With the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down race-based college admissions, Republican lawmakers are now turning their attention toward similar policies in government contracting. But despite these legal victories, how are the admissions rulings unfolding in practice on college campuses, and what might their real-world impact signal for future legislation?
On April 27, Congressman Glenn Grothman (R-WI) introduced the “Ending Discrimination in Government Contracting Act,” which aims to stop federal agencies from awarding contracts based on the recipients’ race or sex.
“I was proud to introduce the Ending Discrimination in Government Contracting Act because preferences in government contracting based on race or sex are fundamentally unfair, costly, and out of step with what most Americans believe,” said Grothman in the press release.
“Contracts should be awarded based on merit, not race or gender, as the Constitution guarantees equal protection for all. Our bill restores accountability, reduces waste, and ensures contracts are awarded based on merit.”
The legislation follows President Trump’s March 26, 2026, Executive Order 14398, which first addressed the need to curb this discriminatory practice.
“DEI activities are not only unethical and often illegal, but also cause inefficiencies, waste, and abuse within entities that engage in such practices,” read the executive order.
While the motion to target DEI government contracts signals shifting tides for race-based programs, one must look to pass legislation on college admissions to understand the battle that lies ahead fully.
Even after the Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 decision curbing race-based admissions, many universities have sought new and creative ways to preserve similar practices. Institutions with deeply entrenched DEI policies in their admissions processes have been especially resistant to change.
Harvard University has become a prime example, demonstrating that it takes more than a court ruling and subsequent legislation to eliminate discriminatory policies fully.
On September 22, 2025, The Center Square reported that the Trump administration targeted Harvard University for its non-compliance with a federal civil rights investigation. The Trump administration said that Harvard “continues to engage in unlawful racial discrimination in its admissions process.”
Subsequent litigation later in the year by the Equal Protection Project (EPP) furthered the fight, cornering specific policies at the university.
On December 7, 2025, EPP filed a civil rights complaint with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Office for Civil Rights against Harvard University for “involvement in the Union Scholars Program, a program run jointly by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees and Harvard (AFSCME).” This program was “…open only to individuals from ‘historically marginalized communities’,” which AFSCME describes in its promotional materials as “students of color.”
Similar scenarios have occurred at other universities that have refused to part ways with racially discriminatory admissions.
In October of last year, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology refused to sign a White House agreement that would have granted federal funds tied to the administration’s demands. The proposed agreement would have offered “special access to federal funding in exchange for commitments to eliminate racial discrimination in admissions and freeze tuition rates for the next five years.”
Other universities continue to maintain DEI-related admissions policies in their official institutional guidelines.
At Louisiana Tech University, “Policy 2306: Admissions Requirements,” which remains active on the university’s website and took effect in 2024, states that the school may waive certain academic requirements for students who could contribute “diversity” to the campus community.
“Louisiana Tech University may admit students not meeting all requirements,” reads the policy.
“In such cases, the admission decision will be affected by the student’s potential for degree completion and the need to enhance the university’s demographically diverse student population.”
While the recent push to uproot federal and university DEI funding, much more is needed to ensure that agencies comply with mandates.
CLICK HERE FOR FULL VERSION OF THIS STORY