The Trump administration’s announcement of 500 million dollars in redirected funding for historically Black colleges and universities and tribal colleges was rolled out with great fanfare. The Secretary of Education called it a massive investment. The headlines were positive. Social media posts quickly celebrated it as evidence of a new commitment to people of color. But this is a moment that requires us to pause and look beyond the press release. When we do, the truth emerges. This is not bold new investment. It is an exercise in political marketing. It is what I would call robbing Peter to pay Paul, and even worse, robbing Peter to pay Peter.

The first layer of the shell game is robbing Peter to pay Paul. The administration is proposing to slash billions from education while simultaneously claiming to hand HBCUs and tribal colleges a windfall. The 2026 budget calls for a 15 percent cut to the Department of Education, which amounts to nearly 12 billion dollars. Those cuts will touch every corner of the system, from K-12 to community colleges to universities. Yet in the middle of that massive retrenchment, the Department announces 500 million dollars for HBCUs and tribal colleges and presents it as evidence of generosity. Divide that figure by the 134 institutions in those categories and it equals about 3.7 million dollars each. That is not transformational funding. That is a rounding error compared with the 12 billion dollars being pulled out of the system. The administration is starving Peter, then handing Paul a small fraction of the stolen food and expecting Paul to be grateful.

But there is a second layer that makes this maneuver even more cynical. It is what I call robbing Peter to pay Peter. The Minority Serving Institution programs that were just eliminated already funded HBCUs and tribal colleges. These include grants for Hispanic Serving Institutions, Predominantly Black Institutions, Asian American and Pacific Islander Serving Institutions, and Native American Serving Nontribal Institutions. They were not just about Latinos, Asians, or Native Hawaiians. They included supports for HBCUs and tribal colleges too. Now those MSI programs are being canceled, and the Department is turning around and handing HBCUs and tribal colleges some of that money back. In many cases, the amount may even be less than what those campuses would have received under the MSI framework. That is not generosity. That is recycling money while dismantling the broader equity infrastructure. It is stealing from Peter, pocketing part of what you took, and handing the remainder back to Peter with a sly smile.

The official justification for this move is telling. In its September press release, the Department declared,

“Discrimination based upon race or ethnicity has no place in the United States. To further our commitment to ending discrimination in all forms across federally supported programs, the Department will no longer award Minority-Serving Institution grants that discriminate by restricting eligibility to institutions that meet government-mandated racial quotas.”

On its face this sounds like fairness. But it is really sleight of hand. These programs are not quotas. They do not bar anyone from access. They are institutional supports directed toward campuses that serve high proportions of underrepresented students. A Hispanic Serving Institution must enroll at least 25 percent Hispanic students, but it must also serve at least half low-income students and maintain low per-student expenditures. A Predominantly Black Institution must enroll at least 40 percent Black students, but again the criteria center on poverty and resource levels. These requirements reflect the reality that race and class intersect in American higher education. They recognize that institutions serving large shares of minority and low-income students need additional resources to support success. To call that unconstitutional is to erase history.

I have seen these realities up close. I had the opportunity to teach at California State University Sacramento, a minority serving institution. The students there were extraordinary—talented, diverse, and committed. But the resources available to support them were noticeably thinner than what I experienced at research universities like the University of Kentucky and the University of Texas at Austin. Advising was stretched. Facilities needed upgrading. Class sizes were larger. Faculty often had to do more with less. At Sacramento State, equity-focused grants allowed faculty to pilot tutoring programs, redesign curriculum, and experiment with new teaching strategies for first-generation students. Those modest dollars made the difference between trying something new and watching ideas die on the vine. At Kentucky or Texas, with their deep research budgets and significant state support, the loss of a single grant might not be as consequential. But at an MSI like Sacramento State, these funds were lifelines. Robbing them now will directly harm student success.

Advocates across the country immediately recognized the stakes. Inside Higher Ed reported that the decision “stunned MSI advocates, who argue the department doesn’t have the authority to nix them.” Gina Ann Garcia, a UC Berkeley professor who studies HSIs, called the move “devastating,” noting that it came during HSI Week and right before Hispanic Heritage Month. She explained, “With HSI grant funds, people pilot new ideas. They pilot new tutoring programs. They train faculty to redesign their curriculum so that it’s adaptive to the students. Those sort of things have long-term impacts with a little bit of money… Without the funding, people can’t try new things.” Deborah Santiago of Excelencia in Education added that HSI funds strengthen institutions for all students, not just Latinos, and she pointed out that colleges had already invested significant time and planning into these grant competitions. Now they are left with nothing. David Mendez of the Hispanic Association of Colleges and Universities was blunt: “Cutting this funding strips away critical investments in under-resourced and first-generation students and will destabilize colleges in 29 states. This is not just a budget cut; it is an attack on equity in higher education.”

The legality is also questionable. Amanda Fuchs Miller, a former deputy assistant secretary for higher education programs, argued that the Department was overstepping. “These are long-established programs in the Higher Education Act, and Congress authorized their funding for fiscal year 2025,” she explained. “The executive branch can’t just declare these programs unconstitutional. That would be the role of the courts.” Senator Patty Murray warned that the administration was “sowing chaos in our nation’s schools” by ripping away congressionally authorized funds at the end of the fiscal year.

When you put this all together, the pattern is clear. The administration is robbing Peter to pay Paul by cutting billions from education overall and then sprinkling a fraction onto HBCUs and tribal colleges for political credit. At the same time, it is robbing Peter to pay Peter by eliminating MSI programs that already funded HBCUs and tribal colleges and then handing those same dollars back in a smaller, essentially symbolic and attention-getting package. Both maneuvers create headlines, but neither creates new opportunity.

The impact will be felt most by students. Scholarships will disappear. Tutoring programs will vanish. Faculty-led innovations will be shelved. Facilities that needed repair will go without. Students who already face barriers will face new ones and potentially leave college. The very institutions designed to expand access and opportunity will be destabilized. And the students least able to absorb these losses—first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students—will pay the highest price.

Equity in education has never been about dividing one community against another. It has always been about lifting all students by investing in institutions that serve them. HBCUs, HSIs, PBIs, tribal colleges, and AANAPISIs are all part of the same national ecosystem. Weakening one weakens them all. By robbing Peter to pay Paul and robbing Peter to pay Peter, the administration is not lifting HBCUs and tribal colleges. It is leaving them, and everyone else, worse off.

The administration hopes the headlines will tell a story of generosity. But the math tells a different story. The history tells a different story. And the experiences of students and faculty on the ground tell a different story. This is not investment. It is illusion. And like all illusions, it will vanish quickly, leaving behind only the damage it tried to conceal.

---

Julian Vasquez Heilig is a nationally recognized education leader, scholar, and advocate for equity whose career spans seven senior leadership roles in higher education, including dean and provost. Known for driving innovation and measurable results, he has led institutional transformations that strengthened academic programs, advanced diversity and inclusion, expanded community partnerships, and elevated national rankings. His leadership is grounded in the belief that true progress requires both bold vision and fearless action.