and, if necessary, reconfigure their admissions data infrastructure to ensure compliance — while also preparing for the possibility of litigation that may shape future regulatory boundaries.
 

BRIDGE POV

The new Department of Education reporting directive is not just about data — it’s about power. While the administration presents this as a transparency measure, it builds on the same political ideology that overturned affirmative action and now threatens to constrain even lawful, equity-focused admissions practices.

 

By leveraging Title IV authority, this policy risks chilling institutions' ability to pursue inclusive admissions strategies, while increasing public scrutiny in ways that may discourage efforts to enroll historically underrepresented students.

 

It’s a familiar pattern: just as recent executive orders on DEI were framed as protections, this directive invokes the language of fairness while undermining the systems designed to help achieve it. When combined, these policies threaten to undo decades of progress — and signal to the private sector that long-standing efforts to expand opportunity are now under siege.

 

At a time when trust, diversity, and upward mobility are in short supply, institutions that comply must also lead.

 

1. Evaluate Existing Data and Compliance Protocols: Conduct a thorough review of current admissions reporting practices and systems for data integrity. Ensure alignment with the new federal directive, including applicant-level disaggregation by race, sex, and academic metrics, and begin audit-preparedness planning now.
2. Maintain Equity Within the Law: Reaffirm your institution’s or organization’s commitment to equitable opportunity. Ensure admissions or hiring policies continue to comply with SFFA v. Harvard — leveraging lawful considerations such as lived experience or adversity — and train staff on how to uphold these values legally and consistently.
3. Reinforce Values and Safeguard Mission: Communicate internally and externally where your institution stands. Build clarity around how inclusion aligns with mission, outcomes, and long-term strategy. When values are publicly tested, principled leadership must respond — not just with compliance, but with conviction.

DOJ CLOSES TWO LONGSTANDING DESEGREGATION CASES IN MISSISSIPPI AND FLORIDA

• Justice Department Ends Half-Century-Old Desegregation Cases in Florida and Mississippi

 

OVERVIEW

On August 9, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the formal closure of two federal school desegregation cases—United States v. Yazoo City Municipal School District (Mississippi) and United States v. Escambia County School District (Florida). Both cases date back to the early 1970s and had subjected the districts to more than 50 years of federal judicial oversight to enforce compliance with desegregation orders issued under Brown v. Board of Education and subsequent civil rights law.

 

The DOJ filed joint motions with each respective district court to dismiss the cases, asserting that both school districts had achieved “unitary status”—a legal designation indicating full compliance with desegregation obligations. The motions followed multi-year monitoring and compliance reviews conducted by the DOJ’s Civil Rights Division in collaboration with the districts.

 

Specifically, the DOJ concluded that the districts had demonstrated sustainable progress in areas such as student assignment, faculty hiring, extracurricular access, and transportation equity. In both jurisdictions, the federal courts granted the motions and terminated the consent decrees, ending federal oversight.

 

The closures are part of a broader federal review of remaining desegregation orders across the country. While several hundred such cases remain active, recent DOJ actions suggest an increased willingness to close longstanding cases where districts are deemed to have met legal thresholds, even as racial and socioeconomic disparities in education persist nationwide.

 

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

The closure of these two longstanding desegregation cases marks a significant moment in the legal oversight of public education equity in the United States. Legally, the cases were dismissed on the grounds that the school districts had attained “unitary status,” a designation recognized by the Supreme Court that indicates a school system has successfully dismantled the vestiges of prior segregation to the extent practicable, in accordance with the Court’s mandate in Green v. County School Board of New Kent County (1968).

 

To reach this point, the DOJ was required to assess multiple factors outlined in Green, including student assignment patterns, faculty and staff diversity, facilities, extracurricular activities, and transportation practices. The Department’s conclusion that both districts were in “full compliance” with desegregation obligations signals that federal authorities no longer view judicial supervision as necessary to prevent resegregation or to enforce civil rights protections in those localities.

 

However, the legal implications extend beyond the specific districts. Under current jurisprudence, once a district achieves unitary status, it is freed from federal court mandates and may exercise greater local discretion over school governance—including decisions that could affect racial balance, school zoning, and resource allocation—without being subject to ongoing judicial review. While the district remains subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other federal statutes prohibiting discrimination, the heightened scrutiny that comes with a consent decree is removed.

 

Critically, these dismissals must also be seen in the context of a broader federal trend: the Department of Justice under the current administration appears to be accelerating the termination of remaining desegregation orders, which still number in the hundreds nationwide. That raises questions about what constitutes sufficient compliance in the modern era—especially in light of persistent racial disparities in educational access, funding, achievement, and discipline.

 

Finally, it is worth noting that these actions occur in parallel with broader legal and political s retraction from active civil rights enforcement in education, court rulings limiting race-conscious remedies, and growing debate over how to define and pursue racial equity within constitutional bounds. In this landscape, the conclusion of judicial oversight does not necessarily signal the end of racial inequity—it marks the end of federally mandated tools to address it.
 

BRIDGE POV
The DOJ’s closure of two court-supervised desegregation orders—each in place for over 50 years—may signal the end of judicial oversight, but it does not mark the end of racial inequity in American education.

 

These cases were not symbolic. They were structural guardrails designed to ensure access, fairness, and accountability in public education systems long shaped by segregation. Their termination now, amid a broader rollback of civil rights enforcement across sectors, reflects a pattern: retreat from federal responsibility to address systemic inequity.

 

For private sector leaders, this matters. Today’s workforce is shaped by yesterday’s schools. When historically marginalized students attend under-resourced, racially isolated schools, the opportunity gaps follow them—into college pipelines, into hiring pools, into career pathways. And when public systems pull back from their inclusion commitments, the burden shifts elsewhere.

 

While companies cannot singlehandedly solve systemic inequity, they must not ignore it. This moment calls for clarity of values, bold action, and a deeper understanding that inclusion doesn't begin at the workplace door. It starts with the systems that shape who gets there.

 

1. Invest in Education Equity Pipelines: Support partnerships with K–12 schools and community-based organizations that serve historically underrepresented students. Target investments toward early talent development, access to STEM and literacy programs, and college readiness initiatives that expand opportunity for the next generation of talent.
2. Audit and Align Talent Practices with Opportunity Gaps: Examine how legacy inequities—such as unequal access to advanced coursework or extracurriculars—may affect how candidates show up in your recruitment pipeline. Train hiring managers to evaluate talent with an equity-informed lens that recognizes potential, not just polish.
3. Use Your Voice to Defend Inclusive Opportunity: Advocate for public policies that promote access to quality education and racial integration—not just as moral imperatives, but as economic ones. Silence in the face of rollback sends a message. Use your platform to affirm that inclusion is not optional—it’s essential to business and to democracy.

TRUMP ADMINISTRATION IMPLEMENTS NEW OVERSIGHT PROCEDURE TO ENSURE FEDERAL GRANTS ARE NOT USED TO SUPPORT “[DEI] AND OTHER FAR-LEFT INITIATIVES.”

• Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking: EO #14332

 

OVERVIEW

On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14332, titled “Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking,” establishing a sweeping overhaul of the federal discretionary grant process. The order mandates that federal agencies designate senior political appointees to review and approve all new and renewal discretionary grants, ensuring they align with agency priorities and the national interest. This review applies to funding across all sectors, including research, education, health, and social services. 

Agencies are also required to retroactively revise existing grant agreements to incorporate “termination for convenience” clauses—enabling grants to be canceled midstream if deemed inconsistent with policy objectives. The Office of Management and Budget must prompt updates to the Uniform Guidance, and Notices of Funding Opportunities must eliminate language that could encourage DEI frameworks, implicit bias training, or racial preferences.

 

Further published in the Federal Register on August 12, 2025 (90 FR 38929), the order asserts the need to strengthen oversight, eliminate wasteful spending—citing examples like past NSF grants supporting DEI or gender ideology—and insists that taxpayer dollars serve “American interests” and “Gold Standard Science.” The policy shift sparked concern among scientific and nonprofit communities, who warned that political appointee-led grant review could disrupt funding stability and undermine peer-reviewed objectivity.

LEGAL INTERPRETATION

Legally, this executive order represents a significant expansion of executive branch oversight over federal grantmaking, using compliance mechanisms to advance the administration’s policy stance on DEI. While federal agencies have long exercised discretion in awarding competitive grants, the EO centralizes that discretion by requiring senior-level review and instructing agencies to screen for ideological content — explicitly flagging “DEI and other far-left initiatives” as presumptively impermissible uses of federal funds.

 

By coupling this review with mandated revisions to the Uniform Guidance (as directed by OMB) and a new requirement for termination-for-convenience clauses in all new awards, the EO creates a legal framework for both pre-award denial and post-award cancellation of funding based on broad — and potentially subjective — criteria.

 

From a legal standpoint, this raises serious questions about whether such restrictions align with the statutory purposes of individual grants and with federal anti-discrimination protections under laws such as Title VI, Title IX, and Section 1557. Conditioning funding on the exclusion of equity-oriented or identity-based programming could invite constitutional scrutiny under the Spending Clause, especially if the restrictions are deemed coercive, ambiguous, or unrelated to the grant’s central aim.

 

In practice, the order significantly raises the compliance burden for grantees. Organizations must now conduct rigorous internal reviews — not only to interpret evolving agency expectations about what constitutes “prohibited” programming, but also to safeguard against enforcement risk long after the award is granted. For institutions whose missions include inclusive or justice-oriented work, the threat profile has shifted: it now includes not just performance audits or mismanagement claims, but ideological scrutiny that could result in sudden termination and complex legal challenges.

 

BRIDGE POV
The Trump administration’s new executive order on federal grants is part of a growing trend: using regulatory tools to reshape the landscape of public and private investment. Framed as an effort to improve oversight and prevent “waste,” this order doesn’t just introduce new compliance mechanisms — it explicitly targets DEI and related programming as suspect or ideologically biased.

 

For the private sector, the implications are clear. This is not just about public grants. It’s part of a broader shift in how the government defines “appropriate” use of resources — one that could ripple into philanthropic giving, public-private partnerships, and corporate social impact programs. When DEI is labeled as political, even longstanding efforts to expand opportunity or close access gaps can be cast as liabilities.

 

The risk isn’t only legal — it’s reputational and strategic. Companies must now lead with even greater clarity, tying inclusion to core business priorities and managing for regulatory scrutiny without compromising mission. Doing this well requires foresight, resilience, and above all, consistency. In moments like these, leadership is tested not by what gets said, but by what gets funded, protected, and preserved.

 

1. Audit Grant-Funded Programs for Exposure: If your organization receives public funding — or partners with nonprofits or institutions that do — conduct a top-to-bottom review of relevant programs for any DEI-related language, goals, or partnerships. Assess whether existing descriptions, metrics, or public narratives could be mischaracterized under the new federal guidelines, and develop clear documentation tying work to neutral, lawful program goals like workforce development, community health, or economic advancement.
2. Strengthen Internal Review and Governance: Establish or reinforce internal mechanisms (legal, compliance, and public affairs) to vet programs that may intersect with federal funding streams or public sector partnerships. Equip cross-functional teams to respond quickly to new guidance, audits, or termination threats, including building legal arguments around program alignment with statutory grant purposes.
3. Double Down on Values-Aligned Storytelling: In a climate of ideological scrutiny, it’s essential to reaffirm your “why.” Develop external messaging that articulates how your inclusion strategies advance innovation, performance, risk management, and long-term value — not political agendas. This helps inoculate your brand against false narratives and provides clarity to internal and external stakeholders about what your organization stands for, and why.