The Eliminate DEI in Colleges Act would add a new provision to the Higher Education Act that blocks federal funding for colleges and universities that carry out diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives or maintain offices dedicated to DEI. Under the bill, institutions must certify to the Secretary that they do not engage in DEI activities as their primary purpose and that they do not maintain any DEI offices.
The certification must be verifiable, and regulations would be issued to implement and enforce the rule. The bill also creates an appeals process if federal funds are terminated.
It defines DEI to include classifications such as race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and it prohibits favorable or differential treatment based on those classifications.
In practice, the measure would reframe eligibility for federal programs, including student loan programs, around a firm stance against DEI programs and offices. It raises questions about how institutions can maintain or adapt programs for student success while complying with the certification requirement.
The bill is designed to make DEI initiatives a disqualifying factor for federal support, and it assigns the Department of Education a new enforcement and regulatory role to administer this policy.
At a Glance
What It Does
Adds Section 124 to the Higher Education Act, restricting eligibility for federal funds to institutions that certify they do not carry out DEI initiatives or maintain DEI offices; requires verification and enables regulatory enforcement.
Who It Affects
Colleges and universities that rely on federal funding, the Department of Education and its funding programs, and institutions that do not currently administer DEI offices or programs.
Why It Matters
Sets a hard bar against DEI activities in federal funding criteria, potentially reshaping campus programs, compliance obligations, and the broader funding landscape for higher education.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill proposes a new provision to the Higher Education Act that would make federal funding contingent on a certification from each college or university. The certification would state that the institution does not carry out DEI initiatives and does not maintain DEI offices.
Institutions would need to provide information to the Department of Education to verify the accuracy of this certification, and the department would issue regulations to enforce the rule. If funding is terminated for non-compliance, the bill creates an appeals process handled by an administrative law judge, with specific timelines for filing and hearings.
The definition of DEI in the bill centers on classifications such as race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, and sexual orientation, and it prohibits any program or office that advocates or supports DEI. The policy would apply to federal funding programs, including federal student aid, and enforces a prohibition on any activity whose primary purpose is to promote DEI.
The bill thereby shifts the funding landscape by tying eligibility directly to a DEI-related certification and a formal process for enforcement and appeals.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds Section 124 to the Higher Education Act requiring DEI-related certification for federal funding eligibility.
Institutions must certify they do not carry out DEI initiatives and do not maintain DEI offices.
The Secretary can verify certifications and must publish regulations to enforce the provision.
There is an appeals process with an administrative law judge and defined timelines (30 days to appeal, 45 days for hearings).
DEI is defined to include race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, and sexual orientation, with a prohibition on differential or preferential treatment based on these classifications.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Restriction on eligibility
This subsection establishes that no institution of higher education shall be eligible for federal funds unless it certifies to the Secretary that it does not carry out any DEI program or activity as its primary purpose and does not maintain any DEI office. The mechanism creates a binary eligibility condition linked to DEI activities, subject to verification and future regulatory guidance by the Secretary.
Information availability
Institutions that certify must, upon request, make available to the Secretary any information needed to verify the truth and accuracy of the certification. This creates a data-access obligation for colleges and universities to support federal oversight and enforcement of the certification requirement.
Regulations
The Secretary is tasked with issuing regulations to implement and enforce the provisions of Section 124. This enables a regulatory framework to define processes, standards, and procedures for certification, verification, and penalties for non-compliance, as well as any transitional rules.
Appeals
If the Secretary terminates financial assistance, the institution may appeal to an administrative law judge within 30 days. The judge must hold a hearing within 45 days of the appeal, with potential extensions upon motion. The decision becomes a final agency action, providing due process to institutions facing funding termination.
Definition of DEI
DEI is defined as the concept that individuals are classified on the basis of race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation and are afforded differential or preferential treatment based on that classification. This definitional clause sets the scope of what the bill deems as DEI-related activity.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Education across all five countries.
Explore Education in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- The Department of Education and federal funding administrators gain a clear, enforceable framework to ensure funds aren’t used for DEI programs.
- Colleges and universities that do not engage in DEI initiatives or maintain DEI offices retain eligibility for federal funding, avoiding a funding loss.
- Institutional compliance teams gain a defined certification and verification regime, plus an established appeals process for funding decisions.
- Taxpayers and federal lawmakers gain a policy lever to curb DEI-related expenditures in federal programs.
- State higher education systems and funding agencies may experience more predictable funding eligibility criteria and oversight.
Who Bears the Cost
- Colleges that carry out DEI initiatives or maintain DEI offices lose eligibility for federal funds and must re-structure programs.
- Administrative costs rise for institutions to certify, document, and verify DEI-related practices.
- The Department of Education bears ongoing regulatory and enforcement costs to administer the certification and appeals framework.
- Institutions face potential legal costs and compliance burdens tied to the new requirements and possible challenges to the law.
- Possible negative impact on students who rely on DEI resources if campuses adjust or reduce these programs as a result of funding constraints.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing a policy goal of limiting DEI-related funding with the practical need to support inclusive practices that some view as integral to student success, all within a regulatory framework that must be precise enough to administer across diverse institutions.
The bill introduces a sweeping constraint on how federal funds can be used in higher education by tying eligibility to a DEI-certification. This raises questions about the breadth of DEI programs that could be affected and how institutions interpret “primary purpose” in practice.
Because the definition of DEI hinges on classifications such as race, sex, and gender identity, there is potential for broad and uneven interpretation across institutions. The enforcement mechanism—verification by the Secretary, regulations to implement the rule, and an appeals process—requires careful design to avoid chilling effects, vague standards, or unintended consequences for legitimate student support services.
A core concern is whether the bill would undermine efforts to promote equity in education by disallowing DEI training, inclusive curricula, or support services that some schools view as essential to student success. The administrative burden and potential litigation risk associated with certification, verification, and termination of funds could disproportionately impact smaller institutions or those in transition toward more inclusive practices.
While the provision includes a due process path via an administrative law judge, the ultimate effect is a broad constraint on how federal funds are allocated in higher education, with significant implementation questions still to be resolved in regulation.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.