Congress Considers Whether Rebranding Equals Reform

The U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Education and the Workforce held a hearing on July 14, 2026, titled “Training Activists, Not Physicians: The Impact of DEI on Medical Schools,” with testimony from leaders of the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) David Geffen School of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco and University of Illinois College of Medicine, along with the president of the National Medical Association. The committee opened investigations into the three medical schools in 2025.

Republican members focused on course content, reading specific phrases and course titles into the record and asking whether those subjects were still taught. Witnesses testified that the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI)-focused courses at issue had been discontinued before any congressional inquiry, that the institutions had limited required instruction to their own faculty and that classroom time had been restricted to relevant course content. Members also pressed on U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Rights Division findings regarding the use of race in UCLA medical school admissions, on compliance with executive orders addressing federally funded DEI programs and institutional practices relating to care for transgender minors. Witnesses declined to address matters subject to ongoing litigation.

Notably, members treated curricular changes made before the investigation as a reason to ask what prompted them, and they cited institutional websites that still referenced diversity and inclusion as evidence that reforms were incomplete. Following the hearing, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened admissions discrimination investigations into five additional medical schools.

"Combating DEI in American Institutions"

The Oversight Task Force hearing of the same title focused on what members and witnesses described as the persistence of DEI functions under new names. Witnesses testified that DEI personnel frequently remain in place under relabeled offices and pointed to identity-based commencement events as an example of programming that continues in substance. Testimony also urged federal enforcers to shift emphasis from disparate impact theories toward cases alleging intentional discrimination.

Law School Accreditation and the ABA

The Task Force's hearing on "The Future of DEI in Law School Accreditation and the Legal Profession" centered on the American Bar Association (ABA) and its role as the sole federally recognized accreditor of law schools. Republican members criticized ABA Accreditation Standard 206, which requires law schools to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion, and Standard 303(c), which requires coursework on bias, cross-cultural competency and racism. Witnesses urged Congress and the Education Department to recognize additional law school accreditors and bar recognition of any accreditor that imposes DEI requirements. The ABA's president testified the organization is nonpartisan and that the Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar operates independently of the broader association. Democratic members argued that the council, not the ABA president, was the appropriate witness.

The ABA has already moved on both standards. Enforcement of Standard 206 has been suspended since February 2025, the suspension has been extended into 2027, and the council voted in May 2026 to repeal it. That repeal is not final. The ABA's House of Delegates declined to concur on August 4, 2026, and the council is expected to take the standard up again later this month. Standard 303(c) remains under review. Committee members nevertheless expressed skepticism that these steps reflect a durable change in position.

The Converging Enforcement Environment

The hearings are one component of a broader landscape institutions are evaluating as a whole.

Justice Department Civil Rights Enforcement: The DOJ Civil Rights Division has opened more than 100 investigations into university admissions practices and issued findings against several medical schools. Those include UCLA's David Geffen School of Medicine, which was represented at the July hearing. In June 2026, the Division also announced an additional 15 medical school investigations and opened a Title VI investigation into university DEI practices. A June 16, 2026, interagency agreement between the Education Department and DOJ gives DOJ a substantially larger role in investigating and resolving civil rights complaints against educational institutions – a shift that brings litigation-style tools, including formal data demands and witness interviews, to matters historically handled through administrative processes at the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights. Most recently, in August, DOJ issued findings against a law school alleging that its admissions practices continued to consider race following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in Students for Fair Admissions, Inc. v. President and Fellows of Harvard College, 600 U.S. 181 (2023), including through facially neutral admissions criteria that DOJ contends operated as proxies for race.

False Claims Act (FCA) Exposure: DOJ's Civil Rights Fraud Initiative, established in May 2025, uses the FCA against federal funding recipients that certify compliance with civil rights laws while allegedly maintaining discriminatory programs. The initiative reaches any recipient of federal funds, which places universities and academic medical centers within its scope alongside contractors. The first public resolution came in April 2026 when a federal contractor agreed to pay $17 million to resolve allegations tied to its DEI programs. Institutions that certified civil rights compliance when accepting federal grants or contracts should expect those certifications, and the records behind them, to be examined against actual practice.

Accreditation Rulemaking: The Education Department's Accreditation, Innovation and Modernization negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus in May 2026 on proposed amendments to 34 C.F.R. Parts 600, 602 and 668. The draft would ease recognition of new accreditors, require greater separation between accrediting agencies and affiliated trade associations, add civil rights and viewpoint diversity requirements and refocus review on student outcomes. The proposed rule has moved into the final stages of executive branch review ahead of publication in the Federal Register. Once published, the Education Department will open a public comment period, likely 30 days, before issuing a final rule. If the Department issues a final rule by November 1, 2026, it will take effect July 1, 2027.

State-Level Fragmentation in Legal Education: Several states are reconsidering exclusive reliance on ABA accreditation for bar eligibility. The Alabama Supreme Court has amended its bar admission rule to allow graduates of non-ABA-accredited law schools to sit for the exam, and similar measures are under discussion elsewhere. Law schools face the prospect of divergent state requirements and questions about bar exam portability for their graduates.

The Education Department's "National Call to Action": On August 3, 2026, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon issued an open letter to all university presidents and governing boards asking each institution to publish, by the end of 2026, a public statement addressing seven questions on admissions transparency, free speech, intellectual pluralism, affordability, academic rigor, research security and national service. Unlike the October 2025 compact, which was offered to a limited group of institutions before being extended more broadly, the letter imposes no mandate, conditions no funding and specifies no consequence for declining. Time will tell whether any institutions respond to the request.

Potential Risk

Institutions find themselves in a challenging position: complying with demands from the Trump Administration that may then open them to questions and actions from Democratic policymakers about what concessions have been made. For example, when the administration circulated its 2025 compact, California's governor threatened to withhold state funds from any signatory, Virginia Senate Democratic leadership warned a state university of budget consequences, and Pennsylvania legislators moved to bar state-funded institutions from participating. Senate Democrats led by Sen. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) have separately pressed the Education Department over accreditor recognition – the mechanism at issue in the law school hearing – and 19 state attorneys general and the attorney general for the District of Columbia sued in June 2026 over the federal contractor DEI executive order.

It's worth noting that positions taken now by institutions of higher education – whether in response to the Education Department's call to action, commitments made to resolve federal investigations and/or program changes – will be available to a differently constituted Congress in January 2027, as well as to state officials and private litigants in the meantime.

What Institutions Should Consider Now

Congressional investigations create exposure that differs from litigation or agency enforcement – namely, legal risk, reputational harm, funder scrutiny and political pressure. As such, institutions with potential exposure may want to consider the following steps:

• Audit Public-Facing Materials. Websites, course catalogs, office names, scholarship criteria, event descriptions and admissions materials are the primary source documents for congressional staff. Inconsistency between what an institution says publicly and what it has certified to federal agencies is itself an investigative predicate.
• Assess Substance, Not Just Labels. Renaming an office or removing a webpage does not resolve the underlying question of whether decisions turn on protected characteristics. Review admissions, hiring, scholarship and programming criteria against the standards the government is applying and document the basis for changes already made.
• Reconcile Certifications with Practice. Identify federal grants and contracts carrying civil rights certifications and confirm that the underlying facts support them.
• Prepare for Parallel Proceedings. Congressional inquiries frequently run alongside DOJ, the Education Department and state attorney general matters. Positions taken in one forum will be used in the others, and congressional testimony is not privileged.
• Treat Any Response to the Education Department's Call to Action as a Durable Public Commitment. Participation is voluntary, and the decision whether and how to respond should be made with counsel, governance and communications input. Whatever is published should be accurate today and defensible in two years.
• Establish Document Retention and Response Protocols Before a Request Arrives. Also, coordinate legal, compliance, government relations and communications functions in advance.

Holland & Knight's Congressional Investigations Team combines former congressional investigators and oversight committee leaders, white collar litigators, regulatory attorneys and public policy professionals to help clients navigate congressional scrutiny, parallel investigations and related reputational and business risks. On matters involving educational institutions, the team draws on experienced colleagues from Holland & Knight's Education Team, one of the largest and longest-established education law practices in the country. Together, our attorneys help clients assess exposure, strengthen internal processes, and coordinate legal, policy and communications strategy while maintaining focus on institutional objectives.

If you have any questions or need assistance with a specific matter, please contact any of the authors or another member of our team.

Holland & Knight Summer Associate Jontae Burton contributed to this alert.

Information contained in this alert is for the general education and knowledge of our readers. It is not designed to be, and should not be used as, the sole source of information when analyzing and resolving a legal problem, and it should not be substituted for legal advice, which relies on a specific factual analysis. Moreover, the laws of each jurisdiction are different and are constantly changing. This information is not intended to create, and receipt of it does not constitute, an attorney-client relationship. If you have specific questions regarding a particular fact situation, we urge you to consult the authors of this publication, your Holland & Knight representative or other competent legal counsel.