In a year already marked by fierce debates over the future of American education, President Donald Trump’s administration has taken unprecedented steps to reshape both K-12 and higher education policy, igniting a nationwide battle over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and the very definition of merit in admissions and discipline.
In February 2025, President Trump issued a sweeping letter to schools across the country, directing them to eliminate all discipline protocols rooted in DEI principles within two weeks. The administration argued that such measures, which aim to address patterns of racial inequality, are themselves discriminatory—specifically against white students. According to The Conversation, the letter demanded that schools “begin to eliminate all discipline protocols rooted in DEI, on the grounds that this work is discriminatory against white students.”
This move was solidified in April 2025, when Trump signed the executive order “Reinstating Commonsense School Discipline Policy,” doubling down on the threat to cut federal funding for non-compliance. The order, as reported by The Conversation, exerted “an unusual level of influence over how schools can decide the best way to teach and, when necessary, discipline students.”
But the administration’s efforts didn’t stop with K-12 schools. In the same period, Trump issued another executive order demanding that universities disclose the race, test scores, and grade point averages of all applicants. As The New York Times reported, this order “raises the stakes in a bitter battle that has already upended college admissions in recent years,” pushing colleges to rely more heavily on quantitative measures. Experts warn that such a shift could result in “wealthier, less diverse student populations at elite universities.”
These actions follow closely on the heels of a 2023 Supreme Court decision that declared the consideration of race in college admissions unconstitutional. Universities have been scrambling to revise their admissions processes to comply with the ruling. Trump’s executive order builds on this decision but goes further, giving the federal government the tools to scrutinize and potentially penalize colleges it believes are not in compliance.
The debate over what constitutes fair and effective admissions criteria is hardly new. For over a century, American colleges have grappled with the balance between academic achievement and the intangible qualities that make for a vibrant, diverse student body. In the early 20th century, subjective factors like character and leadership were often used—sometimes to the detriment of minority groups such as Jewish students. After World War II, the focus shifted more toward standardized testing, but this too has been fraught with controversy. Decades of research, as cited by The New York Times, show a strong link between family income and test scores. Students from the highest-income households are “seven times as likely to score at least 1300 [on the SAT], compared with students from the poorest families.”
Recent data from the College Board revealed stark disparities in SAT performance by race and ethnicity: among 2024 high school graduates, just 1 percent of Black students and 2 percent of Hispanic students scored between 1400 and 1600, compared to 7 percent of white students and 27 percent of Asian students. This reality has led most elite institutions to use a holistic admissions process, considering factors beyond test scores—such as economic adversity, leadership, and unique talents.
However, conservative advocacy groups like Students for Fair Admissions have argued that subjective criteria can mask discrimination against high-performing groups, particularly Asian and white students. Edward Blum, head of the organization, told The New York Times, “What is not fine is to use any holistic measurement as a proxy for race.”
Not everyone agrees with the administration’s approach. James Murphy, director of postsecondary policy at Education Reform Now, warned that the new disclosure requirements would “increase incentives to enroll wealthy students, who often score higher on standardized tests because of a range of advantages that start early in life.” Anthony Abraham Jack, a professor at Boston University, raised concerns about the potential for “a quota system for wealthy and white students,” emphasizing that admissions should be about context, not just raw numbers.
At the K-12 level, the Trump administration’s directives have been met with significant resistance. According to The Conversation, about half of U.S. states have refused to comply with the DEI-related directive as of May 30, 2025. Twenty-three states complied, with some—like Oklahoma—going so far as to pass state laws banning DEI policies. The remaining 25 states declined to certify compliance, citing federal laws such as the Civil Rights Act and the Paperwork Reduction Act. Nineteen of these states filed suit against the administration in April, resulting in a court injunction that temporarily suspended the compliance requirement.
Education officials in resisting states have voiced a range of objections. Some, like Massachusetts’ interim education commissioner Patrick Tutwiler, insisted that “Massachusetts will continue to promote diversity in our schools because we know it improves outcomes for all of our kids.” Others, like Kansas’ education commissioner Randy Watson, affirmed a commitment to federal law without directly addressing the Trump administration’s letter. Mississippi’s education department, meanwhile, pointed out that school districts operate independently and signaled compliance by referencing a new state law banning DEI.
Legal scholars have raised concerns about the administration’s approach. Traditionally, “Dear Colleague” letters from the executive branch are advisory, not legally binding. Trump’s letter, however, was written in the language of a mandate and reinforced by an executive order—an unprecedented move. Some scholars have called it an “overreach” of legal authority, as The Conversation noted.
In higher education, critics also worry about the broader implications of the new data disclosure requirements. Richard Kahlenberg of the Progressive Policy Institute supports class-based affirmative action, arguing that it is “more meritocratic to look at a 1400 SAT score and consider information on whether the student who earned that score went to private school, had all sorts of advantages in life, or worked two jobs and went to a lousy school and managed to score really high anyway.”
There are also privacy concerns. While the Trump administration’s order rests on the Department of Education’s broad authority to collect data from institutions receiving federal aid, it could face legal challenges if colleges or outside groups argue that sharing certain data violates students’ privacy rights. Both Murphy and Jack predicted that litigation would likely follow.
Meanwhile, the Trump administration has made significant cuts to the Department of Education, but as of early August 2025, it has not announced actual funding cuts for states or schools refusing to comply with the new directives. Still, the threat alone has placed schools and universities in a state of uncertainty, unsure of how to balance federal mandates with their own missions and the needs of their students.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: the fight over DEI and merit in American education is far from over. With legal battles looming and states divided, the nation’s schools and universities remain at the center of a high-stakes struggle over who belongs in America’s classrooms—and who gets to decide.
