Trump Says No Tax Breaks for Private Schools That Discriminate on Race
Private schools cannot discriminate on the basis of race, the Trump administration said. A proposed regulation would codify decades of Supreme Court cases.
Private schools and universities that discriminate on the basis of race could lose their federal tax-exemption under a new regulation proposed by the Trump administration.
The proposal “would update existing regulations to provide that a private school is not described as an organization exempt from Federal income tax if it discriminates on the basis of race, color, or national or ethnic origin,” the unpublished rule says.
If implemented after the required comment period, the regulations could apply to up to 18,000 schools, the Trump administration said.
The school would lose its status if it discriminates “in administration of its educational, admissions, scholarship, athletic, or other policies, based on the fundamental public policy of the United States against such practices.”
Officials say the regulation is required by Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, as well as Brown v. Board of Education and Bob Jones University v. United States.
Religious schools would still be free to favor students based on church membership. Schools could also use “race-neutral criteria” such as favoring students based on income or military families.
Under @POTUS, this Administration is standing up for America’s students by ensuring racial discrimination has no place in American education. Schools rebranding race-based preferences as equitable, inclusive, or diversity-enhancing does not change their discriminatory nature.…
— Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent (@SecScottBessent) September 3, 2026
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent framed the rule as advancing Trump’s civil rights agenda.
“Under President Trump, this Administration is standing up for America’s students by ensuring racial discrimination has no place in American education,” Secretary Bessent stated.
“Schools rebranding race-based preferences as equitable, inclusive, or diversity-enhancing does not change their discriminatory nature,” he continued.
Internal Revenue Service CEO Frank Bisignano added: “Today’s proposed regulations put institutions on notice and schools that continue to engage in racial discrimination should expect to lose that status.”
The NAACP quickly criticized the proposal and promised a lawsuit.
“Trump‘s proposed weaponization of the IRS against educational institutions that support minority students tracks his continued bastardization of the SFFA decision and is wholly unlawful,” Janai Nelson wrote on X. She is the director counsel of the group’s legal advocacy arm.
It will be challenged in court and no school should obey in advance,” Nelson opined.
Trump‘s proposed weaponization of the IRS against educational institutions that support minority students tracks his continued bastardization of the SFFA decision and is wholly unlawful. It will be challenged in court and no school should obey in advance. https://t.co/aZjvd5u9Ob
— Janai Nelson (@JNelsonLDF) September 3, 2026
[Featured image via Fox News]
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
“The NAACP quickly criticized the proposal and promised a lawsuit.”
Leftists suing in favor of racial discrimination!
Well, of course.
An organization that exists to advance one color of people over another—is discrimination.
Revenue Ruling 71-447 and Revenue procedure 75-50 both require non discriminatory policies. Compliance with both are required for tax exempt status under Section 501(c)(3).
There is absolutely nothing in either that allow reverse discrimination.
See also the SC decision in Bob Jones University.
A friend of mine was a sophomore at Bob Jones University when it lost its tax exemption. BJU admitted blacks, but had published rules against interracial dating.
End Fed tax breaks, grants, and funding for ALL schools.
This cannot be said often or loudly enough. Those tax breaks are meant to promote education but have had the opposite effect. They have allowed miseducation to flourish. Get rid of them all!
This. For that matter selectively end tax exemptions for schools. Wealthy Harvard can afford to pay taxes and indeed has been corralled to pay some money to MA cities.
This is gonna be a hoot to watch unfold as Univ are forced to choose between financial benefits and their ongoing commitment to patently discriminatory policies.
It is always worth quoting the always-ignored controlling decision from the USSC, the Griggs v. Duke Power decision.
Congress has not commanded that the less qualified be preferred over the better qualified simply because of minority origins. Far from disparaging job qualifications as such, Congress has made such qualifications the controlling factor, so that race, religion, nationality, and sex become irrelevant. What Congress has commanded is that any tests used must measure the person for the job, and not the person in the abstract.
Jewish schools in the UK have had huge problems with laws like this, because the definition of Jewish identity depends on birth or conversion, not on belief or practice. If a child is born Jewish he is Jewish regardless of what he or his parents believe, and regardless of what they practice. But a child not born Jewish can only become Jewish by conversion, which requires convincing a religious court that the child will be raised to believe in the Jewish religion, and to obey Jewish law.
So a school that wishes to be open to all Jewish children, but not to non-Jewish children, runs afoul of the racial discrimination laws. It must either admit non-Jewish children, or else restrict admission to children whose families obey Jewish law to some defined standard; and even then they have problems when a family with a non-Jewish mother and children decides to adopt whatever minimum observance standard the school decides to impose, without actually becoming Jewish, which requires a full commitment to the whole package.
I guess the way this might work for Jewish schools is to define the school itself as a religious organization, and require parents to become members of that organization, perhaps paying a token membership fee of $1, before applying to send their children there. The membership rules of the organization itself are of course exempt from all discrimination laws, just as are a religious organization’s hiring decisions under Mount Tabor.
PS: At least this one only involves funding. If worst comes to worst a school can simply give up funding and accept an increased fundraising burden. In the UK it’s got nothing to do with funding. Even a completely private school that accepts nothing from the government is bound by the racial discrimination laws.
Milhouse correct with the exception of maintaining the tax exempt status under 501(c)(3) . See my comments above.
Though a numersous of enforcement issues with the loss of the tax exempt status including but not limited to, the extreme shortage of exam agents, the policy directives of the tax exempt exam division, etc.
Fwiw – I work extensively with the IRS and for the most part , the rank and file of the agents tend to be non partisan. Though what I hear through the grapevine is the tax exempt status has a large liberal workforce along with the national office.
oops – my comment was addressing US private schools – I mistakenly overlooked that millhouse was addressing UK schools. Different rules for different countries
True the Vote enters the chat.
Kamehameha Schools. The only race-based k-12 I know of in the 50 states, but maybe there are others.
Hmmm, it will be interesting to see how this works with the BIE.
https://www.bie.edu/topic-page/tribally-controlled-schools
That racist crap hole Howard University can be leveled for all I care.
There hasn’t been a group more arrogantly proud to be racist since the 1800s.
Leave a Comment