A little-noticed policy shift in the US may fundamentally alter how universities operate – and not for the better. Under a new initiative from the (GSA), which supports the functioning of federal agencies, higher education institutions could soon be required to certify compliance with vague and shifting expectations around diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), as well as immigration-related reporting, as a condition of accessing federal funds through the system.

On paper, this may sound like a routine extension of oversight. In practice, it introduces a level of ambiguity and liability that could paralyse the US higher education sector.

Having served as an associate dean at a major US university, I am well acquainted with the demands of federal compliance. Financial accountability is exacting, and rightly so. The imposes severe penalties on institutions that submit inaccurate information to the government, even unintentionally. In financial reporting, that standard is workable because the terms are quantifiable. Dollars can be counted; discrepancies can be traced.

But are different. They are fluid, contested and often subjective – yet they are now being drawn into a framework designed for accounting precision. In effect, universities are being asked to account for people: their identities, their legal status and their rights. That is a fundamentally different and far more dangerous demand.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

This shift is particularly fraught because many DEI practices under scrutiny are embedded in that institutions are simultaneously expected to uphold. What, then, constitutes accurate reporting? When definitions change or conflict, how can institutions certify compliance without risking liability?

Equally concerning is how these requirements are emerging. They are not coming from Congress, which holds the authority to create law. Nor are they the product of broad administrative consensus among the expert government officials who tirelessly work across political parties on behalf of the American public. Instead, they are . They are being driven by the current administration’s political appointees, who are by tweaking compliance conditions. This is governance by administrative accretion rather than legislative design.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

There is also at stake. Universities are not, and should not become, extensions of the state’s enforcement apparatus. Professors and lecturers are not immigration officers; they do not – and must not – police the legal status of those who enter their classrooms. Nor should they be placed in a position where certifying a presidential administration’s policy priorities becomes a legal risk.

The cumulative effect of the GSA’s move will be chilling. Faced with vague standards and severe penalties, universities will default to risk-avoidance: leading scholars will self-censor, administrators will overcorrect, and debate will narrow – so that fewer contentious ideas are explored at all, even without explicit bans. The very – intellectual openness and the capacity to engage critically with contested ideas – will be quietly eroded.

None of this is to argue against accountability. Universities should and do comply with federal law. But this initiative does not simply enforce existing statutes; it expands them into areas where clarity is lacking and expertise is limited. The GSA has traditionally played a focused role in ensuring that public funds are spent appropriately. Stretching that remit into politically charged and operationally ambiguous terrain risks undermining both the agency’s credibility and the sector it oversees.

For an international audience, the implications are clear. The US has long positioned itself as a global leader in higher education, in part because of its institutions’ relative autonomy. Expanding oversight into vaguely defined and politically contested areas risks weakening the US’ appeal as a trusted centre for open and independent inquiry.

ߣߣ��Ƶ

If compliance becomes coercion, the cost will be borne not only by universities but by the broader ecosystem of knowledge they sustain. The principle should be straightforward: let the law set the terms and let universities do their work.

is professor of anthropology and former associate dean of international education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. She was previously a professor of comparative education at the University of Oxford.