In March, President Trump made good on his campaign promise to begin shuttering the Department of Education (DOE) and “return[ing] authority over education to the states.” Key to his pledge was ensuring that any programs using diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) frameworks lose their federal funding. Since then, U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has utilized the DOE to promote the conservative mission of supporting school choice, destroying so-called “radical theory” in schools, and promoting patriotic education.
A recent casualty in this crusade has been funding allocated to minority-serving institutions (MSIs), or colleges and universities that enroll a significant percentage of students from historically underrepresented and marginalized groups. DOE is then using that same funding taken from MSIs to increase support for more high-profile historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs), pitting higher education institutions that minority students disproportionately attend against one another.
Under Titles III and V of the Higher Education Act, multiple provisions ensure that MSIs receive grants from the DOE and other federal agencies. Funding is provided through two streams appropriated by Congress: discretionary funding (“Part A”) and statutorily mandated funding (“Part F”). In fiscal year 2025, $350 million in discretionary funding was funneled into seven different MSI categories, including Hispanic serving-institutions (HSIs), predominantly Black institutions, Asian American- and Native American Pacific Islander-serving institutions, and others.
An institution must reapply to be categorized as an MSI every year, and if approved, can apply for competitive grants or receive assistance through a formula-based process from the federal government. Every MSI categorization has different qualifications, with many of them not just simply requiring an institution to enroll a specific number of students from a certain minority group, but requiring that a high number are low-income and/or first-generation, and that the school maintains low education expenditures.
As of last year, 831 private and public institutions were officially designated as MSIs, or met the qualifications to be one. Around 70 percent of MSIs are Hispanic serving, a key factor that has not been lost on an administration that has been committed to targeting Latino populations.
In a quiet court filing on June 11, the state of Tennessee joined Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA)—the very conservative legal group that sued to successfully overturn college admissions affirmative action policies back in 2023—in suing the DOE over the constitutionality of HSIs. The lawsuit claimed that HSI programs discriminate based on ethnicity, and therefore violate the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
A month later, the Department of Justice notified House Speaker Mike Johnson (R-LA) that the Trump administration would not defend the constitutionality of HSIs, and consequentially MSIs, defaulting to the Supreme Court ruling that overturned affirmative action. In an almost circular fashion, SFFA’s previous legal accomplishment opened the door for the DOE to yank discretionary funding for MSIs and redistribute it as it sees fit.
On September 15, the DOE announced where the $350 million in funding previously appropriated to MSIs would be redirected: HBCUs, along with tribally controlled colleges and universities (TCCUs), charter schools, and American history and civics programs.
On the surface level, it was puzzling why grants that benefitted students from marginalized communities would be pulled only to be funneled into institutions that also serve a similar demographic of students. But in reality, this move was a calculated, intentional act.
HBCUs and TCCUs responded to this news in an overwhelmingly positive manner. It was a major win for institutions that have historically been criminally underfunded in comparison to their predominantly white counterparts. In a one-time contribution, HBCUs and TCCUs received $495 million in additional funding on top of what was previously appropriated for fiscal year 2025, with $435 million going to HBCUs (hiking the total award to $1.34 billion) and $60 million to TCCUs (a 109 percent increase).
The United Negro College Fund and the Thurgood Marshall College Fund, along with the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, made public statements about the tremendous impact this funding boost will be, expressing their gratitude to the Trump administration. The Prospect reached out to all three organizations and did not receive a response.
Unlike MSIs, HBCUs and TCCUs do not qualify for grants based on the demographics of their student enrollment: they receive funding grounded in their historical establishment and institutional mission, which is why the DOE has not labeled them as discriminatory. HBCUs also happen to be more well-known as a designation than MSIs, primarily because of that history (think Morehouse, Spelman, Howard, Grambling, and many more).
President Trump has long touted himself as a proponent for the success of HBCUs, and signed an executive order in April that promised to help advance their achievements. Giving more funding to HBCUs allows Trump to promote this narrative. But the authenticity of the so-called commitment is suspect when the very money boosting HBCUs is being redirected from MSIs, which serve high numbers of students who also come from marginalized backgrounds.
***
The DOE has also been trying to do away with other initiatives that support low-income students, many of which come from minority groups, said Dr. Mike Hoa Nguyen, an associate professor of education at UCLA and the principal investigator of the MSI Data Project. These actions are difficult to reconcile with the administration’s supposed commitment to supporting the educational outcomes of minority students. “If [the Trump administration] actually… cared about HBCUs and tribal colleges, then you would not see such a big attack on other sectors of higher education,” Nguyen said.
For example, major cuts have been made to the DOE’s workforce. Around half of the total staff has been fired, with the Office for Civil Rights facing a massive loss of personnel, and over $10 billion in research grants have been terminated unilaterally. Republicans have been working tirelessly to eliminate DEI frameworks in education and initiatives that promote racial equity and justice. Courses that focus on American systems of oppression, particularly those that explore systemic racism and provide an accurate history of the United States, have also been on the chopping block.
“This is just a part of [the Trump administration’s] broader strategy where they want to create a society that isn’t diverse, that doesn’t celebrate our diversities, complexities, and beauties,” said Nguyen. “If they really did care about HBCUs, as they proclaim to say, they wouldn’t be trying to dismantle the DOE. This is all working toward structurally dissolving this federal department that was established in order to serve students to fill the need and to coordinate ways for our education systems to support our students.”
According to Nguyen, the DOE has been covertly engaging in the cancellation of Part F grants, which must be distributed according to statute. “They’re going systematically into campuses that receive a grant and trying to find ways to cancel those grants individually,” he said. “Some campuses have received letters from the administration … they don’t think [their colleges are] aligned with administration priorities.” This is certainly at odds with the official statement released by the DOE in mid-September, which promised to continue supplying institutions with Part F funding.
The end goal of the Trump administration and its conservative allies is an old story: divide marginalized communities and distract from the importance of solidarity when it’s needed the most. “They are trying to pit communities of color against each other,” said Nguyen. “And I will say they are not succeeding.”
This same point was reflected by Deborah A. Santiago, CEO of Excelencia in Education, a nonprofit focused on the research and promotion of policies that ensure educational success for Latino students. “They’re trying to … pit each other against each other for these resources,” Santiago said. “Most people are not trying to fall for that. But I think it’s relatively blatant that that’s the approach of the administration.”
Santiago believes that funding needs to increase for all colleges that serve minority students, rather than shuffling money away from some and toward others. Low-income and first-generation students from all backgrounds who attend MSIs will be missing out the most in this fight. “The majority of low-income, first-generation, and people of color are in those institutions. So the idea that you’re going to pit us against each other to fight for the same small piece of pie rather than saying, ‘you need to get a bigger piece of this pie’ … That’s, to me, kind of a false paradigm,” she said.
Arguably, HBCUs and TCCUs have been placed in a difficult position, one defined by a history of severe underfunding and racial backlash. Institutions can’t say no to funding increases because that money came from other under-resourced colleges, when there’s much less support going around than there should be. All schools that enroll high numbers of minority students are in an impossible spot, forced to tread delicately when it comes to critiquing the Trump administration’s intentions.
But the increased financial support isn’t a genuine win for HBCUs and tribal colleges. It harms minority students overall and serves as yet another feather in the cap of the Trump administration and the American right, symbolizing another step toward the reestablishment of a fully inequitable world.