Listen to the article
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Educators, industry groups and Democratic leaders say a federal proposal restricting diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility would harm student success initiatives, impose vague guidelines for educators and violate federal law.
The comments came in public feedback on a proposed regulation from the General Services Administration that would require all federal funding recipients — including schools and colleges — to certify that they don’t use DEI programs. The public comment period closed March 30.
The certification would cover programs the Trump administration calls “discriminatory practices,” such as race-based scholarships or programs, “cultural competence” requirements, and “overcoming obstacles” narratives or “diversity statements.” Training programs that “create a hostile environment” would likewise be prohibited for entities that get federal funding.
The proposal, first published in January, would also require federal funding recipients to certify that they are not knowingly hiring or recruiting undocumented staff, a nod to the administration’s crackdown on illegal immigration.
“This proposal is another attempt by the Trump Administration to advance its agenda against diversity, equity, and inclusion,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta in a statement regarding a public comment filed as part of a coalition of 23 attorneys general. “GSA wants to scare grant recipients into halting lawful programs that protect Americans from discrimination and unfair roadblocks.”
The Democratic attorneys general said the proposal would violate multiple federal laws by not following proper administrative procedures in issuing the proposal and by creating “unnecessary and duplicative certification requirements.”
Individual educators also voiced concerns.
“To be economically competitive in the world, we need all our residents to be educated and productive. DEI programs increase attendance and parent engagement,” said Myranda Marsh, who described herself as leader of a public school that serves low-income families, in her March 12 submission. “Ending all DEI measures tells these families that they are not welcome in public schools.”
Specific federal programs are also at risk as a result of the proposal, according to commenters.
Alex Chough, president of the National Council for Community and Education Partnerships, said in a comment letter that the proposed regulation would “create significant legal risks, increase administrative burden, and may disrupt services” in 44 states where GEAR UP operates.
The council — which represents state agencies, higher education institutions, and K-12 districts — describes GEAR UP, or Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Program, as “one of the largest and most effective programs focused on increasing the college and career readiness of low-income students in communities nationwide.”
Overall, the proposal received around nearly 22,000 comments, out of which at least 1,330 were related to education in some way.
Proponents of anti-DEI measures, however, have said they are divisive and discriminatory against White and Asian students.
Proposal mirrors blocked Education Department requirement
The proposal is similar to a U.S. Department of Education Dear Colleague letter that was issued on Feb. 14, 2025, and a subsequent requirement issued by the department that school districts certify that they do not incorporate DEI into their schools. Those that didn’t eliminate race-based programming would risk losing federal funding.
That letter and its certification requirement created confusion over what kind of school programs would be impacted — including race-aligned student affinity groups, race- and ethnicity-based celebrations, race-based practices in school admissions such as for school choice programs, and diversity-related workforce hiring and promotion decisions.
That attempt by the department was blocked in court, and the Education Department ultimately dropped its appeal in a lawsuit challenging the certification requirement in January — signaling it was no longer attempting to enforce the Dear Colleague letter or its certification requirement.
The GSA proposal nearly mirrors that requirement, but instead of applying only to the Education Department, it would apply to all recipients of federal funding across government agencies. The GSA proposal also rests on Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the same law used by the Education Department to promote its anti-DEI policies.
Some public commenters called attention to those similarities.
“The education community sees this for what it is: a revival of a policy previously attempted and struck down by the courts as unlawful,” said EdTrust in a March 30 comment letter. “Repackaging policy already deemed illegal does not make it lawful.”
Similar to the pushback against the Education Department’s blocked proposal, opponents of the proposed GSA regulation said it would create “vague and arbitrary definitions” of terms like “illegal DEI” that educators would have to abide by, leading to the preemptive dismantling of key education programs or overcompliance by educators who may self-censor out of fear.
“This ambiguity creates a chilling effect,” Chough said.
