'None of these goals are illegal': Challenges for universities in addressing funding threats
A PMG analysis reveals that over 30 institutions have revised their diversity initiatives.
TroibNews 
Public universities are rapidly reversing decades of diversity initiatives in a bid to appease the Trump administration and safeguard billions in federal funding, despite scant evidence that these changes will be protective.
President Donald Trump has targeted universities that permitted pro-Palestinian student protests and highlighted their inclusion efforts. He has initiated numerous investigations by the Justice and Education departments and halted billions in federal funding to some institutions.
In response, many flagship universities—often the largest and most resources-rich public institutions within their states—have either closed their campus diversity offices or reorganized them to evade scrutiny.
Since 2021, more than 30 universities have altered the operation of their diversity programs or offices in light of this rising opposition. According to a PMG analysis of the nation’s 50 flagship schools, 14 have entirely closed their diversity offices, with an additional 15 renaming or restructuring their programs.
A particularly notable incident occurred in March, when the University of Michigan, previously recognized as a leader in diversity initiatives, announced it would close its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, citing Trump’s executive orders.
Michigan is by no means isolated in this trend. Institutions such as the University of Iowa, the University of Virginia, and The Ohio State University have also dismantled their DEI offices since Trump assumed the presidency.
With multiple investigations into campus antisemitism, transgender student athlete policies, and various diversity-related issues ongoing, these institutions can only hope that eliminating diversity offices will help maintain a favorable relationship with the administration. At stake are billions in federal grants, contracts, and potentially even access to federal student aid, all of which could jeopardize even the most well-funded colleges.
The contrasting responses of Columbia University and Harvard University reveal the difficult position facing colleges. Columbia acquiesced to the administration’s demands in an effort to secure $400 million in federal grants and contracts, only to face increased scrutiny. The administration now considers placing Columbia under a consent decree for heightened federal oversight.
Conversely, Harvard has rebuffed the White House’s demands concerning admissions, diversity programs, and curriculum—the result being an immediate freeze of more than $2.2 billion in federal funding to the institution.
Tabbye Chavous, vice provost for Equity and Inclusion at the University of Michigan, highlighted the complex challenges faced by college leaders in light of these federal threats. She expressed concern that many colleges are dismantling diversity programs without an alternative strategy to address the needs of historically marginalized students.
“If we just dismantle things and don’t replace it with anything else, then we actually are not just dismantling an office — we’re actually turning our back on the goal,” Chavous said. “We’re saying we don’t care about increasing our Black enrollment; we don’t care about increasing our Latino enrollment; we don’t care about increasing our Asian enrollment; we don’t care about efforts that support our disability community. None of these goals are illegal.”
University leaders have historically prioritized creating inclusive environments for all students, establishing their diversity offices to boost representation from traditionally discriminated communities, such as women and racial minorities, and to ensure these students feel welcomed.
“Your graduating high school seniors represent a much more diverse group than they did 20 years ago,” said former University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan. “You can't ignore that. It's not ideological, it's demographic.”
PMG reached out to over 60 public university and campus system presidents regarding their responses to federal pressure to scale back diversity programs, yet only one agreed to an interview. Various requests went unanswered, some leaders declined interviews, while others pointed to published statements and federal policy updates.
The anxiety surrounding federal funding has grown in tandem with Trump’s criticisms of elite institutions. In addition to the funding pulled from Columbia and Harvard, the Trump administration has either paused or launched reviews of hundreds of millions in federal funding to Brown University, Princeton University, Cornell University, and the University of Pennsylvania.
Each investigation references Trump’s executive orders aimed at dismantling diversity programming and combatting antisemitism. These orders have initiated inquiries into numerous institutions regarding admissions practices, alleged race-based scholarships, and participation in programs designed to enhance diversity in business schools.
“That is the law of the land,” said House Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg, speaking about Trump’s executive orders. “If you want to continue receiving federal funds, you will do away with DEI programs.”
This intense federal scrutiny is part of a multi-year campaign led by House Republicans to eliminate diversity programs on college campuses that they argue are discriminatory. Many of these initiatives were highlighted during hearings that evaluated college leaders’ responses to antisemitism following the October 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel.
“It’s racist,” stated Rep. Burgess Owens, chair of the House higher education subcommittee. “We shouldn’t be able to look at each other and make any predictions about our opportunities because of our skin color. That’s why DEI has to go away. Affirmative action, same thing.”
However, many Democrats in state legislatures are supporting their state universities’ choices to maintain their diversity policies. New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martínez emphasized that the University of New Mexico's decision to keep its diversity office has the support of the state legislature.
“We're not going to buckle down to the whims of a failed businessman and throw out our values with whatever mandate comes from Washington — that’s just not who we are,” he asserted.
Republicans in state legislatures have laid the groundwork for the Trump administration’s assault on DEI programs. Since 2021, approximately two dozen states have enacted laws that restrict diversity statements in hiring, eliminate DEI training, prohibit the use of state funds for DEI programs, and limit certain curricula.
Before Trump took office, 20 flagship universities—located in predominantly Republican states—had already closed or renamed their diversity offices.
The University of South Dakota was the first institution to modify its diversity program, rebranding it as the Opportunity Center in November 2021. In June 2023, the University of Arkansas announced that personnel from its Division of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion would be integrated into other departments, including human resources and student affairs.
Recently, Georgia Democrats have successfully fought against a new Republican-led effort to implement a sweeping ban on any policies referencing race, color, sex, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Although the bill ultimately failed, Georgia Senate Minority Leader Harold Jones II raised concerns about the atmosphere the Trump administration is creating, which further enables these initiatives.
Jones criticized the terminology used in Trump’s executive order, which labels diversity programs as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.”
“To call it immoral discrimination, that goes beyond the pale of just having a legal difference,” Jones remarked. “The language being used now by Republicans is beyond anything really we've ever seen, especially for a president.”
In Ohio, Republican Governor Mike DeWine recently enacted a comprehensive ban on DEI programs in public colleges and universities. However, The Ohio State University President Ted Carter noted that the university had previously discontinued its diversity office—one of the oldest in the nation, established during the civil rights movement.
“DEI, whether we like it or not, the perception is that it's been a giveaway, and it's been given away to people of color,” Carter explained. “That’s not what it is. But we had to change that perception. So our strategy here is, yes, we did sunset a centralized office that was the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, but the work of supporting our students—not just marginalized students, but all students—that work will continue.”
In contrast, prominent universities situated in predominantly Democratic states have been slower to yield to the president’s directives.
The University of Washington, University of Oregon, University of California, Rutgers University in New Jersey, along with 12 other flagship institutions in blue states, have retained their diversity offices.
Only four schools in blue states have enacted changes to their programs following Trump’s executive orders. In January, the University of Hawaii modified its Office of Student Equity, Excellence, and Diversity to the SEED office, which the university insists was not intended to reference its previous name. Similarly, the University of Maine renamed its diversity office last month to the Office for Community and Connections.
University leaders admit the administration's threats regarding funding over diversity initiatives are substantial, yet several argue that the federal guidance lacks the legal authority to compel compliance. They contend that diversity initiatives have been part of their campuses for decades and are essential for supporting their most vulnerable students.
“Let me be clear — our commitment to the core values that underpin our support centers and programs will not be diminished,” University of New Mexico President Garnett Stokes emphasized in a statement. “These services are not about exclusion; they are about creating a campus where every student can reach their full potential.”
The university's commitment to its diversity efforts is echoed by Martínez and other state leaders. Similar support is evident for other flagship institutions. Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway informed his campus that the New Jersey attorney general has broadly endorsed the university's approach to diversity.
In Michigan, the decision to discontinue DEI programs has sparked a broader discussion about the ramifications of acquiescing to the Trump administration's demands, said Chavous. The University of Michigan, once recognized for its leadership in diversity policies, now faces a state ban on racial preferences in university admissions and the landmark 2023 Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which severely restricted the use of race in admissions.
President Santa Ono defended the move to eliminate the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and other alterations, stating to his campus that “these decisions have not been made lightly.” Nevertheless, students and faculty are urging the institution to recognize the broader implications of these changes, Chavous said.
“More people are seeing the stakes beyond ‘just the DEI programs’ to higher ed and the very fabric of what it stands for,” she remarked. “The one thing that we should learn from the Columbia example is that you can capitulate and capitulate and capitulate. It will not keep you from being a target."
James del Carmen for TROIB News
President Donald Trump has targeted universities that permitted pro-Palestinian student protests and highlighted their inclusion efforts. He has initiated numerous investigations by the Justice and Education departments and halted billions in federal funding to some institutions.
In response, many flagship universities—often the largest and most resources-rich public institutions within their states—have either closed their campus diversity offices or reorganized them to evade scrutiny.
Since 2021, more than 30 universities have altered the operation of their diversity programs or offices in light of this rising opposition. According to a PMG analysis of the nation’s 50 flagship schools, 14 have entirely closed their diversity offices, with an additional 15 renaming or restructuring their programs.
A particularly notable incident occurred in March, when the University of Michigan, previously recognized as a leader in diversity initiatives, announced it would close its Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, citing Trump’s executive orders.
Michigan is by no means isolated in this trend. Institutions such as the University of Iowa, the University of Virginia, and The Ohio State University have also dismantled their DEI offices since Trump assumed the presidency.
With multiple investigations into campus antisemitism, transgender student athlete policies, and various diversity-related issues ongoing, these institutions can only hope that eliminating diversity offices will help maintain a favorable relationship with the administration. At stake are billions in federal grants, contracts, and potentially even access to federal student aid, all of which could jeopardize even the most well-funded colleges.
The contrasting responses of Columbia University and Harvard University reveal the difficult position facing colleges. Columbia acquiesced to the administration’s demands in an effort to secure $400 million in federal grants and contracts, only to face increased scrutiny. The administration now considers placing Columbia under a consent decree for heightened federal oversight.
Conversely, Harvard has rebuffed the White House’s demands concerning admissions, diversity programs, and curriculum—the result being an immediate freeze of more than $2.2 billion in federal funding to the institution.
Tabbye Chavous, vice provost for Equity and Inclusion at the University of Michigan, highlighted the complex challenges faced by college leaders in light of these federal threats. She expressed concern that many colleges are dismantling diversity programs without an alternative strategy to address the needs of historically marginalized students.
“If we just dismantle things and don’t replace it with anything else, then we actually are not just dismantling an office — we’re actually turning our back on the goal,” Chavous said. “We’re saying we don’t care about increasing our Black enrollment; we don’t care about increasing our Latino enrollment; we don’t care about increasing our Asian enrollment; we don’t care about efforts that support our disability community. None of these goals are illegal.”
University leaders have historically prioritized creating inclusive environments for all students, establishing their diversity offices to boost representation from traditionally discriminated communities, such as women and racial minorities, and to ensure these students feel welcomed.
“Your graduating high school seniors represent a much more diverse group than they did 20 years ago,” said former University of Virginia President Teresa Sullivan. “You can't ignore that. It's not ideological, it's demographic.”
PMG reached out to over 60 public university and campus system presidents regarding their responses to federal pressure to scale back diversity programs, yet only one agreed to an interview. Various requests went unanswered, some leaders declined interviews, while others pointed to published statements and federal policy updates.
The anxiety surrounding federal funding has grown in tandem with Trump’s criticisms of elite institutions. In addition to the funding pulled from Columbia and Harvard, the Trump administration has either paused or launched reviews of hundreds of millions in federal funding to Brown University, Princeton University, Cornell University, and the University of Pennsylvania.
Each investigation references Trump’s executive orders aimed at dismantling diversity programming and combatting antisemitism. These orders have initiated inquiries into numerous institutions regarding admissions practices, alleged race-based scholarships, and participation in programs designed to enhance diversity in business schools.
“That is the law of the land,” said House Education and Workforce Chair Tim Walberg, speaking about Trump’s executive orders. “If you want to continue receiving federal funds, you will do away with DEI programs.”
This intense federal scrutiny is part of a multi-year campaign led by House Republicans to eliminate diversity programs on college campuses that they argue are discriminatory. Many of these initiatives were highlighted during hearings that evaluated college leaders’ responses to antisemitism following the October 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel.
“It’s racist,” stated Rep. Burgess Owens, chair of the House higher education subcommittee. “We shouldn’t be able to look at each other and make any predictions about our opportunities because of our skin color. That’s why DEI has to go away. Affirmative action, same thing.”
However, many Democrats in state legislatures are supporting their state universities’ choices to maintain their diversity policies. New Mexico House Speaker Javier Martínez emphasized that the University of New Mexico's decision to keep its diversity office has the support of the state legislature.
“We're not going to buckle down to the whims of a failed businessman and throw out our values with whatever mandate comes from Washington — that’s just not who we are,” he asserted.
Republicans in state legislatures have laid the groundwork for the Trump administration’s assault on DEI programs. Since 2021, approximately two dozen states have enacted laws that restrict diversity statements in hiring, eliminate DEI training, prohibit the use of state funds for DEI programs, and limit certain curricula.
Before Trump took office, 20 flagship universities—located in predominantly Republican states—had already closed or renamed their diversity offices.
The University of South Dakota was the first institution to modify its diversity program, rebranding it as the Opportunity Center in November 2021. In June 2023, the University of Arkansas announced that personnel from its Division of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion would be integrated into other departments, including human resources and student affairs.
Recently, Georgia Democrats have successfully fought against a new Republican-led effort to implement a sweeping ban on any policies referencing race, color, sex, ethnicity, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation.
Although the bill ultimately failed, Georgia Senate Minority Leader Harold Jones II raised concerns about the atmosphere the Trump administration is creating, which further enables these initiatives.
Jones criticized the terminology used in Trump’s executive order, which labels diversity programs as “illegal and immoral discrimination programs.”
“To call it immoral discrimination, that goes beyond the pale of just having a legal difference,” Jones remarked. “The language being used now by Republicans is beyond anything really we've ever seen, especially for a president.”
In Ohio, Republican Governor Mike DeWine recently enacted a comprehensive ban on DEI programs in public colleges and universities. However, The Ohio State University President Ted Carter noted that the university had previously discontinued its diversity office—one of the oldest in the nation, established during the civil rights movement.
“DEI, whether we like it or not, the perception is that it's been a giveaway, and it's been given away to people of color,” Carter explained. “That’s not what it is. But we had to change that perception. So our strategy here is, yes, we did sunset a centralized office that was the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, but the work of supporting our students—not just marginalized students, but all students—that work will continue.”
In contrast, prominent universities situated in predominantly Democratic states have been slower to yield to the president’s directives.
The University of Washington, University of Oregon, University of California, Rutgers University in New Jersey, along with 12 other flagship institutions in blue states, have retained their diversity offices.
Only four schools in blue states have enacted changes to their programs following Trump’s executive orders. In January, the University of Hawaii modified its Office of Student Equity, Excellence, and Diversity to the SEED office, which the university insists was not intended to reference its previous name. Similarly, the University of Maine renamed its diversity office last month to the Office for Community and Connections.
University leaders admit the administration's threats regarding funding over diversity initiatives are substantial, yet several argue that the federal guidance lacks the legal authority to compel compliance. They contend that diversity initiatives have been part of their campuses for decades and are essential for supporting their most vulnerable students.
“Let me be clear — our commitment to the core values that underpin our support centers and programs will not be diminished,” University of New Mexico President Garnett Stokes emphasized in a statement. “These services are not about exclusion; they are about creating a campus where every student can reach their full potential.”
The university's commitment to its diversity efforts is echoed by Martínez and other state leaders. Similar support is evident for other flagship institutions. Rutgers University President Jonathan Holloway informed his campus that the New Jersey attorney general has broadly endorsed the university's approach to diversity.
In Michigan, the decision to discontinue DEI programs has sparked a broader discussion about the ramifications of acquiescing to the Trump administration's demands, said Chavous. The University of Michigan, once recognized for its leadership in diversity policies, now faces a state ban on racial preferences in university admissions and the landmark 2023 Supreme Court case Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which severely restricted the use of race in admissions.
President Santa Ono defended the move to eliminate the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion and other alterations, stating to his campus that “these decisions have not been made lightly.” Nevertheless, students and faculty are urging the institution to recognize the broader implications of these changes, Chavous said.
“More people are seeing the stakes beyond ‘just the DEI programs’ to higher ed and the very fabric of what it stands for,” she remarked. “The one thing that we should learn from the Columbia example is that you can capitulate and capitulate and capitulate. It will not keep you from being a target."
James del Carmen for TROIB News
