Sponsors (3)
Want me to put this bill in plain English?
This is not an official government website.
Copyright © 2026 PLEJ LC. All rights reserved.
Bars federal higher-education funds to any college or university that does not certify it lacks programs or offices whose primary purpose is to advocate, promote, or otherwise support "diversity, equity, and inclusion" (DEI). The Department of Education is authorized to verify certifications, write rules, and terminate federal assistance for noncompliance, with an administrative appeals process that includes a 30-day filing deadline and a 45-day hearing requirement. Institutions would need to decide whether to remove or reconfigure DEI programs, complete certifications, and prepare for verification and possible enforcement actions; the measure also includes a statutory definition of "diversity, equity, and inclusion."
Adds a new section (Section 124) to Part B of Title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 that establishes the prohibitions and requirements described in this section.
Restriction on eligibility: No institution of higher education is eligible to receive funds or any other form of financial assistance under any Federal program, including participation in any federally funded or guaranteed student loan program, unless the institution certifies that it (1) does not and will not carry out any program, project, initiative, or other activity the primary purpose of which is to advocate, promote, or otherwise support diversity, equity, and inclusion; and (2) does not and will not maintain any office or other entity within the institution to advocate, promote, or otherwise support diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Information availability: Each institution that provides the required certification must, upon request, make available to the Secretary any information needed to verify the truth and accuracy of the certification.
Regulations: The Secretary shall publish regulations to implement and enforce the provisions of this section.
Appeals and procedural deadlines: If the Secretary determines to terminate financial assistance under this section, the institution may file an appeal with an administrative law judge within 30 days of notification; the judge must hold a hearing within 45 days of the appeal filing (the judge may extend the 45-day period on motion). The judge's decision is considered a final agency action.
Who is affected and how:
Institutions of higher education: Directly affected because federal eligibility is conditioned on certification. Colleges and universities that currently run DEI offices, campus climate programs, implicit-bias or inclusion training, targeted recruitment/retention programs, or student-affinity initiatives will face choices: (a) certify and remove or substantially alter existing DEI-focused offices/programs; (b) refuse to certify and risk loss of federal assistance; or (c) challenge enforcement legally. Compliance and legal costs will increase for institutions.
Campus faculty and staff: DEI officers, program coordinators, trainers, and administrators whose roles are tied to DEI work face loss of positions or reassignment. Faculty whose scholarship or service includes equity-focused activities could see reduced institutional support or constraints on sponsored projects if framed as DEI advocacy.
Students and student services: Students who benefit from targeted support, mentorship, recruitment, or retention programs aimed at underrepresented groups could lose access to services and resources. Student organizations and programming described as advancing inclusion could be limited or reclassified.
Department of Education and federal grant administrators: The Department must develop verification procedures and regulations, adjudicate appeals under compressed timelines, and implement enforcement actions. That increases administrative workload and may prompt litigation over statutory language, definitions, and constitutional claims (e.g., academic freedom, First Amendment, or equal-protection concerns).
External stakeholders and contractors: Nonprofit partners, consultants, training vendors, and legal counsel that provide DEI-related services to campuses may lose contracts or need to retool offerings.
Systemic effects and risks:
Chilling effect: Institutions may avoid new or existing initiatives that could be characterized as DEI work, even if those initiatives address compliance obligations (e.g., Title IX training) or promote access and retention for underrepresented students.
Legal and policy conflicts: The measure may generate lawsuits alleging First Amendment, academic freedom, or administrative-law violations; it could also create tension with nondiscrimination obligations and accreditation standards that encourage inclusive practices.
Uneven enforcement: Because enforcement and regulation authority lies with the Secretary, institutions may face inconsistent application or politicized enforcement depending on guidance and verification practices.
Short-term disruption: Rapid appeal timelines and potential immediate funding cuts (if implemented) could disrupt financial aid, grant-funded research, student support services, and institutional budgets.
Expand sections to see detailed analysis
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced February 13, 2025 by Gus Bilirakis · Last progress February 13, 2025
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House