How Trump’s Anti-DEI Push Is Unraveling College Scholarships


Some programs are being discontinued, while others are being broadened to include more students


The Wall Street Journal

By Tali Arbel

July 5, 2025


Colleges, companies and philanthropic organizations are retooling millions of dollars in scholarships that for years supported minority students.


Under threat from the Trump administration and activist groups over diversity programs, some are scrapping scholarships entirely. Others are broadening the programs to focus on low-income students in general or tweaking applications to try to keep their original missions. 


“We’re seeing widespread fear of litigation prompt many scholarship providers to re-evaluate,” said Jackie Bright, president of the National Scholarship Providers Association.


In June, $56 million in scholarships in the NSPA database had race, ethnicity or gender criteria, a decrease of 25% from March 2023. The database is a small but indicative slice of the billions of dollars of financial aid available in the U.S.


As part of President Trump’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, the Education Department told schools in February that using race in financial aid could threaten their federal funding. Some universities are under investigation for their scholarships.


Even before Trump took office, the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that found it unconstitutional to consider race in university admissions had forced changes to scholarships. Many interpreted the decision to mean that other race-conscious programs in higher education could be “legally suspect,” said Suzanne Eckes, a professor at the School of Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. State officials and legislatures also pushed to eliminate race from aid.


Education experts said the changes could make it harder for minority students to graduate from college. “There’s going to be a decline in college affordability and completion rates for those students,” Bright said.


Killing the scholarship


The University of Michigan’s alumni association in March told students it was canceling the Lead Scholars program, a week before the school announced it was closing its DEI offices. The alumni group said it ended the scholarship to comply with the law and with guidance from the federal government. 


More than 800 students have received awards since Lead Scholars began in 2008. It was meant to support minority students after the state of Michigan banned using racial preferences in public-college admissions, and offered at least $5,000 a year as well as community events. 


Ana Trujillo Garcia, a rising senior studying art and design, with a focus on furniture, said the financial benefits—$5,000 a year—have been important, but so was the environment Lead Scholars created. She made friends through the program and shared her art at a cultural showcase.


“ It was great to have a community of only minorities,” she said. “’Cause on campus, you see everyone. But in that one, you saw everyone that was like you.”


Other scholarships have dwindled or are on pause. The Justice Department in April said that the state of Illinois and six schools—including Northwestern University, Loyola University of Chicago and the University of Chicago—suspended a scholarship for minority graduate students called Diversifying Higher Education Faculty in Illinois after the department threatened a lawsuit over racial discrimination.


“This Department of Justice is committed to rooting DEI out of American institutions,” said Attorney General Pam Bondi. 


The Illinois Board of Higher Education said the program wasn’t suspended, but the state had agreed to evaluate the fellowship—which is enshrined in state law—along with the Illinois General Assembly.


Northwestern withdrew from the program in March, a school spokesman said. Loyola and the University of Chicago didn’t respond to requests for comment. The University of Illinois-Chicago on its website said its participation in the program was paused because of “funding restrictions from sponsor.”


Changing the Scope


Earlier this year, McDonald’s removed a Hispanic-ancestry requirement from its 40-year-old Hacer college scholarship program, after a lawsuit from an activist group that challenges the use of race in scholarships. Instead, Hacer applicants must show their contribution to the Hispanic community through activities and leadership. 


Scholarship recipients said the money was important to their success, but winning the prize also made them feel recognized as Latinos who had overcome barriers. 


“It felt like you were seen because of your accomplishments, but also because you are part of a group that’s been marginalized for years,” said Erick Soto, a 2024 graduate from the University of Arkansas and 2020 Hacer recipient. His scholarship was for $20,000 over four years.


McDonald’s declined to comment beyond a January statement saying it disagreed with the claim that the scholarship was discriminatory but wanted to protect the program. 


Edward Blum, whose group was behind the lawsuit that led to the 2023 Supreme Court decision that banned affirmative action, also brought the McDonald’s lawsuit.


“You can’t remedy past discrimination with new discrimination,” he said. “Treating people differently because of their race or ethnicity is legally wrong.”


The Gates Foundation in April removed race and ethnicity from the Gates Scholarship, saying anyone eligible for a federal Pell Grant could apply. The foundation said on its website that it began evaluating in September how to reach the broadest range of low-income students and that it takes “its compliance obligations seriously.” It didn’t return requests for comment. 


Blum, the activist, said he had filed a complaint in April with the Internal Revenue Service, asking it to investigate the Gates Foundation’s tax-exempt status because of discrimination against white students. 


In March, Hawkeye Community College in Waterloo, Iowa, sent LaTanya Graves a letter saying the $250-a-semester scholarship her family set up for Black students in 2020 likely had to change because of the government’s position on “nondiscrimination obligations” for schools that get federal funding. Hawkeye said out of more than 460 scholarships its foundation awarded each year, 10 had race as criteria. 


Graves, who had created the scholarship in honor of her mother, bristled at the letter. But she said she blamed the government, not the school. 

“How can the government dictate what a family sets up?” she said.


Write to Tali Arbel at tali.arbel@wsj.com


Copyright ©2025 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved. 87990cbe856818d5eddac44c7b1cdeb8


Appeared in the July 7, 2025, print edition as 'Trump’s Anti-DEI Push Unravels College Scholarships'.


How Trump’s Anti-DEI Push Is Unraveling College Scholarships - WSJ




December 11, 2025
Student evaluations subject professors to perverse incentives.
December 10, 2025
Written by John Craig December 10, 2025 On October 27, the Manhattan Institution’s City Journal published a major, breakthrough analysis of the performance of 100 prominent US (and one Canadian) universities and colleges, “Introducing the City Journal College Rankings,” For the first time, this new performance system includes data on measures (68 in all) like freedom of expression, viewpoint diversity tolerance, quality of instruction, investment payoff, and campus politicization that are not considered in the other major higher ed ranking systems. How did Davidson measure up in City Journal’s performance assessment? On a scale of one (bottom) to five (top) stars , Davidson is among the 63 schools that received 2 stars. Schools that, according to City Journal, have “Mostly average to below-average scores in all categories with no particularly noteworthy strengths. Significant, focused policy changes are needed at these schools.” (Full rankings available here College Rankings | Rankings ) To summarize the methodology, the City Journal team selected 100 schools that are highly touted by other ranking systems, widely known to the American public, and/or of high regional importance. The researchers gathered data on 68 variables across 21 categories covering four major aspects of on- and off-campus life. The Educational Experience categories were Faculty Ideological Pluralism, Faculty Teaching Quality, Faculty Research Quality, Faculty Speech Climate, Curricular Rigor, and Heterodox Infrastructure; the Leadership Quality categories were Commitment to Meritocracy, Support for Free Speech, and Resistance to Politicization; the Outcomes categories were Quality of Alumni Network, Value Added to Career, and Value Added to Education; and the Student Experience categories were Student Ideological Pluralism, Student Free Speech, Student Political Tolerance, Student Social Life, Student Classroom Experience, Campus ROTC, Student Community Life, and Jewish Campus Climate. No other higher ed ranking system includes as many variables. (Read more about methodology at College Rankings | Methods ) The data included publicly available information from sources such as the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), the Department of Education’s College Scorecard, and the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s College Free Speech Rankings. The researchers also developed original measures for the project, such as the ideological balance of student political organizations and the partisan makeup of faculty campaign contributions. Each variable was coded so that higher values mean better performance and was weighted to reflect relative importance. For example, student ideological pluralism (as measured by self-reported student ideology and the left-right balance of student organizations) accounts for 5 percent of a school’s score while City Journal’s estimate of how many years it will take the typical student to recoup their educational investment to attend a given college accounts for 12.5 percent. A school’s overall score is the sum of points across the 21 categories, with the top possible score being 100. While the assessment system is for the most part hard-data-based, it has, like other ranking systems, subjective elements—like the weighing system. So methodological challenges will come and will doubtlessly lead to improvements the next time around. That said, the methodology strikes me as defensible and a marked improvement over that of other popular rating systems. I will conclude with some comments on the findings. Note that the Average score (out of 100) for the 100 institutions is 46 and the median score is 45.73—so overall, this is not a “high performance” group of institutions. No institution receives a 5-Star rating, and only two receive a 4-Star rating (University of Florida and University of Texas at Austin). Only 11 schools receive a 3-Star rating—Having “Mixed results across the four categories, showing strengths in some and weakness in others. These schools typically have several clear paths to improvement.” Because assessment scores are generally low and tightly clustered in the middle, the rankings by score are misleading: Davidson, at 51.16 with a rank of 25, looks to be in the top quartile (between Princeton and Georgetown), but in fact gets just a 2-Star assessment
November 11, 2025
Report from Ivy League school finds rampant grade inflation, but students complain administration is moving goal posts
Show More