Despite Trump’s executive order demanding an end to diversity programs at universities, nearly 400 institutions continue to operate DEI offices, risking billions in federal funding as the administration threatens severe financial consequences.
At a Glance
- Almost 400 colleges and universities still maintain DEI offices despite Trump’s executive order to eliminate them
- Only 16 institutions have fully closed their DEI initiatives, while 26 have rebranded to avoid scrutiny
- Elite universities like Harvard face billions in potential funding cuts, with $2.2 billion already canceled
- Experts argue that true educational reform requires cultural transformation beyond administrative changes
- The order conditions federal grants on institutions affirming they don’t operate DEI programs violating anti-discrimination laws
Universities Defy White House Directive
A comprehensive report from an education watchdog has revealed that nearly 400 colleges and universities across America continue to operate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices and programs, directly challenging President Trump’s executive order intended to dismantle such initiatives. The survey found that 242 universities and 162 schools or colleges maintain active DEI operations across 46 states and the District of Columbia, with California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts hosting the highest concentrations of these programs.
The administration’s executive order specifically criticizes DEI programs for allegedly violating civil rights laws and undermining American values. It mandates the removal of DEI offices in government agencies and federally funded institutions, conditioning federal grants on recipients affirming they don’t operate programs that violate federal anti-discrimination statutes. Despite this clear directive, institutional resistance remains strong, with only 16 colleges and universities fully shuttering their DEI initiatives.
Rebranding and Adaptation Strategies
Rather than eliminating DEI programs entirely, at least 26 institutions have chosen to rebrand or rename their DEI offices in what critics describe as attempts to evade detection while continuing similar work. These adaptation strategies highlight the tension between federal mandates and institutional commitments to diversity initiatives. Many institutions have simply altered terminology while maintaining comparable missions, demonstrating the resilience of these programs despite federal pressure.
The report also notes that DEI initiatives are particularly prevalent within medical, nursing, and engineering schools across the country. This specialized focus suggests these programs have become deeply embedded in professional educational structures, potentially making them more difficult to eliminate through executive action alone. The widespread nature of these programs across academic disciplines indicates their integration into fundamental university operations.
Financial Consequences Mount
The administration’s response to non-compliance has been swift and financially significant. Harvard University faces potential losses of $9 billion, with $2.2 billion already canceled. Other elite institutions face similar threats: Brown University could lose $510 million, Columbia University is seeking to recover $400 million in canceled grants, Cornell University faces at least a $1 billion cut, and Northwestern University confronts a $790 million funding reduction. Princeton University has had “dozens” of grants suspended with $210 million at risk.
University leaders have expressed alarm that these funding cuts could damage American society and academic freedom. Many administrators report confusion about the specific reasons their institutions were targeted, with some learning about funding suspensions through social media posts rather than official channels. The University of Pennsylvania had $175 million suspended over a transgender athlete’s sports participation issue, highlighting the broad range of concerns driving the administration’s actions.
Beyond Administrative Changes
Education experts like Meg Kilgannon from the Family Research Council have commented that reforming educational institutions requires more than executive orders. The persistence of DEI programs, even when rebranded, suggests that meaningful change would require deeper cultural transformations within academia. Critics argue that surface-level administrative alterations cannot achieve the level of reform the administration seeks without addressing foundational ideological concerns.
The executive order has broader implications beyond academia, as it also mandates examination of DEI practices in the private sector. Additionally, it suggests potential civil compliance investigations for institutions with large endowments, expanding scrutiny beyond direct federal funding relationships. This comprehensive approach indicates the administration’s determination to address what it perceives as systemic issues throughout American educational and corporate institutions.
