Durbin Joins Padilla, Sanders To Demand Trump Administration Reverse Its Decision To End Federal Funding For Minority-Serving Institutions

Durbin Joins Padilla, Sanders To Demand Trump Administration Reverse Its Decision To End Federal Funding For Minority-Serving Institutions

Senators blast Department of Education's reliance on baseless legal reasoning behind determination to deem MSIs unconstitutional and cut off federal funding

WASHINGTON - U.S. Senate Democratic Whip Dick Durbin (D-IL) joined U.S. Senators Alex Padilla (D-CA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Cory Booker (D-NJ), Ben Ray Luján (D-NM), Mazie Hirono (D-HI), and Raphael Warnock (D-GA) in urging the Department of Education to immediately reverse the Trump Administration's harmful decision to unilaterally halt federal funding for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs). In their letter to Education Secretary Linda McMahon, the Senators criticized the Education Department's flawed usage of the Department of Justice's (DOJ) baseless decision to deem these programs unconstitutional, risking the education of millions of students of all ethnicities and backgrounds by cutting off discretionary and mandatory funding.

"This decision is yet another example of this Administration attempting to circumvent Congress and its obligations to follow the law," wrote the Senators. "Unilaterally deciding that long-standing programs are unconstitutional, absent a ruling from the judiciary, sets a dangerous precedent and disrupts needed support that colleges and students rely on."

"We urge you to allocate Title III and V discretionary and mandatory funds as Congress intended so that these institutions, which educate millions of working-class Americans, can continue to successfully serve every student they enroll and continue to be economic engines for the communities they serve across this nation," continued the Senators.

The Senators blasted DOJ's legal justification for declaring that both discretionary and mandatory MSI grant funding is unconstitutional, citing DOJ's reliance on a Supreme Court decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College that discusses race-based admissions policies, not race-based funding allocations. The Senators emphasized that the factors a college or university can consider when evaluating a student for admission, as addressed in the Supreme Court decision, are unrelated to whether a school should be considered an MSI and that relying on that precedent is an "inappropriate subversion of duly-enacted federal law." MSIs are evaluated for consideration of federal funding based on the student population they serve, not their admission policies.

Thirty-two MSIs are located in Illinois. There are more than 800 federally recognized MSIs, including Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs), and Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions (ANNHSIs). MSIs enroll over five million students, many of whom are first-generation college students. These institutions rely on federal funding to provide vital supports and services for students to help them complete their degrees. Historically, these programs have been authorized on a bipartisan basis. The Trump Administration's decision to end funding for MSIs threatens the institutions' ability to adequately serve their students of all backgrounds.

In addition to Durbin, Padilla, Sanders, Booker, Hirono, Luján, and Warnock, the letter was also signed by U.S. Senators Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD), Tammy Baldwin (D-WI), Michael Bennet (D-CO), Richard Blumenthal (D-CT), Lisa Blunt Rochester (D-DE), Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Tim Kaine (D-VA), Mark Kelly (D-AZ), Andy Kim (D-NJ), Ed Markey (D-MA), Jeff Merkley (D-OR), Patty Murray (D-WA), Jon Ossoff (D-GA), Jack Reed (D-RI), Jacky Rosen (D-NV), Brian Schatz (D-HI), Adam Schiff (D-CA), Chris Van Hollen (D-MD), Mark Warner (D-VA), Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), and Ron Wyden (D-OR).

Last year, Durbin joined Padilla, Sanders, Booker, Hirono, Luján, and Warnock, alongside 21 Senate colleagues, to demand Secretary McMahon immediately reverse course on the Trump Administration's harmful decision to reallocate $350 million in discretionary funding for MSIs.

Full text of the letter is available here and below:

February 18, 2026

Dear Secretary McMahon:

We write to express our strong opposition to the Administration's decision to unilaterally halt federal funding for Minority-Serving Institutions (MSIs) based on a unilateral determination by the Department of Justice (DOJ) that these programs are unconstitutional. These longstanding programs have been authorized and funded by Congress for decades, and the Administration's baseless decision to deem these programs unconstitutional needlessly disrupts the fiscal stability of thousands of colleges and universities that educate millions of students of all ethnicities and backgrounds.

Congress first established MSI programs on a bipartisan basis in the 1986 reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and expanded them in subsequent reauthorizations. MSIs have received bipartisan support over the course of six administrations presided over by presidents of both parties. That was true during President Trump's first term, when he signed the FUTURE Act into law, to secure permanent funding for Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribally Controlled Colleges (TCCUS), and MSIs.

More than 800 federally recognized MSIs currently serve over five million students, many of whom are first generation college students and come from low-income backgrounds. These include Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian Serving Institutions (ANNHSIs), Hispanic Serving Institutions (HSIs), Native American Serving Non-Tribal Institutions (NASNTIs), and Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs). More than half of all MSI students qualify for Pell grants, and HSIs enroll 37 percent of the nation's Pell recipients. As directed by Congress in Section 312(b) of the Higher Education Act, institutions to be eligible for MSI funding, are evaluated on their current enrollment (e.g. among the students they enroll, 15 to 25 percent of existing students must be from a particular student population), have lower than average expenditures, and must enroll high percentages of students receiving Pell grants or need-based aid.

On September 10, 2025, grantees who were recipients of discretionary grant funds under six programs received a letter that the funds were being reprogrammed because the Department of Education (Department) believed that "racial quotas" were unconstitutional. At the time, the Department recognized that while it had statutory authority to reprogram the discretionary funds, the mandatory funds provided to MSIs, which have been required in statute since 2007, could not be reprogrammed and would continue to be dispersed. The Department then added that it would continue to consider the underlying legal issues associated with the mandatory funding mechanism in these programs.

On December 2, 2025, the Department of Justice's Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) issued an opinion analyzing the constitutionality of the Department of Education's MSI programs and determined that both the discretionary and mandatory grants for HSIs, ANNHSIs, ANNAPISIs, and NASNTIs, and the formula-based PBI programs, are unconstitutional. On December 19, the Department of Education stated that it was evaluating the full impact of the OLC opinion on the affected programs.

While the Department of Justice's opinion cites to the Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023) ("SFFA"), that decision pertained specifically to the factors a college or university can consider when evaluating a student for admission. Those factors are unrelated to the determination of whether a school should be considered an MSI, and relying on that precedent- when there has been no specific court determination that MSIs are unconstitutional-is an inappropriate subversion of duly-enacted federal law. MSIs are not directed nor required to employ race-conscious admissions policies for their enrollment; they are evaluated based on the population of students they already serve at the time they are applying for funding.

Furthermore, the funding provided to eligible MSIs through Title III and V grants is provided to the institution, not to specific students. The benefits of the funds are directed towards all students that attend those colleges, regardless of race, ethnicity, or socio-economic status. Without these funds, under-resourced institutions would not be able to adequately support their students' success and the economic benefits for the local communities where these institutions are located would be lost.

Notably, the OLC opinion does not differentiate grants to Native American or Native Hawaiian and Alaska Native serving institutions from other MSI grantees. The opinion incorrectly lumps these institutions with all MSIs, even as federal law has long recognized that these programs serve categories of students that are not racial but rather political classifications. Notably, 90 percent of Native students enroll in traditional public and private colleges, including NASNTIs and ANNHSIs, and the federal government has a fundamental legal responsibility to Native students' education that is not based on race but on treaties, statutes, court decisions, and the trust responsibility. Further, last year the Department recognized this "unique political and legal relationship" when it took the position that American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian history is not classified as diversity, equity, and inclusion and pledged to "continue to deliver on all statutory grant programs that support American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students." NASNTIs and ANNHSIs are statutorily authorized to receive federal support from the Department to strengthen their capacity to serve American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students.

Furthermore, this action is inconsistent with the policies of this Administration. Nearly a half dozen agencies have clarified that programs that serve American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians do not constitute Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) activities prohibited by President Trump's executive orders. Grants supporting Native communities with which the federal government holds trust and treaty obligations do not impose racial quotas or restrict admissions based on race, but rather deliver on the federal trust responsibility to provide an education for American Indians, Alaska Natives, and Native Hawaiians because of their unique legal status and political relationship with the United States.

This decision is yet another example of this Administration attempting to circumvent Congress and its obligations to follow the law. Unilaterally deciding that long-standing programs are unconstitutional, absent a ruling from the judiciary, sets a dangerous precedent and disrupts needed support that colleges and students rely on.

We urge you to allocate Title III and V discretionary and mandatory funds as Congress intended so that these institutions, which educate millions of working-class Americans, can continue to successfully serve every student they enroll and continue to be economic engines for the communities they serve across this nation. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

Sincerely,

-30-