Department of Education DEI Enforcement in 2026: What Has Changed and What Has Not
Across the past year, federal policy on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in education has shifted rapidly. Underlying civil rights laws have not changed; the Department’s interpretation of them has. Institutions should be cautious about making immediate changes to policies, programs, or practices in response to shifting federal guidance. A series of executive orders, agency guidance documents, lawsuits, and grant decisions have created a complex and evolving enforcement environment for schools, colleges, and nonprofit organizations that receive federal funding.
Although recent court decisions have limited some of the Department of Education’s most prominent DEI-related directives, the Department continues to pursue enforcement through other mechanisms. Understanding what has changed—and what has not—is essential for institutions navigating federal compliance requirements.
Background
Executive Orders
After taking office, President Trump issued a series of executive orders directing federal agencies to eliminate DEI initiatives within the federal government and federally funded programs. Several of these orders formed the policy framework for subsequent actions by the U.S. Department of Education and other agencies.
Executive Order 14151, Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (Jan. 20, 2025), order directed federal agencies to eliminate DEI programs, offices, and contracts within the federal government. It instructed agencies to terminate equity-related initiatives, remove DEI requirements from federal programs and grants, and review agency policies for provisions that provide preferences based on race, ethnicity, or other protected characteristics.
Executive Order 14173, Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (Jan. 21, 2025), focused on federal contractors and recipients of federal funding. It required agencies to ensure that contractors and grantees do not operate programs the administration views as discriminatory DEI initiatives. It also required federal agencies to review existing grants and contracts for compliance with civil-rights laws and consider terminating funding for programs involving race-based preferences or requirements.
Together, these orders direct agencies—including the Department of Education—to identify and eliminate DEI-related policies and programs across federal operations and federally funded activities.
Subsequent Department of Education Actions
Following those directives, the Department of Education implemented several policy actions intended to operationalize the administration’s approach.
On February 14, 2025, then–Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor issued a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) announcing a new interpretation of federal civil-rights laws—particularly Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—in light of Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. The letter asserted that many DEI initiatives in K–12 schools and higher education institutions could constitute unlawful race-based discrimination. It warned institutions that programs such as race-based scholarships, training programs, or affinity groups could violate federal law if they treated individuals differently based on race or ethnicity.
An accompanying FAQ document, released on February 28, 2025, and amended on April 9, 2025, further explained how the Department believed Title VI applied to DEI-related practices. The FAQ addressed topics such as scholarships, affinity groups, faculty hiring initiatives, and training programs, reiterating the Department’s view that race-conscious programming—even when framed as promoting diversity or inclusion—could violate federal nondiscrimination laws.
On February 27, 2025, the Department launched an “EndDEI” portal, allowing students, parents, teachers, and the public to submit reports of alleged race-based discrimination in schools and universities.
On April 3, 2025, the Department issued a letter to states requiring them to certify compliance with its interpretation of Title VI and other civil-rights laws. State education agencies were directed to confirm that they and their subrecipients were not operating programs that treat individuals differently based on race or ethnicity. The letter warned that failure to certify compliance could put federal education funding at risk.
Legal Developments
One major legal development occurred in January 2026, when the Department voluntarily dismissed its appeal of a District of Maryland decision that had vacated the February 14, 2025, DCL and the April 2025 certification requirement. The court ruled that the Department had imposed new legal obligations without notice-and-comment rulemaking and that the policy raised serious constitutional concerns.
The Department initially appealed but moved to dismiss its appeal in the Fourth Circuit in January 2026, leaving the lower court’s decision intact.
In National Education Association v. U.S. Department of Education, filed in the Northern District Court for the District of New Hampshire, several education organizations challenged the DCL, the related FAQs, and the April 2025 certification requirement. During litigation, the Department agreed not to enforce these actions. The court dismissed the case in February 2026.
As a practical matter, this means the following are no longer enforceable federal policy tools:
The February 14, 2025, Dear Colleague Letter
The related FAQ guidance
The “EndDEI” portal
The April 3, 2025, Title VI certification requirement
Enforcement
Although the Department is no longer using the above documents as bases for enforcement actions, it has not abandoned its position on DEI measures. It continues to rely on July 2025 guidance issued by the U.S. Department of Justice, which outlines the administration’s interpretation of Title VI and suggests that any race-conscious or race-focused programs—including those framed as DEI—may constitute unlawful racial discrimination.
The Department has repeatedly cited this guidance as the legal basis for ongoing investigations and compliance reviews. Thus, while specific agency actions mentioned in the January and February 2026 decisions are no longer used, their underlying interpretations remain in effect.
Grant Cancellations
The Department has also used the federal grant process as an enforcement tool, terminating or declining to continue funding for grant programs it considers inconsistent with administration priorities. These decisions have been framed as discretionary policy shifts rather than civil-rights enforcement actions.
Proposed Changes to Grant Management System
Another potential long-term development involves proposed revisions to federal grant certification language used in the SAM (System for Award Management) registration process. The administration has proposed updates to align the certification language with its interpretation of the legality of DEI measures. Public comments are open through the end of March.
Because SAM certifications apply to all federal grantmaking, these changes could affect a wide range of education programs—even if courts continue to limit the Department’s ability to enforce DEI-related guidance documents.
The Bottom Line
The Department’s posture toward DEI measures represents a shift in strategy, not a retreat. While certain tools have been set aside due to court rulings and litigation, the underlying policy interpretations and enforcement priorities remain in place.
What’s Next
Institutions that receive federal funding should not interpret recent court decisions as ending federal scrutiny of DEI-related activities. Instead, the legal developments described above signal a shift in how the Department may pursue enforcement.
First, institutions should recognize that the February 2025 Dear Colleague Letter, its related FAQs, and the April 2025 certification requirement are no longer operative enforcement tools. However, the Department has made clear that it continues to rely on the same underlying interpretations of federal civil rights laws when conducting investigations and compliance reviews.
Second, organizations that receive federal grants should monitor developments in federal grant administration closely. Recent grant cancellations—including those affecting programs such as Full-Service Community Schools—demonstrate that agencies may use discretionary funding decisions to advance policy priorities even when formal guidance documents are no longer in effect.
Third, institutions should review the proposed changes to SAM registration and certification language and consider submitting comments before the end-of-March deadline. Because SAM certifications apply broadly across federal funding programs, changes to this language could have significant implications for grantees.
Fourth, expect the Department and Department of Justice to continue looking for new avenues to take a bite at the DEI apple. For example, this month, institutions of higher education are being asked to submit seven years of admissions and completions data to the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), including data on race and gender. This new data requirement is part of the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement developed in response to the President’s August 7 Memoranda to the Secretary, Ensuring Transparency in Higher Education Admissions, which alleges continued use of race-based admission practices after Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard. Next month, the Department is engaging in negotiated rulemaking on Accreditation, Innovation, and Modernization, and has identified as goal, consistent with Executive Order 14279, Reforming Accreditation to Strengthen Higher Education, limiting federally-recognized accreditors’ consideration of DEI when applying their standards of evaluation for higher education programs and institutions.
Finally, institutions should continue reviewing DEI-related programming, training, scholarships, and hiring initiatives through the lens of federal civil-rights law. Although the Department has stepped back from enforcing certain documents, the underlying legal theories that informed those documents remain central to federal enforcement policy.
How Sligo Law Group Can Help
The legal landscape surrounding DEI enforcement remains fluid, and preemptive “compliance”—particularly without careful legal analysis—may conflict with institutional mission and create unintended compliance risks under federal civil-rights laws, grant conditions, or state law requirements.
Before changing policies or eliminating programs, institutions should consult with counsel experienced in federal education law and civil-rights compliance. Decisions about scholarships, affinity groups, training programs, hiring initiatives, and other DEI-related activities often require careful review of Title VI, Title IX, federal grant conditions, and applicable state laws.
Sligo Law Group assists education institutions, nonprofits, and other federal funding recipients in navigating these issues. Our services include:
Assessing DEI-related policies and programs for compliance with Title VI, Title IX, and other federal civil-rights requirements
Advising on federal grant compliance, including obligations under EDGAR and Uniform Guidance
Supporting institutions responding to Office for Civil Rights investigations or complaints
Providing strategic guidance on federal policy developments affecting education programs and federal funding
Drafting and submitting substantive public comments on proposed federal regulations, grant conditions, and policy changes—including the currently proposed SAM certification revisions
Conducting trainings for leadership teams and compliance staff on evolving federal civil-rights and grant requirements
Because the federal policy environment is changing quickly, institutions should focus on careful legal analysis rather than reactive policy changes.
If your institution would like assistance evaluating compliance risks, responding to federal policy changes, or preparing comments on proposed federal requirements, contact Sligo Law Group to discuss how we can help.