In the Winter 2025 issue of Academic Questions, I reported on a study examining how college and university libraries responded to President Trump’s efforts to eliminate “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI). Using college and university websites as a gauge, I found that fewer than 20 percent of the 157 libraries that had endorsed DEI policies in April 2025 had significantly reduced or eliminated them by October 2025. Most of the changes that did occur appeared to be driven by pressure from state legislatures and governors rather than federal policy, and that article ended with conclusions and recommendations, which I strengthen and reemphasize here.

In late January 2026, I revisited the library websites that posted DEI policies in April, finding a few changes from my last observations in October. Indeed, there were nearly as many increases in commitments to DEI as reductions. The University of Pittsburgh, Villanova, Creighton, Denver, Mississippi, Purdue, and Santa Clara reduced or eliminated diversity-related statements. But Middlebury College’s library reposted a strong DEI statement, and Vassar College’s language in support of DEI was strengthened, as was that of Columbia University, one of Trump’s major academic targets. Williams College also posted a new strategic library plan that strongly backs DEI.

Given that multiple reports now indicate that some universities have rebranded their DEI programs in an effort to keep the Trump administration at bay, it is reasonable to assume that actual reforms are less than they appear to be. Many schools, in fact, continue to openly tout their commitments to DEI, suggesting they are unafraid of defying Trump. Indeed, it now seems clear that the Trump administration’s policies have had little effect on DEI-related attitudes in universities generally.

My AQ article cited Virginia as an interesting case of contested DEI-related politics. Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin’s efforts to remove DEI from state schools had some success but were largely stymied by the Democratic controlled legislature, which, for example, blocked his efforts to appoint more anti-DEI university trustees. Virginia still offers interesting insights, but different ones than were evident in October.

In January 2026, Democrat Abigail Spanberger replaced Youngkin as governor. On Spanberger’s first day in office, she issued an executive order boosting DEI in state government and named a “chief diversity officer.” (Read, “Whiplash.”)

State university librarians knew in November, after Spanberger’s election, that DEI policies would change in Richmond, and some of their web postings reflect the change.

Virginia Commonwealth University’s library, whose DEI page was under review in October, now reports a new strategic plan that strongly supports DEI. George Mason University, which had drawn criticism from both Youngkin and Trump’s Department of Education (ED), showed stronger support for DEI. Spanberger also appointed new trustees to the Virginia Military Institute, and Democratic legislators introduced three bills this year to ensure that the Institute adheres to Democrats’ diversity standards.

Some lessons identified in the AQ article seem even more relevant now.

The Trump administration has not induced significant changes in what really counts—the internal workings of colleges and universities. ED’s threats to withhold funds are partial, limited, and frequently struck down by courts at modest cost to schools. For example, California’s state university system remains in violation of civil rights laws as determined by the ED, yet federal funding continues to flow while the state challenges those findings in court, along with other Democrat-run states.

The evidence indicates that the Trump ED is having little or no success at changing university cultures, which must change if there is any hope for renewal at American universities. Neither Trump’s ED nor executive orders alone can reform universities. At best, the Trump administration can merely support state legislators and governors, who hold the real levers of change through lawmaking, budgetary, appointment, and supervisory powers, and encourage them to act.

Without drastic federal legislation, the best we can hope for is that meaningful reform at state schools will eventually serve as a model that private universities feel pressure to follow.