The recent announcement from the U.S. Department of Education regarding the termination of discretionary grant programs for various minority-serving institutions has sent shockwaves through the educational community. This decision, made public on a Wednesday, comes after Congress had already allocated significant funds to these programs, leaving advocates for minority-serving institutions (MSIs) in disbelief. They argue that the Department lacks the authority to make such a drastic move.
According to the Education Department, these grant programs are deemed discriminatory and unconstitutional, as they require institutions to enroll a specific percentage of students from certain racial or ethnic backgrounds to qualify for funding. For instance, Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs) must have at least 25% Hispanic enrollment to receive federal designation, which the Department now claims is a form of racial discrimination.
U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon emphasized the administration’s commitment to eradicating discrimination in federally supported programs. She stated, “Discrimination based on race or ethnicity has no place in the United States. To uphold this commitment, the Department will cease awarding grants that impose government-mandated racial quotas on institutions.” This statement reflects a broader shift in policy aimed at promoting equality across educational institutions.
Seven grant programs are set to be eliminated, impacting funding for HSIs, institutions serving Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian populations, predominantly Black institutions, and others. Notably, historically Black colleges and universities, as well as tribal colleges, will remain unaffected by this decision.
The Department plans to reallocate the funding, discontinuing existing discretionary awards and halting new grants. Approximately $132 million in mandatory funds, which Congress has appropriated and cannot be reprogrammed, will still be distributed. This move raises questions about the future of support for institutions that serve underprepared or under-resourced students.
While the Department expresses a desire to collaborate with Congress to reshape these programs, the specifics of this re-envisioning process remain vague. The lack of clarity has left many stakeholders uncertain about the future of funding for MSIs.
A Significant Setback
This decision follows a recent legal development where the Department of Justice chose not to defend HSIs against a lawsuit from the state of Tennessee and the advocacy group Students for Fair Admissions. The lawsuit contends that the current definition of HSIs, which includes the 25% Hispanic enrollment requirement, is unconstitutional. The Solicitor General’s letter to Congress indicated that the Department would not contest this claim, further complicating the situation for HSIs.
Many in the higher education community were taken aback by the announcement. Emmanual Guillory, a senior director at a prominent educational organization, noted that the previous administration’s budget proposal for 2026 had maintained funding for these programs, making the current cuts unexpected.
Institutions that are already struggling financially will now face additional challenges as they reassess their budgets. The funds previously allocated for maintenance and improvements to facilities are now in jeopardy, which could have long-term consequences for the quality of education provided to students.
Gina Ann Garcia, a professor specializing in HSIs, described the news as “devastating,” particularly as it coincides with HSI Week and the lead-up to Hispanic Heritage Month. She highlighted the importance of grant funding for innovative programs that enhance student support and faculty development, stating that without these resources, institutions may struggle to implement new initiatives.
Deborah Santiago, CEO of an organization focused on Latino student success, pointed out that institutions had already invested time and effort into competing for these grants. The sudden cancellation leaves them without the necessary resources to fulfill their commitments to students, particularly those from underserved backgrounds.
As the Education Department navigates this complex landscape, the implications of their decision extend beyond funding cuts. The ongoing legal battles and the potential for further changes in policy could create an unpredictable environment for educational institutions across the country.
Questioning Authority
As institutions consider their next steps, the legality of the Education Department’s decision to terminate MSI programs is under scrutiny. Amanda Fuchs Miller, a former deputy assistant secretary for higher education, argues that these programs are long-established under the Higher Education Act, and Congress has authorized their funding for the upcoming fiscal year.
She contends that the Department’s actions violate statutory requirements and congressional authority over appropriated funds. The Department is expected to notify Congress when reallocating funds, but the current situation raises concerns about the executive branch’s ability to unilaterally declare these programs unconstitutional.
Guillory anticipates legal challenges to the Department’s decision, as well as pushback from Congress and advocacy groups representing MSIs. However, the government’s fiscal constraints complicate the matter, as officials believe they have the authority to reallocate funds due to the temporary nature of the current spending bill.
U.S. Senator Patty Murray criticized the administration for exploiting a precarious fiscal situation, arguing that the abrupt removal of resources undermines the stability of educational institutions and jeopardizes the future of students seeking to advance their education.
Ultimately, the ramifications of this decision will be felt most acutely by students, particularly those from under-resourced backgrounds. David Mendez, interim CEO of a prominent educational organization, emphasized that cutting this funding represents not just a budget reduction but an attack on equity in higher education, threatening the progress made toward inclusivity and support for all students.