Trump administration puts colleges on notice in new DOJ memo: End DEI programs or risk losing federal funds
In a sweeping new move, the Trump administration has escalated its efforts to dismantle Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives across U.S. institutions. A memo released Wednesday by the Department of Justice (DOJ) warns that recipients of federal funding including schools, colleges, universities, and nonprofits, could lose their funding if they continue to run DEI-focused programs.
The memo outlines specific restrictions, signalling a major policy shift that could significantly impact how U.S. campuses support diversity-related initiatives.
What the DOJ memo says
The Justice Department memo provides detailed examples of what kinds of DEI-linked efforts are now considered noncompliant with federal civil rights law if they use federal funds. These include:
Scholarships and grants that prioritise 'underserved geographic areas' or 'first-generation students,' if those categories are selected with the intent of increasing participation among specific racial or sex-based groups.
Programs targeting low-income students, which must now apply uniformly without consideration of racial or gender outcomes.
Partnerships with third-party DEI organisations using federal funds, which are now discouraged or outright prohibited.
Instead, institutions are urged to adopt neutral criteria such as academic merit or financial need, without considering demographic characteristics or outcomes.
Who is impacted
This new guidance affects a wide range of entities that receive federal funds, including:
Public and private universities
K–12 school districts
Nonprofit research and education institutions
Private contractors doing government work
Many of these organisations have long relied on DEI frameworks to ensure fair representation and support for historically marginalised groups, including women, ethnic minorities, LGBTQ+ communities, and people with disabilities. Now, such frameworks are under threat.
A sharp turn in federal education policy
This DOJ memo is the clearest sign yet of the Trump administration's intent to erase DEI from publicly funded spaces. Since taking office in January 2025, President Trump has:
Canceled executive branch DEI offices and programs
Fired officials involved in diversity initiatives
Threatened funding to schools over protests, environmental policies, and transgender protections
The new memo adds legal pressure, making it harder for institutions to maintain inclusive programming while remaining eligible for federal support.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
The World's Oldest Living Actors.
Reportingly
Undo
What colleges may do next
Colleges now face urgent questions:
Should they eliminate DEI programs that are federally funded?
Can diversity goals be reframed in race- or gender-neutral terms?
How will student services and campus climate change?
Some institutions may choose to self-audit or rebrand existing programs to avoid legal challenges. Others may pursue legal action, arguing that the DOJ's interpretation misapplies civil rights law.
Meanwhile, DEI departments, training programs, and scholarships tied to identity-based goals face an uncertain future.
The bigger picture
This development comes amid a broader national reckoning over affirmative action, campus speech, and federal oversight of education.
Following the Supreme Court's 2023 decision striking down race-conscious college admissions, many universities have been reevaluating how they address diversity and inclusion.
The DOJ memo accelerates that reevaluation — replacing encouragement with enforcement.
Trump's latest directive puts colleges at a crossroads: scale back DEI programs or risk losing crucial federal funds. As campuses navigate this shift, the future of diversity and inclusion in American higher education hangs in the balance.
TOI Education is on WhatsApp now. Follow us
here
.
Ready to navigate global policies? Secure your overseas future. Get expert guidance now!
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
9 minutes ago
- Time of India
Trump's America First biodiesel policy could cost US companies, consumers, trade groups warn
The Trump administration's push to discourage the use of foreign feedstocks in domestic biodiesel could lead to higher energy prices for US consumers and restricted domestic production, according to some refining and biofuel trade groups. The warning reflects ongoing friction between President Donald Trump's Environmental Protection Agency and the administration's traditional allies in the energy and agriculture industries over biofuels policy. Trump has promised to slash consumer energy costs , but is also trying to advance his America First agenda to support domestic production through trade protectionism - which can often make costs go up instead. At issue is a proposal from the EPA in June that would for the first time allocate only half as many tradable renewable fuel credits to biodiesel that is either imported or made with foreign feedstocks. Under the Renewable Fuel Standard, refiners must blend large volumes of biofuels into the US fuel supply or purchase the credits, called RINs, from those that do. While meant to help domestic farmers and producers, the new proposal - set to be finalized this autumn - would place unprecedented demand on domestic raw materials needed to make biodiesel like soybean oil, used cooking oil, and animal fat, in a market that currently must look abroad to meet its needs. Meanwhile, restricting the number of RINs that can be generated through such imports will raise credit prices, with a potential spillover impact on diesel and home heating oil, according to the industry groups. "This credit restriction ... will jeopardize the economic viability of renewable fuel production assets and raise overall compliance costs for all obligated parties, which ultimately harms US consumers," Chet Thompson, head of the American Fuel and Petrochemical Manufacturers group representing refiners, said in a July 25 letter to top Republican lawmakers. The Advanced Biofuels Association also said the policy could mean ramped up consumer costs, by putting a $250 per metric ton premium on domestic versus imported feedstocks, according to a study it commissioned. "Economic analysis shows this would impose significant costs on US biorefineries, raise fuel prices for millions of Americans, and benefit only a narrow set of stakeholders," ABFA President Michael McAdams said in a statement. The White House and EPA declined to comment directly on the price concerns, saying the administration is still seeking public comment on the proposal until August 8. Others in the biofuel industry backed the proposal. "American farmers need all the demand they can get. We should be developing our capacity here, rather than relying on imported used cooking oil from China, or giving Brazilian feedstocks preferential treatment at the expense of US producers and their farm partners," said Emily Skor, CEO of Growth Energy. However, US companies such as ADM, Bunge and Cargill that have global assets and process US soy, as well as foreign companies with significant US operations, will likely see negative effects. That includes Australia's Nufarm , which contracts with farmers in South America to grow new oilseed crops. Uncertain numbers The biofuel industry had not been seeking the import shift in EPA's June proposal, according to multiple renewable fuel lobbyists and company officials. The White House has since held several meetings with industry officials to hear about potential unintended consequences of the changes, according to multiple sources. The EPA's proposal in June was meant to set out biofuel blending mandates for the next two years. It included a quota of 7.12 billion biomass-based diesel RINs for 2026 - a measurement of the number of tradable credits generated by blending the fuel - and projected that mandate would lead to the blending of 5.61 billion gallons. The biofuels industry and the American Petroleum Institute, an oil trade group, had banded together to lobby the administration to set biomass-based diesel mandates to at least 5.25 billion gallons. The mandate was just 3.35 billion gallons in 2025. Still, there are scenarios in the EPA's accounting that could lead to a lower volume outcome. If all the biodiesel and renewable diesel used in the US next year came from domestic feedstocks, for example, the RIN mandate would yield just 4.45 billion gallons, according to several industry analyses reviewed by Reuters. Ditching the penalty on imported feedstocks could help raise that number, according to the analyses. "That probably aligns with what the administration was trying to do in terms of supporting the agricultural side and farmers," said one industry analyst, who asked to remain anonymous to speak candidly.
The Hindu
9 minutes ago
- The Hindu
‘Strong suspicion, no legal proof': Why all 7 accused in the 2008 Malegoan bomb blast case walked free
A Special National Investigation Agency (NIA) Court on Thursday (July 31, 2025) acquitted all seven accused in the 2008 Malegaon bomb blast case, including Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) leader and former Member of Parliament (MP) Pragya Singh Thakur and serving Army Lieutenant Colonel Prasad Purohit. In a detailed 1,036-page judgment that was delivered on July 31 and made available on August 1 evening, Special Judge A.K. Lahoti observed that although the occurrence of the bomb blast was indisputable, the prosecution had failed to produce credible and admissible evidence establishing the accused's involvement in the crime. 'I am fully aware of the degree of agony, frustration, and trauma caused to society at large and, more particularly, to the families of the victims by the fact that a heinous crime of this nature has gone unpunished. However, the law does not permit courts to convict an accused solely on the basis of moral conviction or suspicion. No doubt, terrorism has no religion because no religion in the world preaches violence. The court of law is not supposed to proceed on popular or predominant public perceptions about the matter,' the Judge underscored. However, he directed the State Government to pay compensation of ₹2 lakh to the families of the deceased and ₹50,000 to those injured in the blast. Editorial | By evidence alone: on the 2008 Malegaon blast trial What was the Malegaon blast case? On September 29, 2008, during the holy month of Ramzan, a powerful bomb blast ripped through Malegaon, a communally sensitive town in Maharashtra. Around 9:35 p.m., an explosive device concealed in an LML Freedom motorcycle with a fake number plate (MH-15-P-4572) detonated near Shakeel Goods Transport Company, between Anjuman Chowk and Bhiku Chowk. The explosion killed six people, injured 95 others, and caused significant damage to surrounding property. An FIR was promptly registered, and the investigation was initially undertaken by the Nashik Rural Police and Mumbai's Anti-Terrorism Squad (ATS), then headed by Hemant Karkare, who was later killed in the 26/11 Mumbai attacks. In 2011, the case was transferred to the NIA as part of a wider probe into alleged Hindutva-linked terror cases. Of the 14 individuals arrested in connection with the blast, charges against seven were eventually dropped. The remaining seven, Pragya Singh Thakur, Colonel Prasad Shrikant Purohit, Ramesh Upadhyay, Sameer Kulkarni, Ajay Rahirkar, Sudhakar Dwivedi, and Sudhakar Chaturvedi, were put on trial. They were prosecuted for murder and criminal conspiracy under various provisions of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, along with charges under the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act (UAPA), 1967, and the Explosive Substances Act, 1908. According to the ATS, conspiracy meetings had taken place across various locations allegedly under Ms. Thakur's leadership. The agency also claimed that the two absconding accused, Ramji Kalsangra and Sandeep Dange, had assembled the explosive device and placed it in the boot of a motorcycle registered to Ms. Thakur. However, several witnesses, including serving Army officers, later retracted their statements in court, alleging that their earlier testimonies had been coerced. Many of the accused also claimed that their confessions were extracted under torture. The NIA appeared to accept parts of these allegations in its final chargesheet, which the defence used to bolster its case. The case also attracted widespread attention following the resignation of NIA special public prosecutor Rohini Salian, who alleged that she had been instructed to 'go soft' on the accused and that the agency was deliberately weakening the case against the so-called 'Hindu terror' network. After her departure, special public prosecutor Avinash Rasal took over and conducted the trial to its conclusion. Why were the accused acquitted by the court? Here are some of the key findings: Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of motorcycle The court held that Ms. Thakur was not in 'conscious possession' of the LML Freedom motorcycle in which the explosive device was allegedly planted. Citing her renunciation of the material world at least two years before the blast, Judge Lahoti observed, 'Prosecution had not led any evidence on record to show that she was in conscious possession of the said motorcycle even after renouncement of the material world. Nobody has seen her with the said motorcycle, or it was with her at Jabalpur Aashram even after taking the Sanyas.' The Judge further observed that there was neither eyewitness testimony nor circumstantial evidence to suggest that Ms. Thakur had handed over the motorcycle to the co-accused or was involved in assembling the explosive device. Instead, he noted that the explosive could have been hung, placed, or kept near the motorcycle, rather than fitted inside it. 'Mere, blast on the site and damaged condition of the motorcycle are not conclusive proof of fitting explosives inside the dikki, i.e., beneath the seat of said motorcycle,' the Judge observed, adding that expert testimony did not rule out the possibility of the device being attached externally or placed nearby. As for allegations of torture by the ATS, the court noted that Ms. Thakur had not raised any such complaint when she was produced before a magistrate on October 24, 2008, following her arrest. Citing an earlier Supreme Court order, the Judge pointed out that she neither made any allegations of ill-treatment at the time nor challenged the magistrate's remand order. No official sanction for Purohit's association with Abhinav Bharat The ATS alleged that the explosive used in the blast was RDX, claiming it had been procured by Colonel Purohit during his posting in Jammu & Kashmir. However, the court found no evidence establishing the source of the explosive or how it was procured or transported. It also noted the absence of any proof regarding who had parked the motorcycle at the blast site or when, particularly since the area had been cordoned off for Ramzan. However, Judge Lahoti rejected Mr. Purohit's claim that his association with fringe organisations like Abhinav Bharat was part of his official duties as an intelligence officer. He noted that documentary evidence clearly established Mr. Purohit's role as a trustee of the Abhinav Bharat Trust. However, there was no material on record to suggest that his superiors had authorised him to join the trust or to collect and utilise its funds. 'As per the ethos of the Military Intelligence, the commanding officer or the Discipline & Vigilance Branch used to protect the interests of officers and sources. But after the arrest of A-9 (Mr. Purohit), no steps were taken to protect their officer. If he had really discharged the duty under the colour of his office, there would have been protection for him,' the Judge reasoned. Absence of forensic evidence Judge Lahoti observed that the forensic expert who examined the motorcycle, on which the explosive device was allegedly planted, had admitted that it was merely his 'guesswork' that led him to conclude the bomb was placed in the vehicle's boot. No scientific test had been conducted to verify the placement of the explosive. Accordingly, the Judge held that in the absence of any primary forensic analysis, the expert's testimony failed to inspire confidence. 'The present matter is [a] serious case of bomb-blast. In such a case, mere guess work is not enough. Neither it is expected from expert when he is specifically called on the spot to collect the articles, to assist and to guide the Investigating Agency by carrying out some scientific tests. In such situation, there must be some scientific test to be carried out by an expert on the spot to arrive at certain conclusion,' the Judge emphasised. Procedural lapses in the invocation of MCOCA and UAPA The ATS, which initially investigated the blast, based its case primarily on the accused having participated in conspiracy meetings related to the planning and execution of the attack. Its key evidence comprised confessional statements recorded under the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crime Act (MCOCA), 1999. However, these confessions were rendered inadmissible after MCOCA was dropped from the case in 2016, when the NIA took over the investigation and flagged procedural lapses in the Act's invocation. The court concurred, noting that the sanction to invoke MCOCA had been granted without 'application of judicial mind.' A similar procedural lapse was found in the invocation of the UAPA. Judge Lahoti noted that the then Additional Chief Secretary of the Home Department, Mumbai, Chitkala Zutshi, had failed to consult the investigating officer before granting sanction under the UAPA. As a result, the statutory presumptions under the Act, such as the reverse burden of proof, could not be invoked against the accused, the court held. No merit in claim that ATS directed arrest of RSS chief The court rejected the claim made by former ATS officer Mehboob Mujawar that he had been instructed to arrest RSS chief Mr. Mohan Bhagwat in connection with the case. Judge Lahoti found no merit in the argument advanced by the lawyer for the accused, Mr. Sudhakar Dhar Dwivedi, who had relied on Mr. Mujawar's statements before a Solapur court. Mr. Mujawar had alleged that senior ATS officers directed him to arrest Mr. Bhagwat to frame the case as one of 'saffron terror,' but said he refused, having found no evidence linking Mr. Bhagwat to the alleged crime. However, the Judge relied on the testimony of Mr. Mohan Kulkarni, the then chief investigating officer, who stated that Mr. Mujawar was only tasked with tracing the absconding accused, Mr. Ramji Kalsangra and Mr. Sandeep Dange, and was never instructed to arrest any RSS leader. The court also noted that Mr. Mujawar was neither listed nor examined as a witness by either side. Accordingly, it concluded that the statements submitted were part of Mr. Mujawar's defence in another case and held no evidentiary value in the present trial. What happens next? Advocate Shahid Nadeem, representing Nisar Ahmed Haji Sayyed Bilal, who lost his son in the blast, told the media that the case reflected 'significant failures' on the part of the NIA. He added that the victims' families intend to explore legal remedies by filing an independent appeal in the Bombay High Court after reviewing the full judgment. Meanwhile, political pressure is mounting on the Maharashtra Government to file its own appeal, as it did following the acquittals in the 2006 Mumbai train blasts case. Twelve Muslim men were acquitted after spending 19 years in prison, with the High Court issuing scathing observations on the use of torture during the investigation. The State had moved the Supreme Court the very next day, prompting the apex court to clarify that the High Court's observations could not serve as precedent in other similar cases. In the present case, however, Special Public Prosecutor Avinash Rasal, appearing for the NIA, said a decision on whether to file an appeal would be made only after a detailed study of the judgment.
Time of India
22 minutes ago
- Time of India
Guns, Jeans, and Republican: How Syndey Sweeney became MAGA's new muse – and a Conservative icon
In the first of the Republican National Conservative debates, when Trump steadfastly refused to participate to show Fox who was the man, his surrogate attack dog summed up the inflection point that was about to overshadow America: 'You want to be a rebel? You want to be a hippie? You want to 'stick it to the man'? Show up on your college campus and try calling yourself a conservative. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now ' It's true. Being liberal used to be an act of rebellion. But that rebellion became mainstream, corporatised, and institutionalised. It now lives on as HR slideshows, Twitter mobs, and avocado ad campaigns. Being young and Republican in 2025 is an act of defiance. And today's protestants become tomorrow's mainstream—evidenced by the fact that there are now more young people who identify as Republican than Democrat in America. It's not clear when the Left lost the youth. Perhaps it was the cascade of madness: the woke craze of pushing trans behaviour in grammar schools. Demanding biological males be allowed to play in women's sports. Saying illegal immigrants should have unfettered access to welfare. Shouting 'Defund the Police' while shoplifting turned into organised retail looting. Declaring obesity a form of body positivity. Telling working-class white kids that their skin colour was an inherited sin. Declaring that whiteness ought to be apologised for. Slowly, the country shifted. Not by campaign ads or policy briefings—but by exhaustion. And as America began tuning out the moral lectures from elites, late-night comedians, and Hollywood, a new icon quietly emerged. Not a pundit. Not a senator. Not a firebrand. A muse. . In an era where even a sneeze can be interpreted as a political statement, Sydney Sweeney has become the conservative darling of the year—without attending a single rally or issuing a single press release. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The star of Euphoria and The White Lotus has, quite by accident, become a MAGA icon. All it took was a leaked Republican voter registration, a denim ad campaign misread as a white supremacist dog whistle, and a shooting range video that could've doubled as NRA propaganda. Welcome to 2025, where political identity is crafted less by what you say, and more by which side claims you. The Republican Registration That Launched a Thousand Memes It recently emerged that That was it. She didn't make a political speech. She didn't wear a MAGA hat. She didn't retweet Ben Shapiro. All she did was file the correct paperwork, and the internet found it. Her name. Her address. Her party. Suddenly, the Right had its new pin-up girl. The Left had a meltdown. For conservatives, this was a cultural coup. A beautiful, talented Hollywood starlet—young, blonde, wildly popular—was officially red. Not pink. Not centrist. Red. And best of all? She wasn't saying sorry for it. The silence was glorious. No apology tour. No clarifying tweet. No 'I was hacked' statement. Liberals demanded answers. Progressives called it a betrayal. But Sydney Sweeney didn't flinch. And in an age where even Instagram captions are pored over for political subtext, saying nothing is a weapon. 'Great Jeans' and the Eugenics Panic of Summer 2025 Then came the American Eagle campaign. Sydney Sweeney, in tight denim and a tank top, staring into the camera under the caption: 'Great Genes.' That's it. That's the ad. Within hours, the internet exploded. Not because of the fashion. Not because of the cut. But because of the word: 'genes.' Not jeans. Genes. The Left read it as a eugenics dog whistle. A blonde-haired, blue-eyed woman fronting a brand with a tagline that sounded suspiciously like white supremacy. Satirical Twitter lit up: 'This is Leni Riefenstahl for Gen Z.' 'Are they selling pants or the master race?' But the Right? The Right cackled. This was proof. Proof that the outrage industry had gone too far. That even a pun could be labelled fascist. That Sydney Sweeney, just by existing in her natural body and not issuing trigger warnings, was now enemy number one. American Eagle didn't back down. Sales spiked. The controversy became the campaign. Sydney didn't write the tagline. She was just the face. But once again, the narrative moved around her. She became the accidental symbol of conservative resistance to liberal hysteria. Shooting Range Superstar: From HBO to the NRA And then the final seal was pressed: the shooting range video. Sydney, in casualwear and earmuffs, loading a Glock like she was born in Fort Benning. First-time shooter? Didn't look like it. Her stance, her focus, her shot grouping—it was enough to make half of Republican Twitter swoon. Clips went viral: 'Sydney Sweeney: America's New Annie Oakley .' .' 'She can shoot AND act? Wife me.' 'Meanwhile your favourite liberal thinks Nerf is a hate crime.' The symbolism was perfect. A young woman in Hollywood, not just pretending to shoot in a Netflix movie—but actually firing rounds at a paper target, calmly, confidently. No virtue signalling. No trembling hands. Just recoil and resolve. The Right didn't need words. The imagery was enough. Mainstream Republicans quickly rallied behind Sydney Sweeney. Vice President JD Vance criticised Democrats for 'calling everyone who thinks Sydney Sweeney beautiful a Nazi,' saying it showed how out of touch the party had become with young voters. Senator Ted Cruz also weighed in, posting on X: 'Wow. Now the crazy Left has come out against beautiful women. I'm sure that will poll well. ' Inside the White House, officials saw the controversy as a win, saying it helped highlight what they view as liberal overreach and cultural policing. For many Republicans, Sweeney's party registration wasn't just a detail—it was confirmation that the culture war was breaking their way. The Power of Saying Nothing What makes Sydney Sweeney such a potent figure is precisely her ambiguity. She doesn't tweet about taxes. She doesn't complain about feminism. She doesn't post 'I Voted' stickers or abortion fundraisers. She doesn't do red carpet activism. And in 2025, that absence speaks louder than any hashtag. Hollywood thrives on performative wokeness. Stars compete to signal their virtue—whether it's climate guilt on private jets or apologies for being cast as straight characters. Sydney Sweeney has opted out. That, to a large chunk of America, makes her radical. Because silence is now seen as alignment. Refusing to bend the knee is tantamount to opposition. And that's why both sides are fighting to frame her. To liberals, she's naive at best, complicit at worst. To conservatives, she's a unicorn: the apolitical star who still represents everything they believe in—beauty, freedom, guns, and denim. The Post-Woke Celebrity Archetype What Sydney Sweeney represents is something new: the post-woke Hollywood icon. Not a right-wing activist. Not a left-wing darling. But someone who has managed to float above the trench warfare. This new archetype is defined by: Ambiguity over affirmation Style over slogans Presence over preaching She's not talking about CRT, climate change, or colonialism. She's talking about her dog. Or her workout. Or her skincare routine. And yet, her silence makes her subversive. She isn't against the Left in any direct sense. She's just not of it. And that distinction matters. Why MAGA Can't Stop Posting Her There's a reason conservative media can't get enough of her: She's young. The GOP's problem has always been youth appeal. Sydney solves that. She's beautiful. Liberal feminists would call that 'problematic.' The Right calls it reality. She's talented. Awards, praise, and prestige roles, all without being preachy. She's silent. No need to cancel. No need to apologise. No moral panic. Just vibes. In other words, she's the anti-Lena Dunham. The anti-Alyssa Milano. The anti-everything that drove red-state Americans away from Hollywood. The Culture War's Most Valuable Pawn Sydney Sweeney didn't ask to be drafted into the culture war. She just voted. Then modelled. Then fired a gun. But in the content economy, you don't get to choose how you're used. She became a screen onto which America projected its anxieties and aspirations. And the fact that she never pushed back made her more powerful. The Right turned her into a meme. The Left turned her into a warning. And Sydney? Sydney went back to work. To movies. To photo shoots. To her life. That may be the most radical thing of all. The Mirror, Not the Mouthpiece Sydney Sweeney is not giving speeches. She's not asking for your vote. She's not applying to be the next Kayleigh McEnany. She is simply existing. But in 2025, that's all it takes. She is a mirror—reflecting everything America wants to believe, or fears to acknowledge. To the Right, she's the proof that Hollywood doesn't own the narrative. To the Left, she's a reminder that silence can be resistance too. And in a country where every movie, every tweet, every ad campaign becomes a battleground, Sydney Sweeney has done the unthinkable. She said nothing. And everyone heard it.
