Dive Brief:
- Two higher education organizations Monday filed suit against President Donald Trump and his administration over his executive orders aiming to dismantle diversity, equity and inclusion efforts in the public and private sectors.
- The American Association of University Professors and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education argue that Trump’s orders are overly vague, an overstep of his legal authority and chill speech that the president opposes.
- The 42-page lawsuit, filed in U.S. District Court in Maryland, seeks an immediate pause in enforcing the executive orders while the case is ongoing and an ultimate judgment that the orders are unconstitutional.
Dive Insight:
Trump issued two executive orders in the first two days of his second term seeking to eliminate DEI efforts nationwide, including one targeting educational institutions.
One order gave federal agency heads 60 days to cut all DEI; diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility; and “environmental justice” offices, positions and programming under their purview.
The U.S. Department of Education announced its compliance two days later — canceling DEI trainings and service contracts, pulling hundreds of public documents that reference DEI and placing an undisclosed number of DEI staff on leave.
In the other executive order, Trump directed federal agencies to “combat illegal private sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, and activities.” The order also said that college DEI policies and programs could amount to violations of federal civil rights laws.
AAUP and NADOHE, joined by the nonprofit Restaurant Opportunities Centers United and Baltimore city officials, argue that the orders fail to define the key terms, such as “illegal DEIA.”
The lawsuit called on the courts to block Acting U.S. Secretary of Education Denise Carter and other department heads from enforcing Trump’s orders.
Otherwise, it said, colleges could become targets of civil compliance investigation and be left with an untenable choice — “continue to promote their lawful diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility programs, or suppress their own speech by ending programs or policies that the President may consider ‘illegal DEI.’”
Another recent federal document added to the confusion around the executive orders, the lawsuit said.
On Jan. 27, the U.S. Office of Budget and Management issued a two-page memo directing all agency heads to freeze federal funding until they could ensure that recipients were in compliance with Trump’s wave of executive orders, including those related to DEI.
The directive threw large swaths of the public and private sectors into chaos, both due to the memo’s vagueness and the massive implications of halting billions in federal funding.
Though OMB issued some additional guidance — carving out freeze exemptions for Pell Grants and federal student loans — it failed to quell the growing din of concern.
A federal judge temporarily blocked the freeze from taking effect with minutes to spare, and OMB ultimately rescinded the memo on Jan. 29.
But a statement from White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt created further confusion.
“This is NOT a rescission of the federal funding freeze. It is simply a rescission of the OMB memo,” she said in a social media post that day. “Why? To end any confusion created by the court’s injunction. The President’s EO’s on federal funding remain in full force and effect, and will be rigorously implemented.”
The executive orders’ control over federal funding unlawfully circumvents Congress’ exclusive constitutional power of the purse, the higher ed groups’ lawsuit said.
“In the United States, there is no king,” it said. “In his crusade to erase diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility from our country, President Trump cannot usurp Congress’s exclusive power of the purse, nor can he silence those who disagree with him by threatening them with the loss of federal funds and other enforcement actions.”
Furthermore, the confusion and rapid oscillation between policy stances leaves colleges and their staff in the lurch, the lawsuit said.
“Because of the vagueness of President Trump’s two executive orders, Plaintiffs are left to wonder whether, and for how long, they can rely on the federal funding that Congress appropriated using its exclusive power of the purse,” the lawsuit said.
Each of the roughly 2,220 members of NADOHE work in DEI and are all but guaranteed to be affected by the orders.
Paulette Granberry Russell, president and CEO of NADOHE, called the contested executive orders “reckless and unconstitutional” in an open letter Monday.
“In issuing these far-reaching executive orders, the Trump Administration has created an environment of fear and uncertainty, hoping to compel institutions, organizations and individuals to reconsider their commitment to equity and justice and, in the words of one executive order, ‘to deter DEI programs or principles,'” she said.
AAUP is the much larger of the two higher ed groups, with roughly 44,000 members.
“The elimination of DEI programs and initiatives at public academic institutions are a threat to the democratic purposes of higher education as a public good,” Todd Wolfson, president of AAUP, said in a statement Monday. “The AAUP is proud to stand up and defend our campuses and communities from this vague and destructive executive order.”
