Current Affairs | Spotlight Story
As federal DEI priorities undergo a rapid rewrite, this article cuts through the noise to reveal what the legal and regulatory pivots actually mean for research funding and institutional operations, providing a strategic roadmap for navigating the transition while upholding core commitments to inclusive excellence.
US federal policy shifts have imposed significant constraints on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives in publicly funded institutions. The current administration’s rollback of affirmative action and increased scrutiny of DEI-related funding have forced institutions to reevaluate their practices and compliance strategies. This article examines the evolving legal and regulatory landscape, focusing on the implications for grant programs, institutional adaptation, and public messaging. More importantly, the article offers the research community a framework to navigate these changes while upholding commitments to inclusive excellence.
Legislation and Laws
The US government encourages diversity and inclusion through laws that fight discrimination and make spaces more accessible. These federal laws protect many groups within the US. Most notably,Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (1964) protects individuals against discrimination regardless of race, color, religion, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, or national origin. Title IX of the Civil Rights Act of 1972 (1972) ensures that schools treat students fairly, regardless of gender. There are additional protective laws, such as the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (1967), the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 (1973), specifically Section 504, and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (1990). While these laws provide an essential foundation for compliance with federal regulations, they cannot mandate empathy or engagement. True transformation requires evolving systems, culture, and leadership to foster engagement and meaningful inclusion for everyone.
Shifting Policies and Their Impact on DEI-Research Funding
The US administration’s policy shifts in 2025 have significantly affected how universities and non-profit institutions conduct DEI-related research, necessitating the research community to navigate a myriad of issues, including:
- Implementation of executive orders such as “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (Exec. Order No. 14173, 2025) and “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs” (Exec. Order No. 14151, 2025) , which eliminate DEI programs and revoke affirmative action.
- Federal funding freezes and grant cancellations affecting millions of grants focused on equity, minority health, LGBTQ+ issues, environmental justice or other DEI-related topics. In fact, as of April 2025, the National Science Foundation (NSF) canceled 1,574 grants, with nearly 90% identified as “related to DEI;” the National Institute of Health (NIH) terminated dozens of active research grants linked to LGBTQ+, gender-identity, or “DEI” studies; and the US Department of Education announced the termination of more than $600 million in teacher-training grants that were described as promoting “diverse ideologies,” including DEI. The US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development has also removed DEIA scoring criteria from 14 grant programs. While some DEI grants are under agency review, pending legal and constitutional challenges, there has clearly been a shift in how DEI funding ties are handled, leading institutions to carefully review grant proposals for alignment with federal policies.
- Increased regulatory pressure, audits, investigations, and penalties. The executive order signed on January 20th, 2025, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” (Exec. Order No. 14151, 2025) subjected institutions receiving NIH funding to rigorous audits and oversight to ensure compliance. Investigations into grant spending, policy adherence, and DEI outcomes have increased under the current administration, with penalties for violations. Failure to meet NIH equity benchmarks or improper use of grant funding has resulted in fines, grant suspensions, and full terminations.
Role of the Judiciary and Enforcement Agencies in DEI-Related Policies
The judiciary has been pivotal in redefining DEI policies tied to federal funding. Thanks to recent policy shifts, courts have increasingly weighed in on cases involving affirmative action or DEI requirements tied to NIH grant funding. Traditionally, federal policies have encouraged institutions to prioritize diverse hiring practices and inclusive research initiatives. However, recent challenges to race-conscious policies have led courts to question the legality of mandatory DEI program implementation. This is significant because the outcome of these cases directly influences not only how institutions structure their hiring and research priorities, but also the language that researchers use when preparing their applications.
Similarly, federal enforcement agencies, such as the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), Department of Justice (DOJ), and Office of Management and Budget (OMB), have also played a central role in shaping the impact of research nationwide, broadly, and the daily work of research administrators, in particular. With NIH increasingly tying funding to compliance with federal mandates, institutions are navigating an era of intensified oversight regarding their institutional DEI and anti-discrimination practices. Empowered by the administration’s emphasis on equity, federal agencies are now more actively investigating non-compliance with funding requirements to ensure institutions align their practices with federal standards aligned with Exec. Order No. 14151.
Adaptive Strategies for Compliance
Spurred by the administration’s policy shifts and enforcement, institutions are refining their operations in several ways to sustain mission-aligned outcomes while maintaining clarity, neutrality, and audit-readiness. For example, governance documents, unit names, and public FAQs are being updated to emphasize functions and outcomes, skills, access, and success rather than legacy labels. Teams are also mapping where federal requirements, sponsor terms, and state directives intersect with campus practice, and then triaging risk so universally applicable supports (e.g., tutoring, mentoring, research-skills training) remain broadly accessible. Potentially ambiguous activities use viewpoint-neutral criteria tied to the mission (e.g., first-generation status, Pell eligibility, geographic access, academic preparation) and anything that relies on protected-class preferences is routed for legal review, reframing, or discontinuation. Selection and outreach are being governed by published rubrics with objective criteria, weighting, tie-break rules, and plain-language notices of purpose, eligibility, and appeal, supported by decision logs that document the policy basis and aggregate outcomes. Program content is framed around readiness and belonging through skills modules (methods onboarding, data literacy, compliance, mentoring fundamentals, negotiation, professional communication), cohort design, and mentor matching based on goals and interests rather than through identity. Measurement pivots from identity-based counts to mission metrics, such as access (applications/yield from low-resourced pipelines), progress (gateway pass rates, credit momentum), research participation (entry/retention, abstracts), and advancement (internships, placement, promotions), are being reported in aggregate with clear methodology notes. Overall, these refinements have helped preserve impact, reduce ambiguity, and improve consistency across units while aligning language, criteria, and evidence with current federal requirements.
Public Discourse Influencing Societal Norms
Official government communications (e.g., speeches, press releases, media campaigns, policy documents, etc.) function as a potent avenue for defining and influencing broader societal norms and values. This messaging serves to signal government priorities and frame public issues in a manner consistent with those priorities. Programs originally designed to increase opportunities for marginalized populations have been discontinued, federal agencies have closed DEI offices, and non-federal entities have been notified that, to receive continued government funding, they must stop DEI activities. Specifically, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the Department of Labor (DOL) have all sent letters to grantees, instructing them to stop DEI-related activities. The Department of Education has also issued a directive to educational institutions to cease using race and other protected characteristics as a factor in admissions or risk losing federal funding.
Takeaways
As the federal funding boundaries shift, non-federal entities must proactively adapt their programming and activities to remain inclusive and effectively engage non-majority populations. Positioning DEI as a driver of performance and opportunity embeds inclusion into core operations, shifting it from a standalone initiative to a strategic business imperative. Importantly. to sustain inclusive excellence, institutions and research administrators should remain agile and informed, —aligning with mission-driven, legally compliant frameworks to navigate a complex, evolving regulatory landscape. Ultimately, to drive meaningful discourse forward, institutions must blend operational excellence with innovations in program design and precise policy interpretation.
This article was authored by members of the SRAI Engagement and Connection Committee (ECC). The ECC is responsible for supporting SRAI in fulfilling its mission and actively evolving SRAI programs to meet the diverse needs of current and prospective members of the organization. Learn more about the ECC on the SRAI website.
References
Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq.
Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.
Exec. Order No. 14151, 90 F.R. 8339 (2025). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/
Exec. Order No. 14173, 90 F.R. 8633 (2025). https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-illegal-discrimination-and-restoring-merit-based-opportunity/
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 504.
Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et seq.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.
Further Reading:
The following organizations provide ongoing analysis, policy context, legal interpretation, and sector-specific commentary relevant to federal funding, higher education, civil rights law, and DEI‑adjacent policy developments:
American Council on Education. (n.d.). https://www.acenet.edu
Center for Research. (n.d.). https://www.center4research.org
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (n.d.). CDC Stacks. https://stacks.cdc.gov
Faegre Drinker Biddle & Reath LLP. (n.d.). https://www.faegredrinker.com
Inside Higher Ed. (n.d.). https://www.insidehighered.com
Legal Information Institute. (n.d.). Cornell Law School. https://www.law.cornell.edu
Office of Management and Budget. (2024, April 22). Guidance for federal financial assistance (89 F.R. 30046). Federal Register. https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2024/04/22/2024-07496/guidance-for-federal-financial-assistance
Public Broadcasting Service. (n.d.). https://www.pbs.org
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. University of North Carolina, 600 U.S. 181 (2023).
The Huntington News. (n.d.). https://www.huntnewsnu.com
U.S. Department of Education. (n.d.). https://www.ed.gov