PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Feb 13, 2025
Eliminate DEI in Colleges Act
This bill prohibits an institution of higher education (IHE) from receiving federal funds or participating in federal student aid programs if the IHE carries out diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Specifically, the bill requires an IHE to certify to the Department of Education (ED) that the IHE (1) does not and will not carry out any program, project, initiative, or other activity that advocates, promotes, or otherwise supports DEI; and (2) does not and will not maintain any office or other entity within the IHE that advocates, promotes, or otherwise supports DEI.
Each IHE that provides the certification must, upon request, make available to ED any information necessary to verify the accuracy of the certification.
ED must publish regulations to implement and enforce the bill's provisions.
The bill establishes a process through which an IHE may appeal ED's decision to terminate the IHE's financial assistance for failure to comply with the bill's provisions.
People & committees
Rep. Bilirakis, Gus M. [R-FL-12] · R–FL
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We also preserved the text version used in the PlainBill explanation below.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Apr 6, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.1282 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.1282 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.1282 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.1282 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.
PlainBill explanation
Based on the full Introduced in House · 2025-02-13 text. This explanation has not received human editorial review. This overview describes the proposal’s major provisions; it does not establish what its real-world effects would be.
The proposed Eliminate DEI in Colleges Act would make colleges’ eligibility for federal financial support, including federal student loan programs, depend on certifying that they do not and will not conduct specified diversity, equity, and inclusion activities or maintain offices supporting them. The bill defines that concept as classifying people by listed characteristics and treating them differently or preferentially because of that classification. Institutions could appeal decisions terminating assistance.
This Act may be cited as the Eliminate DEI in Colleges Act.
no institution of higher education shall be eligible to receive funds or any other form of financial assistance under any Federal program, including participation in any federally funded or guaranteed student loan program, unless the institution certifies to the Secretary
(1) does not and will not carry out any program, project, initiative, or other activity the primary purpose of which is to advocate, promote, or otherwise support diversity, equity, and inclusion; and (2) does not and will not maintain any office or other entity within the institution to advocate, promote, or otherwise support diversity, equity, and inclusion.
the term diversity, equity, and inclusion means the concept according to which individuals are— (1) classified on basis of race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation; and (2) afforded differential or preferential treatment basis of such classification.
Upon determination by the Secretary to terminate financial assistance to any institution of higher education under this section, the institution may file an appeal with an administrative law judge
Section 2 would add a new section 124 to the Higher Education Act of 1965. Its eligibility condition would apply to assistance under any federal program, expressly including federally funded or guaranteed student loan programs, and would override conflicting provisions of law.
Part B of title I of the Higher Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 1011 et seq.) is amended by adding at the end the following: 124. Prohibition on diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives
Notwithstanding any other provision of law, no institution of higher education shall be eligible to receive funds or any other form of financial assistance under any Federal program, including participation in any federally funded or guaranteed student loan program, unless the institution certifies to the Secretary
The proposed definition of diversity, equity, and inclusion requires both classification by race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation and different or preferential treatment based on that classification.
(e) Definition In this section, the term diversity, equity, and inclusion means the concept according to which individuals are— (1) classified on basis of race, color, sex, national origin, gender identity, or sexual orientation; and (2) afforded differential or preferential treatment basis of such classification.
Institutions would have to certify both present and future compliance. For programs and other activities, the restriction concerns their primary purpose. The separate restriction on offices and other institutional entities does not include that primary-purpose qualification.
(1) does not and will not carry out any program, project, initiative, or other activity the primary purpose of which is to advocate, promote, or otherwise support diversity, equity, and inclusion; and (2) does not and will not maintain any office or other entity within the institution to advocate, promote, or otherwise support diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Institutions providing the certification would have to supply information on request that the Secretary needs to verify its truth and accuracy.
Each institution of higher education that provides the certification required by subsection (a) shall, upon request, make available to the Secretary any information needed by the Secretary to verify the truth and accuracy of the certification.
The Secretary would be required to publish regulations implementing and enforcing the new requirements.
The Secretary shall publish regulations to implement and enforce the provisions of this section.
An institution notified that its financial assistance will be terminated under this section could appeal to an administrative law judge, who hears disputes over agency decisions. The appeal would have to be filed before the end of the 30-day period beginning on the notification date.
Upon determination by the Secretary to terminate financial assistance to any institution of higher education under this section, the institution may file an appeal with an administrative law judge before the expiration of the 30-day period beginning on the date such institution is notified of the decision to terminate financial assistance under this section.
The judge would have to hold a hearing before the end of the 45-day period beginning when the appeal is filed. The judge could extend that period if the institution formally requests it. The judge’s termination decision would count as final agency action—the agency’s final decision on the matter.
Such judge shall hold a hearing with respect to such termination of assistance before the expiration of the 45-day period beginning on the date that such appeal is filed. Such judge may extend such 45-day period upon a motion by the institution concerned. The decision of the judge with respect to such termination shall be considered to be a final agency action.
The supplied actions snapshot, updated April 6, 2026, records introduction in the House and referral to the House Committee on Education and Workforce on February 13, 2025. It does not establish any later legislative outcome.
Source snapshot updated 2026-04-06T12:43:10Z. 2025-02-13: Referred to the House Committee on Education and Workforce. 2025-02-13: Introduced in House
A closer look
Reviewed version: Introduced in House · 2025-02-13. These findings describe provisions and who may benefit; they are not judgments of waste, corruption, or motive.
This review covers the supplied bill text. “None identified” does not rule out provisions in later versions or accompanying reports and disclosures.
Provisions outside the bill’s main subject, or policy changes attached to appropriations.
None identified in the reviewed text
No unrelated provision or policy change attached to appropriations was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Spending directed to particular recipients or places outside ordinary competitive or formula-based allocation.
None identified in the reviewed text
No congressionally directed spending for particular recipients or places was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version; formal earmark disclosures and accompanying materials are not supplied.
Narrow exceptions, exemptions, or preferential treatment that warrant a closer look.
None identified in the reviewed text
No materially narrow carve-out, special exemption, or preferential benefit was identified in the complete supplied introduced text. This conclusion is limited to that version and does not establish absence in other versions or accompanying materials.
Full text preserved for this analysis. Legislative record snapshot: Apr 6, 2026. How PlainBill uses AI