For decades, Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs) have been a critical—yet often undervalued—sector of the US higher education system.Footnote ¹ These institutions, which include Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), Tribal Colleges and Universities (TCUs), Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs), Predominantly Black Institutions (PBIs), Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions (AANAPISIs), and Native American-Serving Nontribal Institutions (NASNTIs), have educated and uplifted generations of students from communities that face systemic barriers to educational access and equity. MSIs have served as gateways to higher education for millions of low-income students, first-generation students, and students of color, offering culturally affirming environments, wraparound services, and pathways to socioeconomic mobility.Footnote ² Currently, they educate 26 percent of all undergraduate students and 51 percent of undergraduates of color.Footnote ³

The US Department of Education (USDOE), although never a perfect or consistently reliable partner, has played an essential role in shaping the path of MSIs through the administration of legislative funding, symbolic recognition, and, at times, civil rights enforcement. The history of this relationship is one marked by resilience, advocacy, and hard-won progress, and it reflects the broader story of educational equity in the US.Footnote ⁴

The passage of the Higher Education Act (HEA) of 1965, a piece of legislation that focused on expanding higher education access and affordability, particularly for low-income students, represents the modern relationship between the federal government and MSIs.Footnote ⁵ While the act, administered by the USDOE, did not initially target MSIs specifically, Title III of the new legislation soon became a crucial funding mechanism for strengthening under-resourced institutions, including HBCUs, many of which served large populations of students of color.Footnote ⁶

A turning point came in 1980, when President Jimmy Carter issued Executive Order 12232, establishing the White House Initiative on Historically Black Colleges and Universities, housed in the USDOE.Footnote ⁷ This executive order acknowledged the unique challenges faced by HBCUs and sought to increase their participation in federal programs. It also marked a new era of formalized recognition and support for MSIs, signaling a broader shift in federal policy toward equity-focused investments in historically underserved institutions.Footnote ⁸ Since Carter, every president has issued an executive order about HBCUs. All the orders have been administered by the USDOE except for those by President Trump. He linked the Initiative to the White House.

The 1992 amendments to the HEA, which the USDOE managed, significantly expanded the federal government’s support for MSIs by formally recognizing HSIs and increasing support for TCUs.Footnote ⁹ This legislative shift reflected the demographic changes in US higher education, as growing numbers of Latino and Native American students began attending college in larger numbers. At the same time, Title V was created to support HSIs,Footnote ¹⁰ while Title III funds were adapted to better serve the needs of TCUs.Footnote ¹¹

In 1994, Congress passed the Equity in Educational Land-Grant Status Act, granting twenty-nine TCUs land-grant status.Footnote ¹² This landmark decision, administered by the Department of Agriculture with input from the USDOE, acknowledged the historical exclusion of Indigenous communities from federal land-grant resources and provided TCUs with increased access to technical, agricultural, and community development funding.

The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 marked another major expansion of federal recognition.Footnote ¹³ It established new MSI designations, including AANAPISIs, PBIs, and NASNTIs. These additions, whose funds are awarded and managed by the Office of Postsecondary Education in the USDOE, reflected a growing federal awareness of the diverse forms of educational marginalization and the importance of investing in institutions that serve emerging and changing student populations.Footnote ¹⁴

Through these legislative developments, the USDOE legitimized MSIs and allocated money to them. Title III and Title V funding helped support faculty development, student services, academic programs, and infrastructure upgrades. For many under-resourced institutions, these federal dollars were not merely supplementary but essential, and they continue to be.Footnote ¹⁵

Although often seen as a bureaucratic entity, the USDOE has always held significant symbolic meaning. Through its funding priorities and regulatory enforcement, it communicates which institutions and students are valued.Footnote ¹⁶ When the USDOE invests in MSIs, it sends a message that education is not merely a tool of individual advancement, but a public good that must be equitably distributed.

The USDOE’s symbolic role is especially critical given the persistent underfunding of MSIs.Footnote ¹⁷ Despite their significant contributions to educating students of color and preparing civic and community leaders, MSIs consistently receive less state and federal funding than historically White institutions.Footnote ¹⁸ Their students face greater financial hardship, and their campuses often operate with smaller endowments and aging infrastructure. Yet MSIs continue to excel in graduating students of color and cultivating culturally relevant and community-centered learning environments.Footnote ¹⁹

For newer designations like HSIs, PBIs, and AANAPISIs, federal recognition has been important for funding and validation. As higher education demographics shift, these institutions have taken on increasingly vital roles. They provide a strong education for multilingual learners, immigrant students, and others who might otherwise feel unwelcome in traditional higher education spaces. Even when federal investment has been modest, it has enabled these institutions to build capacity and refine their missions.Footnote ²⁰

More recently, President Biden’s administration demonstrated a strong commitment to supporting MSIs. The administration allocated over $25 billion to MSIs. In 2023 alone, the USDOE announced $93 million in grants to enhance research and development at MSIs to improve completion rates for underserved students. Additionally, the administration awarded nearly $50 million to HSIs to support Latino students, focusing on expanding educational opportunities and improving attainment. These investments reflected the administration’s dedication to advancing educational equity and supporting institutions that serve historically underserved communities.Footnote ²¹

Within President Trump’s first one hundred days, he threatened to eliminate the USDOE, cancel student loan forgiveness programs, cut TRIO and GEAR UP – both educational opportunity programs, and eliminate grants related to equity, many of which were directly tied to MSI support.Footnote ²² These were not merely budgetary decisions—they were value-based rejections of the idea that federal education policy should center the needs of low-income students and communities of color.

For MSI leaders, the result has been financial uncertainty and a more profound sense of abandonment. The USDOE, which has long been seen as an essential partner, is now viewed as actively hostile toward colleges and universities and even students in some cases. This shift could result in additional vulnerability for MSIs, as their stability often depends on political will and public investment.

MSIs have always been institutions born of necessity—founded in the face of legal segregation, exclusionary admissions policies, and systemic racism. Their histories are marked by struggle, but also by resilience and innovation. They have produced generations of Black, Latino, Native, and Asian American leaders in every sector. They have cultivated scholarship rooted in culture and community and oriented toward justice.

In the face of federal retrenchment, MSIs have not stood still. They have advocated for themselves, built coalitions, and continued to educate and inspire. However, without sustained federal investment, the future of these institutions—and the communities they serve—is at risk. The USDOE has the potential to be a transformative partner in this work. But only if it remains focused on its mission: to ensure that education is a public good that is accessible to all. MSIs have long embodied this truth. The question is whether the USDOE—and the administrations that direct it—will have the courage to act accordingly.