State Department Pauses New Student and Exchange Visitor Visa Interviews: New Vetting Procedures Expected Soon
On May 27, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed all U.S. embassies and consulates to pause scheduling all new visa interview appointments for foreign national students and exchange visitors applying for F, J, and M visas. The secretary of state implemented this pause in anticipation of new imminent guidance related to social media vetting of visa applicants in these categories. It remains unclear how long this pause will be in effect, as well as what additional vetting procedures the secretary may implement. Visa appointments already scheduled in these categories are expected to remain in place.
Quick Hits
On May 27, 2025, Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered a pause on scheduling new visa interview appointments for foreign national students and exchange visitors applying for F, J, and M visas, in anticipation of new social media vetting procedures.
This move aligns with President Trump’s broader immigration policy focused on enhancing vetting processes and addressing alleged anti-semitic activities.
The duration of the pause and the specifics of the new vetting measures remain unclear, potentially causing significant delays for student visa processing as the new academic year approaches.
Background
Since his inauguration, President Trump has concentrated a significant portion of his immigration policy on enhancing the vetting process for benefit applicants and targeting individuals the administration considers involved in antisemitic activities.
On his first day in office, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats.” This order directed relevant federal agencies to enhance the vetting and screening processes for immigration benefit applicants. On January 29, 2025, President Trump issued another executive order titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” which broadly instructed federal agencies to take steps to address activities the president considers antisemitic.
In the following months, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the U.S. Department of State took high-profile actions to implement these orders. These actions included the widespread revocation of Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) records for student visa holders accused of participating in campus protests against the ongoing conflict in Gaza, the arrest and detention of student visa holders accused of alleged anti-semitic activities, and increased screening of social media for alleged anti-semitism. The administration has also focused on specific universities that have resisted complying with its demands related to these issues.
Key Takeaways
This scheduling pause in new student visa appointments appears to be in line with ongoing federal efforts to increase vetting of all visa applicants, with a particular focus on social media activity. Media outlets are indicating that this pause was put in place in preparation for new social media screening requirements anticipated to be announced shortly.
While the length of the pause and the new screening measures remain unknown, this announcement may lead to significant delays in visa processing times for foreign national students. This is particularly true as the summer months progress and incoming international students vie for limited appointments ahead of the new academic year in the fall. Visa applicants can expect increased wait times for visa appointments, even after the current pause is lifted.
Rethinking University Research: Innovating the Innovation Ecosystem to Support Life Sciences and Personalized Medicine
Personalized medicine—tailoring treatments to individual patients based on their genetic makeup, lifestyle, and environment—is transforming healthcare. But this revolution didn’t begin in the private sector. It was sparked and shaped by decades of strategic investment from the U.S. government, especially the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
Genomics as the Foundation
The Human Genome Project, completed in 2003 with major NIH support, provided the genetic blueprint of human life. Follow-on initiatives like The Cancer Genome Atlas Program (TCGA), the Encyclopedia of DNA Elements (ENCODE), and the Genotype-Tissue Expression Project (GTEx) linked DNA variants to disease risk.
All of Us: A New Era of Data
NIH’s All of Us research program, aiming to enroll over one million participants, is creating one of the world’s most diverse and comprehensive health datasets. It’s enabling insights into how genes, the environment, and behavior intersect to shape health.
Pharmacogenomics in Practice
NIH’s Pharmacogenomics Research Network seeks to understand how individual genetic differences affect drug response, which can improve dosing precision and reduce adverse effects.
The Evolving Landscape of Federally Funded Research
While federal grants and investments have helped translate genomic insights into clinical impact, much of that foundational work begins in academic labs. Many fundamental discoveries take place in universities—long before they appear in clinical trials or investor pitch decks. Yet, the sustainability of this engine of innovation depends heavily on continued federal support. As funding pressures grow, especially in areas that don’t promise immediate commercial return, the need to protect and strengthen university research funding has never been more urgent.
The evolving financial landscape of university-led academic research was addressed by Dr. Julio Frenk at the 2025 LABEST Bioscience Conference. Overall, Dr. Frenk painted a hopeful picture of the future of academic research, encouraging universities to embrace change and seize opportunities for growth and success. His insights provide valuable guidance for navigating the evolving financial landscape and ensuring the continued advancement of knowledge and discovery.
A powerful idea was presented that challenges traditional notions of university research: the need to “innovate the innovation.” This concept, also described as meta-innovation, calls on research institutions to not only produce groundbreaking discoveries but to reimagine the entire process by which those discoveries are made, translated, and applied.
From Research to Real-World Impact
Universities have long been hubs of knowledge creation, but Dr. Frenk emphasized that in today’s complex world, that’s no longer enough. Academic institutions should drive research to link innovation with societal benefits.
A few of Dr. Frenk’s solutions include:
Dissolving the divide between basic and applied research. Universities should foster a more integrated approach that allows ideas to move more fluidly from theory to practical application.
Partner earlier and more intentionally with industry and philanthropic investors. Diversifying funding sources and collaborating sooner in the research cycle can speed up the path from concept to impact.
Redefine the university’s mission beyond knowledge creation to include translation—turning discoveries into technologies and evidence that inform policy and improve lives.
Build new physical and intellectual spaces, like the UCLA Research Park, that support interdisciplinary collaboration, entrepreneurship, and commercialization.
Embrace innovation in education and governance, ensuring the way the United States and academic institutions teach, organize, and evaluate research evolves alongside science itself.
The Future of Innovation is Integrated
This call to action urges universities to adopt agile, impact-focused systems instead of traditional academic models. By aligning excellence with relevance, and forging new types of collaboration, universities can remain at the forefront of solving humanity’s most urgent challenges.
In sum, the question isn’t just what we discover—but how we innovate to make that discovery matter.
With Student Athletes’ Individual “Brands” Becoming a Commodity, Here’s What Universities Should Consider
In 2021, the NCAA upended its decades-long prohibition on student athletes’ ability to profit from their name, image and likeness (NIL). This means that student athletes now have, and will continue to market themselves as, a “brand,” i.e., an identity or personality that has intrinsic value, in part due to their association with school athletics. The landmark $2.8 billion proposed settlement in House vs. NCAA, currently pending approval in the US District Court for the Northern District of California, will establish guidelines for this revenue-sharing, including for NIL revenues, among schools and student athletes, further allowing students to profit off of their individual contributions to their team.
While many colleges and universities whose student athletes were marketing their NIL prior to the House settlement chose not to involve themselves in those arrangements, some institutions are now taking a second look. Because schools who choose to pay their student athletes will necessarily be involved in the monetization of an athlete’s NIL, it is increasingly important for them to understand the mechanics of NIL agreements and concerns that might arise as a result of a student athlete actively marketing themselves and partnering with commercial entities. Schools can then decide whether and how they will support student athletes in their relationships with outside entities participating in the athlete’s promotion of their “brand”—which in most cases necessarily involves their status as a member of a college team.
For example, colleges and universities might consider imposing restrictions on the types of products an athlete should promote and guidance (or advice) related to contract terms. Schools have an interest in restricting their student athletes from promoting products that may be harmful to their student body, such as alcohol, tobacco or gambling platforms. Schools might also encourage student athletes to bargain for autonomy that would allow them to reduce involvement or cancel partnerships, to protect both the student’s brand and the student’s academic and athletic priorities. Direct guidance on contract formation, or referrals to outside advisors, are two avenues by which schools can assist student athletes, and schools should weigh the costs and benefits of each approach.
Schools should also consider whether they want to restrict the use of their own branding in the athlete’s promotional endeavors media. Developing formal guidelines or approval processes that must be followed before a student athlete can create paid content in official school uniforms or using school logos is an approach that can help the schools create distance from undesirable third parties, avoid claims of discrimination or favoritism among student athletes and protect their own image and intellectual property.
Finally, student athletes are rapidly gaining popularity as social media influencers, and schools can provide support and guidance specific to this arena. A recent article from the New York Times illustrates this approach, highlighting the University of North Carolina’s partnership with social media management firm Article 41, which works to partner students with brands like Athleta and Uber for paid advertising opportunities. The article cites to a 2023 survey from the Keller Advisory Group, finding that there are 27 million paid social media influencers in the United States, with 44 percent of them doing it full time. With student athletes becoming entrenched in the world of paid content creation, adding to their already full plates of sports competition and schoolwork, colleges may be able to head off issues and encourage brand relationships that are holistically more beneficial to student athletes by providing support and guidance informing athlete-brand relationships.
More broadly, athletes and their schools alike would benefit from having a system in place to address social media blowback. Many student athletes are still teenagers, making them especially susceptible to harsh online criticism that is inevitable in the digital age. Having the tools to support student athletes manage such criticism would benefit universities and students alike by providing athletes with mental health resources and protecting the reputations of all involved.
Another consideration is whether colleges and universities should provide course credit to student athletes for their time developing and marketing their “brands.” Per the New York Times article, some athletes view their experience building a social media following as “akin to an internship.” With all the time student athletes already dedicate to sports and schoolwork, they may benefit from receiving some form of elective course credit for their time spent developing their personal “brands.” Structuring personal marketing as an educational experience has the added benefit of giving the school more influence as to how athletes approach and consider monetizing their NIL. Alternatively, schools could consider whether they should limit their athletes’ involvement in paid content creation to ensure they can continue to thrive in their sport and their studies.
As the landscape of NIL continues to evolve, colleges and universities—especially those who opt in to athlete compensation—should continue to strategize how to best support their students and comply with all applicable laws and regulations.
Temporary Pause on Foreign Student and Exchange Visitor F, M, and J Visa Interviews
According to an internal State Department cable dated May 27, 2025, all consular interviews for the F, M, and J visa applicants are to be temporarily paused. This is only until new vetting procedures are published in the next several business days.
The cable cites Executive Orders 14161 and 14188, known respectively as Protecting the United States from Foreign Terrorists and Other National Security and Public Safety Threats and Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism. The goal is to prepare for expanded social media vetting of all student and exchange visitor (FMJ) visa applicants.
The cable states “effective immediately…consular sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M, or J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued, which we anticipate in the coming days.”
The cable says that scheduled appointments can proceed under current guidelines, however if this new vetting policy comes into being soon, all of the existing appointments may be subject to additional vetting.
The cable does leave some opportunity for new appointments. It says that if a consular section desires to seek new appointments for FMJ applicants during this period, the consular section must consult with the Visa Office to do so.
Better Late Than Never? Not in the 5th Circuit: Delayed Action on Accommodation May Be ADA Violation
Earlier this month, in Strife v. Aldine Independent School District, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals held that an employer’s delayed accommodation of an employee’s disability could amount to a failure to accommodate under the Americans with Disabilities Act. This case serves as an important reminder not only to take all requests for disability accommodations seriously but also to respond swiftly and without undue delay.
ADA Basics
Under the ADA, employers cannot discriminate against employees based on their disabilities. In addition, employers must accommodate known disabilities, if requested. The employer does not have to give the exact requested accommodation, but they must engage in the “interactive process,” through which the employer and employee work together to find a reasonable accommodation that will both enable the employee to perform the essential job functions and work for the employer’s business needs. The duty to engage in the interactive process begins when the employer is on notice of the employee’s disability and desire for an accommodation.
The Facts
Alisha Strife requested that her employer, the Aldine Independent School District, allow her service dog to accompany her at work, in connection with her multiple disabilities. The school requested additional information, and Strife submitted a letter from her treating provider. The school, however, deemed the letter insufficient because it was not from a board-certified medical provider and requested further supporting documentation. Strife then submitted a letter from her psychiatrist, after which the school requested that she submit to an independent medical examination.
After the examination, the school and Strife’s lawyer exchanged various communications, and Strife provided three additional letters and underwent another exam confirming her need for the service dog. The school took issue with these items, including stating that they failed to “provide any information regarding potential alternative accommodations.” After roughly six months, the school ultimately granted the request.
Strife filed suit alleging, in part, that the school failed to accommodate her disabilities, and the school moved to dismiss. The court granted the motion to dismiss as to the failure to accommodate claim and a hostile work environment claim and later granted summary judgment on other ADA claims. On appeal, however, the Fifth Circuit reversed the dismissal of the failure to accommodate claim (but affirmed the district court’s treatment of the other claims).
The Holding
The Fifth Circuit held that Strife plausibly stated a claim for failure to accommodate, even though the school ultimately granted her requested accommodation. The court defined the question as “whether th[e] six-month delay, in and of itself, constitutes a failure to accommodate.” While noting that employers are not required to move “with maximum speed,” the court held that a delay can constitute a failure to accommodate because, “otherwise, an employer could circumvent the ADA’s protections by forcing an aggrieved employee to endure an endless interactive process.”
Under these facts, the court held that the delay could constitute a failure to accommodate. Specifically, the court noted that the school’s actions indicated a lack of good faith, as Strife repeatedly provided documents confirming her need for the accommodation, the accommodation was granted only after she initiated legal action, and the delay forced her to work in “suboptimal conditions” for six months.
Takeaways
This case serves as an important reminder to move expeditiously on accommodation requests. While you do not need to rush into a decision or simply grant an employee’s exact request as soon as it comes in, remember to engage in the interactive process in good faith and without undue delay. As always, consult with your employment lawyer with any questions about best practices in the interactive process. As for Ms. Strife’s case, the Fifth Circuit held that she had plausibly alleged a failure to accommodate due to the six-month delay and that her claim should go forward. Time will tell whether she will succeed on this claim.
Listen to this post
The First Amendment, Front and Center – SCOTUS Today
The U.S. Supreme Court did not issue any merits opinions today, but there were two dissents from denials of cert. that merit attention, both concerning the First Amendment.
One of them has particular importance for parents interested in the rights and limits of their children’s self-expression in their schools. The other, which affects only a small group of people, is worthy of note, if for no other reason than that it is passionately and beautifully written.
The first of these cases that could not command the votes of four Justices, the number required for cert. to be granted, was L.M. v. Town of Middleborough. As Justice Alito, who was joined in dissent by Justice Thomas, asserted, the case which the dissenters believed was one “of great importance for our Nation’s youth” concerning “whether public schools may suppress student speech either because it expresses a viewpoint that the school disfavors or because of vague concerns about the likely effect of the speech on the school atmosphere or on students who find the speech offensive.”
The case concerned a middle school that, according to the dissent, “permitted and indeed encouraged student expression endorsing the view that there are many genders.” The petitioner, a seventh grader, was barred from class unless he removed a t-shirt that said “There Are Only Two Genders,” and a later version where the words “Only Two” was blocked out and overwritten with “CENSORED.” When the student, through his parents, sued, claiming a violation of his First Amendment rights, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit ruled against him, holding that the general prohibition against viewpoint-based censorship does not apply to public schools. While there was no written explanation for the majority’s denial of cert., the dissenters question its consistency with Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969).
This blog takes no position on whether the Court was justified in denying cert. as a matter of school discipline and concern for students who identify as non-binary or otherwise gender non-specific, or was, as the dissenters argue, an exercise in political correctness. Nevertheless, this latest chapter in a continuing sequence of cases concerning the application of the First Amendment in school settings is worthy of attention.
The second case that could not command four votes for cert. was Apache Stronghold v. United States, and it should be unsurprising that the primary dissenter was Justice Gorsuch, who, joined by Justice Thomas, sided with an Indian band of Western Apache. Gorsuch has always shown himself to be a strong supporter of Indian rights and interests. This case concerns a site known as Chích’il Bił Dagoteel, or Oak Flat, which the Indians consider to be sacred and a “direct corridor to the Creator,” and where the tribe conducts “religious ceremonies that cannot take place elsewhere.” While Oak Flat had long been a protected site, the government engaged a mining contractor to turn the site into what Justice Gorsuch called “a massive hole in the ground” to gain access to and extract copper. This crater—perhaps 1,000 feet deep and nearly two miles wide—will permanently “destroy the Apaches’ historical place of worship, preventing them from ever again engaging in religious exercise” at Oak Flat.
Acting on behalf of the tribe in attempting to block the destruction of their sacred site, an interest group sued under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), claiming a violation of their free exercise of religion. Readers might remember RFRA, a law that prevents the federal government from “substantially burden[ing] a person’s exercise of religion,” as the centerpiece of several free exercise and establishment cases, perhaps most notably, Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. The picture painted by Justice Gorsuch’s rich and poignant discussion is consigned to our memory and conscience, but no further consideration by a Court that could not summon four votes to grant certiorari.
These dissents from the denial of cert. are to be consigned to the catalog of unanswered prayers. Sometimes, those petitions are worth knowing about for the quality of their writing and their contributions to public discourse about issues of concern in a divided society.
Federal Court Enjoins DHS’s Revocation of Harvard’s Ability to Enroll International Students
On May 22, 2025, Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem ordered the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”) to terminate Harvard University’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (“SEVP”) certification for alleged “pro-terrorist conduct.” SEVP certification enables universities to enroll international students.
The revocation of Harvard’s SEVP authorization has sent shockwaves through the academic community, as it means Harvard would not be able to enroll international students and enrolled students must transfer to another university, obtain some other legal visa status, or depart the U.S. The DHS decision is premised on allegations that Harvard’s leadership has failed to address pervasive antisemitism and pro-terrorist conduct on its campus, as well as accusations of collaboration with the Chinese Communist Party, and failed to cooperate with DHS’s demands for information regarding its students.
On May 23, 2025, Harvard filed suit in U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking an injunction on revocation of Harvard’s SEVP certification, alleging that the revocation violates both the U.S. Constitution and Administrative Procedure Act. On the same day, the District Court issued a Temporary Restraining Order enjoining the U.S. government and its agents, including DHS, from implementing the SEVP termination until there is a hearing on the matter. The Court found that Harvard would face immediate and irreparable injury if the termination takes effect before such a hearing.
If the termination takes effect, the impact of the decision will be substantial. Harvard, which had 6,793 international students enrolled during the 2024-2025 academic year, would face the loss of one quarter of its student population. International students would either have to transfer to other institutions or lose their legal student status in the U.S. by remaining enrolled at Harvard. Termination would have serious financial and academic implications, as international students contribute substantially to Harvard’s revenue and academic scholarship. The university’s leadership has vowed to provide guidance and support to affected students during this tumultuous period.
Federal Government Announces New Policy on Status Records for International Students
On April 17, 2025, Hunton Immigration and Higher Education attorneys provided a client alert summarizing recent visa revocations and student SEVIS record terminations (e.g., F-1 visa and F-1 student status). This updates the previous client alert, and summarizes important and ongoing changes in federal policy and practices that impact the status of international students studying in the United States. As summarized below, recent developments in a court case related to SEVIS terminations indicate that the federal government, after temporarily reversing some terminations, has revised its criteria for terminating a student’s right to remain in the United States.
First, on April 25, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice announced in court that the federal government would temporarily restore the previously terminated SEVIS records of thousands of international students. The DOJ read the following statement in court: “ICE is developing a policy that will provide a framework for SEVIS record terminations. Until such a policy is issued, the SEVIS records for plaintiff(s) in this case (and other similarly situated plaintiffs) will remain Active or shall be reactivated if not currently Active . . . .”
This move followed several weeks of lawsuits filed by students and advocacy organizations alleging that the SEVIS record terminations violated the due process and free speech rights of international students, as well as the Administrative Procedures Act. As explained in our prior client alert, international students receive a student visa (e.g., an F-1 visa) to study in the United States. Once they have arrived, they are admitted in F-1 student status and tracked in their SEVIS records through the Department of Homeland Security’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP). The termination of SEVIS records led to questions about the students’ legal status in the United States.
With the federal government’s reversal, students whose SEVIS records were terminated should have been restored to active student status. Many institutions saw these changes occur from April 25 through April 27, 2025 in their checks of the SEVIS database and notified their affected international students accordingly.
Three days later, on April 28, what appears to be a draft of the new policy for SEVIS record terminations was provided in a court filing on April 28The message, was dated April 26, 2025 and addressed to all SEVP personnel (the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, run through the Department of Homeland Security), and states that ICE retains the authority to terminate students’ SEVIS records for a broad variety of reasons. The listed reasons included those previously viewed as standard and three significant additions:
Exceeded unemployment time;
Change of status or gap in status; or
S. Department of State visa revocation “effective immediately.”
The message indicates a change to the processes for changing students’ immigration status records in SEVIS and represents a departure from previous policies in several important ways. The message states that evidence of an international student’s failure to comply alone will be the standard used to justify future SEVIS status terminations, rather than the higher standards of “substantial evidence,” “proof,” or the standard required for immigration removal proceedings, “clear and convincing evidence”.
The message also indicated that ICE intends to terminate students’ SEVIS records whenever the Department of State revokes an international student’s visa, followed by initiating removal proceedings. This means that SEVIS records may appear as terminated before a student’s status has been terminated in removal proceedings.
The message did not refer to any change in the federal government’s practice of not notifying students of their SEVIS record terminations. Therefore, an international student may still have their F-1 status terminated in SEVIS without notice to them or their university.
Key Takeaways
International student issues remain a closely-watched topic for higher-education institutions, and we continue to recommend clients collaborate closely with outside legal counsel and their international student offices to keep abreast of the latest legal developments and ensure their ongoing compliance.
In particular, colleges and universities should ensure that they are:
Regularly checking SEVIS to determine if any of their students’ F-1 status has been terminated (or restored to Active) and communicate any developments to the affected students as soon as possible.
Preparing for possible federal immigration enforcement activity on or around campus by understanding the types of requests for information federal agencies might make and best practices to meet cooperation obligations under federal and state law.
Developing and implementing a plan to address student and campus community concerns, as well as any concerns from the local community. In addition to planning for internal and external communications, expect that individual students may file their own lawsuits in court related to federal action taken on their student visa or SEVIS record.
We at Hunton have resources to advise higher education institutions on their particular immigration needs. We have developed training and guidance designed to assist public safety officers and administrators if federal agencies come to campus, and we can provide guidance and assistance in advising international students and scholars offices, HR and administrators on visa revocations and status terminations for students, researchers faculty, and staff.
College Student Behind Cyber Extortions
The U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Massachusetts has charged a student at Assumption University with hacking into two U.S.-based companies’ systems and demanding a ransom.
Matthew D. Lane, 19, has agreed to plead guilty to one count of cyber extortion conspiracy, one count of cyber extortion, one count of unauthorized access to protected computers, and one count of aggravated identity theft.
The U.S. Attorney’s Office’s press release states that Lane agreed with co-conspirators between April and May 2024 to extort a $200,000 ransom payment from a telecommunications company by threatening to publish private data. When the telecommunications company questioned the payment, Lane used stolen login credentials to access the computer network of a software and cloud storage company that served school systems. The company received threats that the “PII of more than 60 million students and 10 million teachers – including names, email addresses, phone numbers, Social Security numbers, dates of birth, medical information, residential addresses, parent and guardian information and passwords, among other data – would be ‘leak[ed] . . . worldwide’ if the company did not pay a ransom of approximately $2.85 million in Bitcoin.”
A plea hearing has not been scheduled. If convicted, “the charges of cyber extortion conspiracy, cyber extortion and unauthorized access to protected computers each provide for a sentence of up to five years in prison, three years of supervised release and a fine of up to $250,000, or twice the gross gain or loss, whichever is greater. The charge of aggravated identity theft provides for a mandatory sentence of two years in prison, consecutive to any sentence imposed on the computer fraud charges.”
From Pride to Parity: Legal Guardrails for Managing DEI Events and Celebrations
Organizing and conducting cultural celebrations, acknowledgements, and educational programs in the workplace present thornier issues today in light of the new administration’s policies, including the numerous executive orders (EO) pertaining to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) that President Trump has signed since taking office. While cultural celebrations were previously thought to serve as an educational and morale-building tool in creating an inclusive, equal employment opportunity workplace, companies are now considering whether they must or should cancel these activities altogether or withdraw their sponsorships of these events. With Pride Month fast approaching, considerations and potential approaches for companies facing these issues may assist in deciding what fits within an organization’s compliance obligations and risk tolerance.
Quick Hits
Some companies are reconsidering and even cancelling cultural celebrations, acknowledgements, and activities, such as Pride Month activities, in response to increased scrutiny from the new administration.
Employers should be mindful of the EEOC’s technical assistance focused on DEI titled “What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work,” which previews the EEOC’s position on certain DEI initiatives and potential rights and claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 related to DEI initiatives.
Employers considering cultural celebrations may also want to consider factors such as their budgets; economic uncertainty; which sponsorships and celebrations to choose and why; whether they will use federal funds to pay for these activities and the potential legal and contractual implications if they do; the takeaways and potential optics impacting the organization’s employees, customers, and stakeholders; and whether a visible partnership exposes the organization to consequences outside of the company’s current risk tolerance.
The Impact of EO 14173 for Pride Month and Beyond
EO 14173, which President Trump signed on January 21, 2025, has introduced significant changes for organizations doing business with or receiving money from the federal government. The order mandates that these organizations certify that they do not operate DEI programs that violate federal antidiscrimination laws. This certification is now a material term for purposes of the False Claims Act (FCA), adding a layer of complexity for businesses, especially in light of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) May 19, 2025, announcement that it will create a new investigative unit for DEI/FCA investigation and enforcement.
With Pride Month quickly approaching in June, some employers are revisiting their engagement on LGBTQ+ issues in light of EO 14173 and other new DEI-related executive orders and related guidance from agencies like the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) and the DOJ. A recent study by Gravity Research found that two in five corporate executives are pulling back from Pride Month engagement in 2025 compared to previous years. The study revealed that six in ten executives cited President Trump’s policies regarding transgender people and DEI initiatives as the primary reason for this shift. Additionally, 40 percent of executives expressed concerns over potential criticism from customers, shareholder derivative actions, and disagreements over the content of such celebrations. Of course, with “unlawful DEI” undefined in the EOs or otherwise, whether celebrations or education fall within that undefined term remains to be seen and will be highly fact-specific.
Considerations for Lawful Celebrations and Education
The lack of clear guidance from the administration on what constitutes unlawful DEI practices has left many employers in a state of uncertainty. In fact, one of the most common questions employers are struggling with in light of these developments is whether employers should cancel their sponsorships of events like Pride parades. The answer is not straightforward, as it depends on various factors, including legal compliance and each employer’s risk tolerance.
Despite the changes brought by the new administration, employers may continue to acknowledge historical events and educate their workforces on protected characteristics. While celebrations and educational programs on identities and protected characteristics are still legal, employers may need to consider how to carefully manage and execute them.
One foundational step is ensuring that educational and cultural programming is not exclusionary. For instance, activities that divide groups by protected characteristics or only permit those with certain characteristics to participate would likely be exclusionary. Additional relevant guardrails for compliance that employers can choose to use to help them stay on the right side of the law and avoid enforcement crosshairs when adopting cultural celebrations include:
EEOC Technical Assistance: Employers should be mindful of whether they have aligned their programs with the EEOC’s technical assistance and other active guidance. Notably, on May 15, 2025, a federal court vacated portions of the EEOC’s workplace harassment guidance, specifically, guidance on harassment based on sexual orientation and gender identity. Employers should remain mindful of all applicable law, including state and local laws prohibiting discrimination and harassment on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Unlawful Segregation: Employers should consider whether their programs, celebrations, or employee groups segregate employees based on protected characteristics. For example, do certain activities group LGBTQ+ employees separately from non-LGBTQ employees? Are the events open in all respects to all individuals to participate? Are roles within groups or activities limited in any way?
Voluntary Participation: Employers should examine their celebrations and educational programs to verify participation is voluntary—excluding, of course, the need to conduct legally required training on harassment, discrimination, and equal employment opportunity compliance.
Accommodation Requests: Employers may need to be prepared to manage employees’ requests for accommodations based on religious beliefs and robustly consider all concerns and intersecting rights as they may arise.
Equitable Recognition: In recognizing different characteristics, cultures, and holidays, employers can strive for fairness and equity and generally ensure that their DEI initiatives are balanced and inclusive.
Risk Management and Privileged Assessments
When deciding whether to sponsor events like Pride parades, companies may want to consider conducting a return on investment (ROI) analysis. One factor to consider is the impact of economic uncertainty on the company’s budget and the optics of participation. Federal contractors and recipients of federal funds—which are facing tight scrutiny under the Trump administration—may want to be particularly cautious and may wish to avoid using federal funds for these celebrations.
In this respect, ongoing, privileged assessments may help employers analyze the data they have on hand that may be relevant to these analyses. Assessments typically evaluate risk tolerance, ROI, and compliance with evolving laws and administrative approaches. In particular, employers can closely assess their own celebrations and educational programs and their sponsorships of cultural events to see if they align with both the company’s lawful DEI initiatives and legal antidiscrimination requirements, but also achieve the desired ROI.
Looking Ahead
As the administration’s approach to DEI continues to evolve, companies would benefit from staying informed and adaptable. The upcoming strategic enforcement plan from the attorney general, which is expected on or after May 21, 2025, may provide further guidance on these and other DEI issues. While the current environment presents challenges for DEI celebrations and education, careful planning, legal compliance, and ongoing assessments can help organizations navigate these complexities successfully.
Important Considerations for Universities Awaiting House Settlement Approval
The ever-changing landscape of college athletics and name, image, and likeness (NIL) regulation is about to be shaken up once again. The historic House v. NCAA settlement is nearing approval and will drastically change the ways many universities, particularly in Division I, operate their athletic departments and engage with their student-athletes.
This settlement will accomplish three main tasks: (1) it will distribute over $2.5 billion to former players who participated in competitive Division I college sports from 2016-2024, (2) it will create a revenue-sharing model that will allow schools to compensate their student-athletes directly, and (3) it will attempt to establish more oversight and control over student-athlete NIL payments.
With these historic changes, universities should be prepared to take several critical actions to remain in-step with new NCAA requirements and related developments in the world of college athletics.
Opt In or Out
The named defendants in the suit, which currently include the PAC-12, Atlantic Coast Conference, Big Ten, Big 12, Southeastern Conference conferences, are automatically opted in to the settlement. Schools within those conferences, commonly referred to as the “power five,” must be ready to adhere to the terms of settlement for a ten-year period beginning on July 1, 2025.
This leaves non “power five” Division I schools with a decision to make about whether or not they wish to share revenue with their student athletes. Most Division I universities have already indicated whether or not they plan to “opt in” to revenue sharing. Schools who do choose to share revenue must do so according to the settlement terms, and must provide the NCAA a notice of intent to formally opt in by June 15, 2025. All schools (including those in “power” conferences) who opt in must be prepared to:
Ensure compliance with the revenue-sharing “pool cap” set by the settlement.
Comply with new reporting requirements on NIL licenses and payments.
Adhere to the roster limits established by the defendant conferences.
It is important to realize that schools who opt in are only doing so for that upcoming academic year, and every non-power five school in the NCAA will have the opportunity to opt in or out every year of the ten-year settlement period. Beginning in 2026-2027, those opting in for an upcoming academic year must do so by March 1 of the prior year.
Those who opt out of the settlement will largely continue to follow guidelines from the 2024-25 NCAA Division I Manual. This means last year’s scholarship limits will remain intact, and schools will remain prohibited from making direct NIL payments to student-athletes. However, all Division I schools will need to ensure that their student-athletes report all third-party NIL deals worth $600 or more.
Any school that provides payments or benefits to any student athlete in excess of what is permitted by the Division I Manual will be considered to have automatically opted in to the settlement agreement, and will be subject to the restrictions of the settlement agreement.
Consider Financial Impacts
The settlement has the potential to create significant financial consequences for athletic departments. The revenue-sharing model established by the settlement allows schools to spend up to $20.5 million—an expense they were not previously incurring—to pay their student-athletes directly during the 2025-26 academic year. In response to these increased financial demands, schools are actively exploring new revenue streams, including forming separate legal entities for their athletic departments and taking steps to ensure greater financial flexibility.
The draft settlement agreement itself notes that non power five schools may choose not to pay their student athletes the full $20.5 million that is permitted in 2025-26 due to financial constraints. Whether or not they spend the full allotment, schools must determine exactly how to allocate payments to student athletes and ensure their plans align with their budgets. Similarly, the changes in allowable roster sizes must be factored into financial planning. Schools that do not wish to fall behind competitively must consider these changes and determine whether any fundraising, adjustments in ticket prices, new revenue streams or other efforts are necessary to cover the added costs.
Consider Program Impacts
The settlement will impact all student athletes at power five schools and those at schools that opt in to the settlement, regardless of whether those athletes are receiving revenue share payments. Even if a school opts to share revenue with only certain athletes or certain teams, it will be subject to roster limits imposed by the settlement for all sports. This could affect participation numbers, and should be considered in assessing Title IX compliance.
Consider Student Athlete Impacts
Schools need to be aware of how the settlement may affect both their student athletes as individuals and the way the institution interacts with them. As publicity and transparency around NIL deals increase, supporting student athlete mental health must become an even greater priority. Schools must also decide their role in helping students in building their personal brands and if they will be involved in any third party NIL deals.
On the other hand, schools must also be aware of how their student athletes can affect their institutional brands. Schools will want to consider placing limitations on NIL deals related to certain activities or industries (e.g., gambling or alcohol, and other drugs), and consult with their leadership and Boards, as well as state regulators, to ensure that NIL deals are consistent with the collective values of the institution, remain compliant, and to ensure that the schools and athletes are protected from public relations issues. While most agreements with players receiving revenue sharing payments contain restrictions prohibiting the player from engaging in marketing related to products or brands that could bring disrepute upon universities, schools will need to carefully consider policies for athletes who are not subject to revenue sharing contracts.
Addressing Title IX Concerns
Roster limits are not the only way that the settlement may impact Title IX compliance. The compensation distributed to former players will be primarily paid to men’s basketball and football participants, and purports to release Title IX claims―although the enforceability of the release under Title IX has not been tested. Moving forward, market forces will likely dictate that schools compensate male athletes at much greater rates than female athletes, creating potential Title IX violations. In January, the Trump administration withdrew Biden-era guidance from the Department of Education that would require schools to share revenue equitably among men’s and women’s sports to comply with Title IX. While it seems unlikely that the federal government will pursue Title IX enforcement related to athlete compensation, schools should remember that Title IX may be enforced by private litigation. It is entirely foreseeable that female athletes will sue their institutions when they lose participation opportunities because of roster limits and are compensated at a lower rate than (or not at all) compared to their male counterparts.
Stay Informed
It is imperative for institutions to continue to monitor NCAA developments over the settlement period. It is still uncertain what role Title IX will play on these changes and future guidance has the potential for significant impacts. Additionally, many aspects are bound to change—some intentionally, such as the pool cap’s annual 4% increase, and others unexpectedly. Schools should remain alert and ready to respond to any additional guidance to ensure NCAA compliance.
Schools who are considering opting in should consider structural changes to their athletics program that will allow them to maximize revenue and avoid potential liability.
The One Big Beautiful Bill: Relevant Provisions for Nonprofits
On May 12, 2025, the House Ways and Committee released an updated text of draft tax legislation (the “House Draft Bill”). Amongst the proposed provisions are a few significant changes that could particularly affect nonprofits and individuals working with or for nonprofits:
Nonprofits would be required to pay tax on the sale or license of any name or logo of the organization (generally at the corporate rate of 21%). Under current law, nonprofits do not ordinarily pay tax on royalties from an unrelated payor—the House Draft Bill would specifically identify gain and royalty income from the name or logo as “unrelated business taxable income.” This provision could have a material impact on sports-related tax exempts and private universities that license their name or logo in connection with collegiate sports activities.
For private colleges and universities, the current excise tax on net investment income (generally taxed at 1.4%) would be replaced with a multiple-tier tax on net investment income based on the college’s or university’s “student-adjustment endowment”. The tax rate scales up to 21% for a sufficiently large endowment. Additionally, for such colleges and universities, the definition of net investment income would be expanded (to include, for instance, interest on student loans and “Federally-subsidized royalty income”). The provision grants the Treasury with specific authority to prescribe regulations or other guidance, as necessary, to prevent the avoidance of this excise tax.
For private foundations, the current 1.39% tax rate would be replaced by a tiered tax on net investment income based on the total gross value of the assets held by the foundation—the top rates reaching 10%.
Nonprofits (other than “churches” or certain “church-affiliated organizations”) would have to pay tax (generally at the corporate rate of 21%) on parking facilities and transportation fringe benefits. The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 had originally included similar provisions imposing taxes on such facilities and benefits, but these provisions had been retroactively repealed in 2019.
The excise tax imposed on significant compensation paid to the 5 highest-compensated employees of an applicable tax-exempt organization would be expanded to all employees of the organization or any related person or governmental entity.
A 1% floor would be added for charitable contribution deductions made by corporations.
All of these provisions would generally come into effect after 2025. It is, of course, possible that the above changes will not be included in the final tax legislation, or that material modifications could be made to such provisions before they are voted upon. The Ways and Means Committee held its markup session on May 13, 2025, and it voted to advance the House Draft Bill to the House floor. The full panoply of further legislative steps (such as Senate consideration, and any reconciliation between Senate and House versions) are to come, although Congressional leadership has stated that the goal is to finalize the legislation by July 4, 2025.