Trump gave schools 2 weeks to ban DEI. Lawyers say it's not that simple.

Show Caption

WASHINGTON – Ban all diversity, equity and inclusion at school. Or else. You have 14 days. 

That was the ominous message in a four-page letter sent Friday by the U.S. Department of Education to campuses and states across the country. The new sweeping guidance, which the Trump administration indicated applies to nearly every aspect of educational life, prompted widespread panic and confusion among administrators at K-12 schools and colleges. 

Craig Trainor, the Education Department's acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said in the letter that the law now prohibits schools reliant on federal money from “using race in decisions pertaining to admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” 

“It would, for instance, be unlawful for an educational institution to eliminate standardized testing to achieve a desired racial balance or to increase racial diversity,” he wrote. If schools don’t shift their actions accordingly, he said, they risk putting their federal funding in jeopardy. 

The letter is a big deal. It signals how absolute the Trump administration’s views are about diversity on school campuses. And it demonstrates an unprecedented willingness within the federal government to impose those views on educational institutions – with unique locations, histories, alumni and boards – while threatening severe sanctions against those who disobey. 

Questions have been swirling on campuses in recent days: Will colleges have to cancel special graduation ceremonies for marginalized groups? Will resource centers and clubs for LGBTQ, Black and Asian American students disappear? Could certain scholarships go away, too?

Like many executive actions and memos issued in President Donald Trump’s whirlwind first month back in the White House, the letter’s intended impact may, for now, be more symbolic than realistic. Many of the president's measures already face court challenges, and Friday's letter may be the next target of litigation. 

The guidance explicitly states it “does not have the force and effect of law.” Nor does it “bind the public or create new legal standards.” Lawyers and school administrators have expressed doubt about the feasibility of complying with such a broad and vague mandate in just two weeks. The Education Department hasn’t even spelled out what following the rules is supposed to look like.

“There’s nothing specific enough for us to be able to act on in 14 days unless we just wipe the slate clean,” said Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, which represents more than 1,600 colleges and universities. 

He cautioned higher education leaders at the outset of a webinar on Tuesday not to surpass the federal government's vague demands to avert punitive sanctions.

“Overcompliance, anticipatory compliance, preemptive compliance is not a strategy,” he said. “The strategy needs to be much more considered, much more nuanced.” 

Over the past week, attorneys have questioned the legality of the mandate. In interviews with Paste BN, four lawyers criticized the Education Department's sweeping assertions and stressed that even though regulatory guidance is important and relevant to schools concerned about the federal government’s ire, the requirements are not necessarily legally binding.

“These agencies enforce the law,” said Stacy Hawkins, an employment law professor at Rutgers University. “They don’t make the law.”

‘Rule by letter’ era returns

The guidance underlines a marked change in the Trump administration’s increasingly involved approach to federal oversight of schools, even as the president seeks to dismantle the Education Department and “bring school back to the states.” 

Read more: With a Republican trifecta in Washington, a new era of college oversight is on its way

Betsy DeVos, Trump’s first education secretary, was a major critic of a similarly weighty letter issued by the Obama administration in 2011. That guidance built upon court rulings to clarify that sexual harassment and violence were prohibited under Title IX, a landmark sex discrimination law originally crafted to bring about parity for women’s athletics. 

The Obama-era letter had a big influence: In the ensuing years, schools nationwide established offices and programs to prevent sexual violence and harassment. When Trump first took office after his victory in November 2016, his Education Department promised a different approach. 

“The era of rule by letter is over,” DeVos said in a speech in September 2017. 

Lawyers question guidance, advise caution

Attorneys representing schools have criticized the Trump administration’s new guidance. Art Coleman, a partner at the law firm EducationCounsel in Washington, D.C., called the letter “overreaching,” “skewed” and “ambiguous.” Jackie Gharapour Wernz, an education lawyer in Texas, called it “regulation by intimidation.” 

“They seem to be suggesting that if you have any goal of having a diverse student population, then you’re violating the law,” Wernz said. “I just don’t think there’s any basis for that.” 

Lawyers cautioned schools not to overreact. But there’s a danger in underreacting, too. Scott Schneider, owner and founder of Schneider Education & Employment Law in Texas, advised schools to consult with their legal counsels and decide what level of risk they’re comfortable with. 

“Start with the law,” he said, referring in particular to the Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 banning race-conscious college admissions. “Then try to get to a place that’s compliant with the law and is as consistent with your values as you can be.” 

Though the Education Department has promised to investigate noncompliant schools, its bandwidth to conduct such investigations has already been limited.

The agency has been hemorrhaging staff since Trump took office amid massive layoffs in the federal workforce imposed by Elon Musk’s government efficiency team. Many of the same civil rights attorneys assigned to review complaints against schools were put on paid administrative leave, offered buyouts or outright fired.

The few new civil rights investigations launched since Trump took office have targeted Ivy League colleges accused of antisemitism. There's also an ongoing review of a high school with a gender-neutral bathroom in Denver, a traditionally blue city. 

“They’re going to pick schools strategically to go after,” Schneider said. 

The Education Department's deadline for schools to follow its letter is Feb. 28, though litigation could change that timeline indefinitely.

Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for Paste BN. You can reach him by email at zschermele@usatoday.com. Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @zachschermele.bsky.social.