On August 7, 2025, the landscape of American higher education shifted dramatically as the Trump administration unveiled a sweeping mandate for unprecedented transparency in college admissions. Education Secretary Linda McMahon, acting under a direct order from President Donald Trump, instructed the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) to collect detailed admissions data from colleges and universities nationwide. This move, which comes just two years after the Supreme Court struck down race-based admissions, signals a new era of federal oversight and scrutiny for institutions that have long operated behind a veil of confidentiality.
In a press release, McMahon declared, “It should not take years of legal proceedings and millions of dollars in litigation fees, to elicit data from taxpayer-funded institutions that identify whether they are discriminating against hardworking American applicants.” Her statement echoed the administration’s view that meritocracy and excellence must once again define American higher education—a theme that President Trump reinforced in his own memorandum. According to the White House, the president’s directive is intended to ensure that “the data necessary to verify that their admissions do not involve unlawful discrimination” is collected and made available for public scrutiny.
The new disclosure requirements are comprehensive. For the first time, colleges and universities must report not only the number of applicants, admitted, and enrolled students by race and sex, but also hard metrics such as standardized test scores, GPAs, and other academic credentials for each group. This reporting will apply to both undergraduates and select graduate and professional programs. The aim, as described by the Department of Education, is to cut through the opacity that has long shielded the admissions process from public view and to expose any lingering race-based preferences that may persist despite the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard.
That landmark case found that Harvard had engaged in “extreme racial preferencing,” a violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause. The ruling effectively ended decades of precedent that allowed race to be considered in admissions decisions, albeit in a narrowly tailored manner. Since then, colleges have scrambled to adapt, turning to race-neutral alternatives like holistic review processes, considering first-generation status, expanding financial aid, and boosting recruitment in underrepresented neighborhoods. Yet, as the Trump administration sees it, these measures may still serve as proxies for race, raising questions about compliance with the letter and spirit of the law.
“Although the Supreme Court of the United States has definitively held that consideration of race in higher education admissions violates students’ civil rights, the persistent lack of available data—paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies—continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in practice,” Trump’s memorandum stated. The administration’s resolve is clear: colleges will have to prove, with data, that their admissions practices are fair, legal, and constitutional.
To ensure accuracy and consistency, the NCES will design a rigorous audit process. The data will feed into the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), which already tracks enrollment and finances at federally funded institutions. Until now, however, IPEDS only collected racial demographics for enrolled students, leaving the critical admissions gatekeeping process largely in the dark. This expansion means that universities’ compliance with IPEDS reporting—already a condition for receiving Title IV federal student aid—will be under closer federal scrutiny than ever before.
The stakes for noncompliance are high. As the Department of Education positions itself to enforce the Supreme Court’s ruling through regularized, nationwide reporting rather than through lawsuits, colleges that fail to comply risk losing access to vital federal funding. For many institutions, this threat may outweigh the political fallout of transparency, especially as public and governmental interest in fair admissions practices intensifies.
The White House has not minced words about its rationale. It contends that race-based admissions practices are not only “unfair, but also threaten our national security and well-being.” This sentiment aligns with recent Justice Department guidance, which warns that race-based scholarships, internships, mentorships, and leadership initiatives for specific racial groups are likely illegal. The guidance further cautions that federally funded entities—including colleges—should not prioritize “underrepresented groups” for admissions or hiring, particularly if race is a factor. Even seemingly neutral criteria, such as “lived experience” essays or recruitment from specific geographic areas, are now under the microscope as potential proxies for race.
Some higher education leaders are bracing for a new wave of legal and political challenges. Angel Pérez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, expressed concern that “this is probably yet another thing that is going to end up in the courts and the Trump administration doesn’t really have a legal standing here.” Nevertheless, he acknowledged the impact on campuses: “It continues to create chaos... It continues to create a culture of fear on campuses, and it continues to weaponize the practices that college admission officers use to enroll their first-year classes.”
The administration’s crackdown is not limited to colleges. In May, the Education Department launched an investigation into Thomas Jefferson High School for Science and Technology, a magnet school in northern Virginia that has been hailed as a national model for diversifying student bodies. And in July, settlements with Columbia University and Brown University required those institutions to halt the use of proxies for race in their admissions processes and to provide access to admissions and hiring data, including test scores, GPAs, and racial breakdowns of applicants.
For advocates of transparency, the new directive is a long-awaited breakthrough. Edward Blum, president of Students for Fair Admissions and the architect behind many of the legal challenges to affirmative action, called the measure a “landmark step” toward openness in college admissions. “Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and when colleges are required to disclose how they weigh different factors in admissions, the American people will finally be able to assess whether those practices are fair, legal, and constitutional,” Blum said in a statement. He also indicated that his organization would closely monitor compliance and urged Congress to codify the administration’s directives into law.
For colleges and universities, the message is blunt: the era of “hidden math” in admissions is over. As the federal government and public gain unprecedented access to the data that has long shaped the future of American students, the cost of opacity may prove far higher than any previous political fallout. The coming months will reveal how institutions adapt to this new reality—and whether the promise of meritocracy and excellence will truly define the next chapter in American higher education.