17 States Challenge Trump's Plan to Limit Race in College Admissions, Warn of Harm to Students

A coalition of 17 Democratic state attorneys general has launched a legal challenge against a new Trump administration policy that requires higher education institutions to disclose detailed admissions data disaggregated by race and sex.

The legal action aims to block a federal mandate that requires nearly 2,200 institutions to retroactively report seven years of student demographic and academic performance metrics by 18 March 2026. State officials argue that the policy is a 'rushed and arbitrary' administrative overreach that threatens student privacy and exposes institutions to baseless investigations and severe financial penalties.

A Contentious Federal Data Mandate

The mandate stems from a Presidential Memorandum issued by President Donald Trump on 7 August 2025, which directed the Department of Education to expand the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). The administration asserts that this move is essential to ensure compliance with the landmark 2023 Supreme Court ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which largely prohibited race-conscious admissions.

Education Department spokesperson Ellen Keast defended the initiative, arguing that with over $100 billion in annual taxpayer investment, the public deserves transparency regarding how universities conduct admissions. 'The Department's efforts will expand an existing transparency tool to show how universities are taking race into consideration in admissions,' Keast stated.

Precedent Set By Elite University Settlements

This national policy mirrors the data-sharing agreements reached between the Trump administration and Brown and Columbia Universities in 2025.

Following federal investigations into allegations of discrimination and campus unrest, both institutions settled by agreeing to provide extensive, disaggregated data—including race, GPA, and test scores—for applicants, admitted students, and enrolled cohorts.

Additionally, both universities consented to regular federal audits and the public release of admissions statistics. While these settlements were specific to those institutions, the new IPEDS mandate effectively codifies these stringent reporting requirements into a blanket national policy for all colleges receiving Title IV federal student aid.

Transparency Requirements And Regulatory Enforcement

The federal mandate, codified in the August 2025 directive from Education Secretary Linda McMahon, fundamentally changes the reporting landscape for US higher education. Institutions that participate in Title IV federal student aid programmes are now required to submit comprehensive, disaggregated data regarding their undergraduate and select graduate applicant pools, admitted cohorts, and enrolled students.

This reporting must include specific academic metrics such as standardised test scores, grade point averages (GPAs), and other demographic identifiers, retroactively covering the past seven academic years. The administration has made clear that compliance is not optional. Under Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, the Department of Education possesses the authority to initiate remedial actions against institutions that fail to provide timely, accurate, and complete data. Penalties for non-compliance can be severe, including substantial monetary fines—adjusted annually for inflation—and, in cases of repeated or egregious failures, the suspension or termination of an institution's eligibility to participate in federal student aid programmes, a lifeline for millions of students.

Privacy Concerns And Institutional Burdens

Leading the charge against the mandate, Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell argues that the government's timeline is practically unattainable. Campbell contends that in their haste to compile the requested data, universities are highly likely to produce inaccurate information, leaving them vulnerable to 'baseless investigations' and substantial fines under the Higher Education Act.

Beyond the administrative burden, the coalition warns that the demand for in-depth information risks compromising student privacy. Critics argue that requiring such granular, retroactively collected data—broken down by race and sex—could make it easy to identify individual students, particularly at smaller colleges with niche demographics.

By forcing institutions to choose between risking federal funding through non-compliance or violating their own student data protection obligations, the lawsuit asserts that the administration is effectively weaponising statistical reporting to further partisan policy goals. As the 18 March deadline looms, the legal battle highlights a deepening divide over the role of federal oversight in higher education admissions.

Originally published on IBTimes UK