Voters across the United States sent a resounding message to the president of the United States and the leaders who have ruled on an anti-DEI platform for the last several years. Not only was there a tremendous blue wave, but Election Night 2026 brought us the most diverse slate of winners ever seen in this country — up and down the ballot, across the country, we saw so many historic firsts.
And for me personally, I have been overwhelmed by the recognition that my daughter was an infant on my hip when I cast a ballot to elect Barack Obama to the presidency, and now 18 years later, she cast her own ballot to elect the nation’s first Black female governor. This isn’t about party or politics; it’s about history. Representation. I replied to my daughter’s celebratory Instagram post last night: “Congratulations on your Georgia vote!” She said, “Yes! And I voted for her! Voting is so fun!!”
But though voters handed Democrats control of the U.S. House and Senate, and 21 state capitols, Democratic leaders would do well to take note of who was elected and what they stand for. While it was centrist Democrats who largely flipped seats in the Republican stronghold districts, progressives also won big last night, signaling that the American public is not just fed up with Republican leaders, but with the establishment politics that ruled even before Trump took office.
With these victories, Democrats now have not only an opportunity to provide a meaningful check on an administration that has spent much of its tenure challenging the autonomy, funding and fundamental purpose of higher education, they have an opportunity to examine what’s been broken in their own party and work to build something better for all Americans. This election victory cannot be about going back to the way things were; it has to be about building something better.
If Democrats intend to make higher education a priority — and indeed, they should restore research funding and move us out of the anti-intellectualist climate in which we have been existing — they must move beyond defending institutions against the latest executive order, funding threat or federal investigation. They must articulate a vision for what American higher education should look like, establish protections that can withstand political transitions and address inequities that existed long before this administration took office.
First, use the power of Congress to establish accountability.
The immediate responsibility is oversight.
With control of both chambers, congressional Democrats can investigate the administration's restructuring of the Department of Education, its handling of federal research funding, its treatment of international students, and its use of federal funding agreements and civil rights investigations to influence institutional policies.
They should begin by demanding answers about where federal education programs are being administered, how funding decisions are being made, and whether agencies are honoring congressional appropriations. But they have to go beyond ensuring the intent of appropriations is being honored and codify policies that protect and reward diverse, equitable, and inclusive funding mechanisms. They should examine the consequences of canceled research grants, disrupted teacher-preparation programs, and funding decisions that have forced institutions to reconsider academic programs and student services.
This is not simply about holding hearings — Congress must use its appropriations authority to establish clear guardrails around federal funding and ensure agencies do not have the power or ability to withhold, redirect, or terminate congressionally approved funding without transparent, legally defensible explanations and established procedures for institutional appeal.
Where funding has been wrongfully withheld or terminated, Congress should identify mechanisms to restore it, including replacement funding where recovery of the original awards is no longer possible.
The Trump administration's approach to higher education has demonstrated how much damage can occur when federal funding becomes a tool of political leverage. Congress should make clear that federal research, student aid, and institutional support exist to advance public purposes, not to reward political compliance.
Second, make equity protections enforceable, not optional.
The rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives has exposed a fundamental weakness in higher education policy: Too many of the practices intended to advance equitable access were supported by executive priorities, institutional commitments, and voluntary initiatives rather than durable legal protections.
If we saw anything from last night’s election results, we saw that Americans still see diversity as a strength of our nation, and that should be reflected in our policies moving forward.
Democrats should pursue a comprehensive higher education equity agenda through reauthorization of the Higher Education Act and targeted amendments to existing civil rights laws.
This does not mean attempting to restore race-conscious admissions policies that the Supreme Court has prohibited. It means establishing stronger, lawful protections against discrimination and barriers to opportunity throughout the educational experience.
If Democrats are to show us they understand the assignment written last night at all, they should:
- Strengthen federal civil rights enforcement under Title VI, including clear investigative standards, meaningful remedies, and protections against retaliation for students and institutions that report discrimination.
- Establish explicit statutory authority and standards for addressing policies that produce unjustifiable discriminatory outcomes, while respecting constitutional requirements and individual rights.
- Protect access to educational opportunity by supporting outreach, recruitment, mentoring, advising and student-success programs that serve historically underserved communities through lawful, inclusive eligibility criteria.
- Require institutions receiving federal funding to report meaningful, disaggregated data on enrollment, retention, completion, financial aid, and student outcomes, with appropriate privacy protections.
- Protect students and employees from discrimination and retaliation, regardless of whether an institution maintains a designated DEI office.
Equity was never about the name of a program or office, and those that remain committed to the work know that whether programs have the word diversity in their name or not, it is not achieved solely through any one office or initiative. Even with the current administration’s mandate against DEI offices, an institution can comply with the law and still have a responsibility to examine who has access to opportunity, who is being left behind and why.
And Congress should make that responsibility part of the federal framework for higher education.
Third, stop treating HBCUs and minority-serving institutions as special-interest beneficiaries.
If Democrats want to demonstrate a genuine commitment to educational equity, they should start with the institutions that have spent generations expanding access for students who were systematically excluded from higher education.
HBCUs, Hispanic-serving institutions, Tribal Colleges and Universities, and other minority-serving institutions should not have to repeatedly make the case for their value to the nation.
Their contributions to workforce development, research, public service, and economic mobility are well documented. Still, many continue to operate with significant resource disparities, infrastructure needs, and limited institutional endowments.
The answer cannot be another round of temporary competitive grants and politically negotiated appropriations.
Congress should establish more predictable, multiyear appropriations commitments for HBCUs and other MSIs, strengthen existing federal institutional-aid programs, and address the structural disparities that affect their ability to compete for research funding.
And they should put pressure on the states to pay what they owe HBCUs by retroactively enforcing the equitable distribution requirement for states established by the Morrill Act. Direct the Department of Agriculture to audit state matching contributions, publish state-by-state comparisons, and report whether states are meeting their statutory obligations. Require the U.S. Department of Agriculture to establish transparent enforcement procedures and explain when and why it grants matching waivers.
They should also revisit the formulas used to distribute federal research and capacity-building grants. Competitive funding systems currently reward institutions that already have the infrastructure, personnel and financial resources to compete; currently Research 1 institutions receive 75% of all federal research funding, even though they make up less than 5% of all U.S. colleges and universities. This has created a cycle in which institutions with fewer resources face greater difficulty securing the funding necessary to build capacity.
With this reimagining, there is an opportunity to look at ways to pair competitive grants with dedicated capacity-building investments, technical assistance, and funding that recognizes the different institutional missions and resource needs across higher education.
And Democrats should resist the temptation to frame this as a partisan or charitable obligation. Strengthening these institutions is an investment in the nation's educational, economic, and research capacity and a matter of national security.
Fourth, make college affordability a civil rights and economic mobility priority.
Access means little if students cannot afford to remain enrolled long enough to earn a credential.
The One Big Beautiful Bill Act changed the federal student aid landscape, including provisions affecting borrowing limits and repayment options. Democrats should review those changes, restore access where restrictions create unnecessary barriers, and strengthen the Pell Grant program.
But increasing the maximum Pell Grant is only part of the equation.
Congress should also establish a more predictable pathway for increasing the grant's purchasing power, address the unmet financial need facing low-income students, and examine the costs that federal aid does not adequately cover, like housing, food, transportation, child care, and other basic needs that can determine whether a student persists or leaves college.
Student loan policy also deserves attention. Borrowing limits and repayment structures should not create additional barriers for students pursuing graduate and professional credentials, particularly in fields where the nation faces workforce shortages.
A higher education affordability agenda must recognize that the cost of college is not limited to tuition and fees — while also recognizing that the current system predetermines who belongs and who doesn’t.
Fifth, protect academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
Colleges and universities cannot fulfill their public mission if their research agendas, curricula, faculty appointments, and institutional policies are subject to political approval.
Democrats should develop federal protections for academic freedom, faculty governance, and institutional independence, including safeguards against politically motivated interference in research funding.
Congress should also establish transparent standards for federal investigations involving colleges and universities. Institutions should receive clear notice of alleged violations, an opportunity to respond and consistent enforcement of applicable laws.
At the state level, newly elected Democratic governors and legislators should pursue similar protections through state law, particularly in states where legislatures have increasingly intervened in curriculum, faculty governance, and university administration.
Two things can be true here: public institutions should answer to taxpayers and students, and colleges and universities should be able to advance knowledge without being subject to political control. That distinction is essential to maintaining the credibility of American research and higher education.
Finally, stop governing higher education one election at a time.
Perhaps the most important lesson from the past two years is that institutional protections cannot depend on the political preferences of whoever occupies the White House.
Executive orders can be reversed. Agency guidance can be withdrawn. Funding priorities can change. And institutions can spend years responding to policy uncertainty rather than advancing their educational missions.
Democrats should use this moment to build a higher education framework that is durable enough to survive the next administration, regardless of party.
That will require more than restoring previous funding levels or reinstating programs that have been eliminated — it also requires confronting the inequities that predate this administration: the wealth gap between institutions, the uneven distribution of research funding, disparities in college completion, and the persistent barriers facing first-generation, low-income and historically underserved students.
We cannot build a more equitable system by simply returning to the one we had before.
Democrats have been given an opportunity to demonstrate that higher education is not merely a political talking point or a convenient target in a partisan dispute. It is a public good, an engine of economic mobility, and one of the institutions responsible for preparing the next generation to participate in democracy.
