Within hours of stepping back into the Oval Office, President Donald Trump wasted no time dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. His administration swiftly moved to defund federal DEI programs, placing employees on paid leave and signaling an aggressive rollback. The crackdown extends beyond government agencies—higher education institutions now find themselves in the direct line of fire. Federal funding hangs in the balance, forcing colleges to navigate a precarious landscape. Some are quietly adjusting policies to stay under the radar, while others are doubling down on their commitment to inclusivity, despite the risk of federal backlash.
How are US universities reacting to DEI ban?
Numerous universities have resorted to packaging the programmes in a different wrapper, rather than completely discarding them. According to Associated Press reports, Northeastern University, for example, has renamed its DEI office to “Belonging in Northeastern,” reframing its mission as an inclusive effort for all students rather than a targeted diversity initiative. This strategic approach enables universities to enshrine their commitment to inclusion while lessening the chances of potential regulatory repercussions.
Another example comes from the elite Ivy League Princeton University. As reported by the New York Times, the university has not halted funding research and support for underrepresented student groups while focusing on compliance with federal mandates in its public messaging.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, the University of Michigan School of Nursing has quietly altered its website, removing DEI-specific terminology while maintaining the core initiatives under a rebranded office named “Community Culture.” Despite these changes, the same staff remains in place, and the DEI 2.0 strategic plan continues to be implemented through 2028. The move reflects a broader trend among universities attempting to comply with federal orders without fully abandoning their diversity initiatives.
The same report suggests that the University of Tennessee has renamed its DEI unit to the “Division of Access and Engagement,” while the University of Colorado has transitioned its “Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” into the “Office of Collaboration.”
DEI tweaks may not help evade federal crackdown
However, rechristening the name of the programmes does not help universities to escape the political gaze. Across the country, administrators are reassessing program titles and operational structures to ensure compliance without letting go of core institutional values. Several universities are treading carefully, apprehensive of attracting unwanted attention from federal agencies.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, faculty at the University of Michigan have expressed concerns that even minor adjustments to DEI terminology might not be enough to avoid federal scrutiny. Mark Perry, a retired economics professor from the university’s Flint campus, has been actively monitoring these changes, highlighting that the restructuring may serve as a model for other institutions seeking to maintain their diversity initiatives under a different guise.
The stark impact of these policies transcends beyond direct programme closure. Faculty branches, especially those engaged in research related to race, gender, and social justice worry that even indirect pressures will cause institutions to withdraw support for such initiatives.
Resistance and Legal Challenges
While some universities are making alterations in silence, others are taking a firm stand against the federal mandate. Mount Holyoke College President Danielle Holley has urged higher education leaders to resist what she sees as an attack on institutional values, AP reported. She believes Trump’s orders may be vulnerable to legal challenges and has vowed to maintain the college’s commitment to diversity.
The defiance reverberates in Silicon Valley demonstrating a broader trend of legal and policy battles circling the DEI. The 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action had already compelled universities to re-evaluate their diversity strategies. Now, with federal policies tightening further, institutions are navigating an even more complex legal terrain.
According to The Washington Free Beacon, the University of Michigan had already faced criticism prior to Trump’s policies, with media reports scrutinizing its diversity programs. In response, the university has begun diverting portions of its DEI budget into financial aid programs, signaling a potential shift in how resources are allocated in the wake of federal restrictions.
This defiance echoes the broader trend of legal and policy battles surrounding DEI. The 2023 Supreme Court ruling against affirmative action had already forced universities to rethink their diversity strategies. Now, with additional federal restrictions, institutions are navigating an even more complex legal terrain.
The broader implications
Beyond immediate institutional responses, the long-term repercussions of the dismantling could be significant. The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education forewarns that rolling back DEI efforts may negatively impact workforce diversity and social mobility.
Despite these setbacks, many faculty members and administrators remain committed to their work. Sheldon Fields, an academic leader in nursing education, recalls a similar political climate in the early 2000s when he had to modify grant proposals to continue HIV/AIDS prevention research without explicitly mentioning sexuality, NYT reports.
Impact on students and faculty
Beyond institutional responses, students and faculty across multiple states are feeling the effects of these changes.
At Penn State University in Pennsylvania, Sheldon Fields, an academic leader in nursing education, recalls a similar political climate in the early 2000s when he had to modify grant proposals to continue HIV/AIDS prevention research without explicitly mentioning sexuality, reported NYT.
In New York City, students and faculty have raised concerns about how restrictions on DEI initiatives could impact marginalized communities. At Columbia University, student organizations have launched advocacy campaigns to pressure the administration to maintain support systems for underrepresented groups. Meanwhile, at NYU, scholars worry that restrictions on DEI funding could have long-term effects on research opportunities and student mentorship programs.
The Future of DEI in Higher Education
As universities continue to adjust, the future of DEI in higher education remains uncertain. Whether through quiet rebranding, legal challenges, or open defiance, institutions are weighing their options carefully. With Trump signaling further financial penalties for noncompliance, the coming months will be crucial in shaping the role of diversity initiatives in American academia.
Institutions across Massachusetts, New Jersey, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, California, and New York are now at the center of this evolving policy landscape. The question now is not whether universities will continue their DEI work, but how they will navigate the changing political and legal terrain to do so.
