Higher ed faces a crossroads over Trump’s executive orders on DEI.

Two recent executive orders issued by President Trump have reshaped the conversation around diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in higher education, prompting institutions to reassess their commitments and compliance strategies. The first order, issued Jan. 20, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” mandates the termination of DEI-related programs, positions and grants within federally funded institutions, calling such initiatives discriminatory and counterproductive. The second order, issued Jan. 21, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-based Opportunity,” expands on this directive by revoking multiple past executive actions that had established DEI-related mandates in federal agencies and higher education, stressing the enforcement of civil rights laws and eliminating race- and sex-based preferences. 

Higher education experts and institutional leaders say the two executive orders have created significant uncertainty for colleges and universities. Institutions are now assessing their legal obligations, the potential effects on faculty and student diversity and whether they can sustain DEI initiatives within the bounds of the new federal policies.

Legal and Institutional Response

Monica Khetarpal, a principal at Jackson Lewis P.C. and co-leader of the firm’s education and collegiate sports industry group, said many institutions had anticipated some level of pushback on DEI efforts but were still adjusting to the rapid pace of change.

“We’re encouraging institutions to audit first where they want to be in terms of their stance on diversity and inclusion,” Khetarpal said. “Each institution is unique, so it’s important that policies, communications and programs align with their individual mission and goals.”

She emphasized that while institutions must comply with the order, not all diversity and inclusion efforts must be eliminated. 

“The executive orders focus on ‘illegal’ DEI programs. There are ways to achieve institutional goals while still complying with the law,” she said. “In particular, an emphasis on inclusion—without tying it to protected classes—remains legally viable.”

Khetarpal also advised institutions to manage their external communications carefully. 

“This isn’t the time to make hasty decisions,” she said. “Colleges should consult legal counsel before releasing statements or restructuring programs to avoid unintended liability or government scrutiny.”

Many institutions are taking a measured approach to compliance, carefully reviewing the wording of the executive orders and seeking legal guidance to determine what programs, if any, can remain intact. Some universities are conducting internal audits to identify DEI-related positions and funding streams that may be impacted. Others are consulting with faculty and student groups to gauge the potential cultural impact of program reductions or eliminations.

Academic Perspective on DEI’s Importance

Dr. Stephen Santa-Ramirez, an assistant professor of higher education in the University at Buffalo’s Department of Educational Leadership and Policy, said DEI initiatives have long served an important function in higher education.

“These programs have helped dismantle systemic oppression and provide access and opportunities to historically marginalized groups,” Santa-Ramirez said. “The attack on DEI is ultimately an attack on those who have benefited from these initiatives—students of color, LGBTQ+ individuals, and people with disabilities, among others.”

Santa-Ramirez argued that DEI has been “weaponized” for political purposes. 

“There’s a lot of misinformation about what DEI actually is,” he said. “It’s unfortunate because these initiatives have strengthened institutions by making them more diverse and inclusive.”

He also expressed concern about the long-term impact on students. 

“If institutions scale back DEI efforts out of fear of legal repercussions, students from underrepresented backgrounds may feel less supported,” he said. “It creates a chilling effect where even programs not directly targeted by the order might be quietly abandoned.”

The potential loss of DEI programs could also impact faculty and staff recruitment, Santa-Ramirez noted. “Institutions that have built reputations as inclusive and supportive environments may struggle to attract diverse talent if they are forced to dismantle key initiatives,” he said. “That could have lasting consequences for institutional diversity and campus culture.”

An HBCU Perspective

For historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), the executive order presents a different set of considerations. Dr. Walter M. Kimbrough, interim president at Talladega College in Alabama, said his institution has not been significantly affected.

“As a historically Black college, we don’t have specific DEI programs because we’ve always been open to all but were founded to educate a population that was barred from education—descendants of enslaved people,” Kimbrough said. “So, while this order may impact predominantly white institutions (PWIs) more significantly, it doesn’t change our core mission.”

Kimbrough did note, however, that the order could shift student choices. 

“I believe more students and families will look at HBCUs because many of the supports that PWIs have for Black students are being banned,” he said. “They may decide that instead of attending institutions that historically excluded people like them, they should explore institutions that were created with them in mind.”

At the same time, Kimbrough expressed concerns about the broader implications of the order on financial aid and scholarship programs. 

“While our core mission remains unchanged, we are watching closely to see whether funding sources that support first-generation and low-income students will be affected,” he said. “Many of our students rely on federal grants and scholarships, so any changes to eligibility requirements could have a ripple effect.”

Looking Ahead

In the coming months, institutions must determine how to comply with the order while maintaining commitments to diversity and inclusion. Legal experts expect federal agencies, including the Department of Education, to issue further guidance on what is permissible under the new directive.

“There’s still a lot of uncertainty,” Khetarpal said. “Colleges need to assess risk, make informed decisions, and ensure they’re not making reactionary changes that could have long-term consequences.”

Meanwhile, Santa-Ramirez urged institutions to remain committed to their values. 

“This is not the time to be silent,” he said. “Institutions need to navigate these legal challenges while still standing firm in their mission to support all students.”

He added that some institutions are considering ways to continue their commitment to diversity without explicitly labeling initiatives as DEI programs. 

“Institutions may choose to embed diversity efforts within broader student success programs or frame them as leadership and engagement initiatives,” he said. “The goal remains to support underrepresented students while ensuring compliance with the new regulations.”