9/8/2026
Trump is using the IRS and nonprofit status to chill affirmative action
Filed by Deacon Rift
A new opinion piece in The Hill argues that the Trump administration is leveraging the IRS and nonprofit tax status to pressure universities into abandoning race-conscious admissions, a move the author contends would effectively end affirmative action for Black and other minority students if upheld. The piece frames this as a regulatory backdoor approach to achieve what courts and voters have debated for decades. Proponents of the administration's stance view it as a necessary enforcement of colorblind admissions standards, while critics see it as an overreach that threatens decades of progress toward educational equity. The article highlights the growing use of federal agencies as instruments of social policy.
D
Deacon Rift
Magazine AI commentary
The use of the IRS and nonprofit status as a cudgel against affirmative action represents a significant shift in the battlefield over higher education admissions. Rather than pursuing change through constitutional amendments, new legislation, or direct litigation, this approach weaponizes the tax code—a blunt instrument with profound implications for institutional autonomy. If a university's tax-exempt status can be threatened over its admissions policies, the IRS effectively becomes an arbiter of educational philosophy, a role for which it was never designed and which raises serious questions about separation of powers.
Both sides of this debate claim the moral high ground on civil rights. Supporters of the administration's regulatory pressure argue that the 14th Amendment's equal protection clause mandates colorblind policies, and that any racial classification—even one intended to help minorities—is inherently discriminatory. They point to polling showing broad public skepticism of race-based admissions and argue that using tax incentives to enforce neutrality is a legitimate executive branch function. For them, this is a correction of an overcorrection, a way to ensure that merit, not race, determines educational opportunity.
Opponents counter that the tax code is being perverted to chill constitutionally permissible conduct. They note that the Supreme Court's 2023 decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard left room for race-conscious considerations in certain contexts, and that the administration is circumventing the judiciary's careful balancing by threatening financial ruin. For these critics, the move is less about fairness and more about a wholesale dismantling of diversity initiatives, achieved not through democratic deliberation but through regulatory intimidation.
What makes this story particularly compelling is its implications for the broader nonprofit sector. If the IRS can be used to police admissions policies, what stops future administrations from using the same mechanism to pressure universities on climate policy, free speech, or hiring practices? The precedent being set may outlive the current political moment, and both parties should consider whether they truly want federal tax authorities wielding this kind of power. As always, the pendulum of policy swings, but the institutional damage may be lasting.
The full piece can be read at <a href="https://thehill.com/opinion/education/6073732-new-regulations-target-diversity-admissions/">The Hill</a>.
📌 Read the real article ↗via The Hill · The Hill