...
By Hannah Parry
Associate News Editor
0
Share
Newsweek is a Trust Project member
See more of our trusted coverage when you search.Prefer Newsweek on Googleto see more of our trusted coverage when you search.
In a sweeping regulatory shift, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has finalized a rule that narrows how discrimination can be penalized across billions of dollars in federal grants.
The decision strips the government of its ability to penalize funding recipients for policies that disproportionately harm minority groups—unless explicit discriminatory intent can be proved.
The rule, signed by Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin and scheduled for publication in the Federal Register on June 22, officially eliminates "disparate-impact" liability under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 for DHS and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). It also completely deletes long-standing affirmative action provisions embedded within the agency's grant frameworks.
Read More on News
By removing the "effects"-based standard, the policy fundamentally alters the landscape for tens of thousands of local governments, emergency services and community organizations that rely on DHS funding.
...
For decades, federal civil rights enforcement operated under a dual standard: it banned overt, intentional bigotry, but it also prohibited facially neutral rules that resulted in a disparate, negative impact on marginalized racial or ethnic groups.
Under the newly revised regulations, that second avenue is gone. DHS is removing and reserving paragraph 21.5(b)(2) of Title 6 and paragraph 7.5(b) of Title 44, effectively declaring that the department will no longer pursue unintentional discrimination cases.
The financial stakes are huge. According to department data, DHS issued about 274,000 awards totaling roughly $140 billion between fiscal years 2022 and 2024. In Fiscal Year 2024 alone, FEMA oversaw $43.1 billion in funding, spanning disaster assistance, hazard mitigation and fire safety grants. Future allocations of these massive sums will no longer carry the threat of civil rights penalties for disproportionate outcomes to marginalized groups.
The move aligns DHS with the Department of Justice (DOJ), which enacted an identical rollback of its own Title VI rules on December 10, 2025. DHS leaders noted that the new rollback was necessary to avoid a fractured, contradictory approach across the federal government.
“Despite trying to promote equality, EEOC’s disparate impact liability interpretation under Title VII actually fosters the very discrimination its guidelines seek to address,” acting U.S. Attorney General Todd Blanche said in a statement last week.
Civil rights advocates have warned that the rollback will lead to a steep rise in discrimination cases.
“Requiring plaintiffs in all civil rights cases to demonstrate discriminatory intent is contrary to Supreme Court law, and will lead to a sharp increase in unchecked discrimination,” said Stacey Young, founder of the advocacy group Justice Connection, told TheWellNews.
The administration brushed aside concerns over diminished civil rights oversight, noting that federal investigators and private litigants can still use statistical disparities as circumstantial evidence to help prove a case of intentional discrimination. Additionally, DHS pointed out that recipients are still legally required to maintain and provide racial and ethnic data on who benefits from federal dollars.
FEMA's enforcement of the Stafford Act, which mandates equitable and impartial distribution of supplies and disaster relief, remains technically untouched by this rule. However, because the Stafford Act does not explicitly mention disparate impact, civil rights advocates fear that disaster relief equity will be significantly weakened in practice without a robust Title VI enforcement mechanism.
Constitutional and Ideological Realignment
The rollback is part of a broader administration push to dismantle systemic equity initiatives. The DHS rule directly implements Executive Order 14281, titled "Restoring Equality of Opportunity and Meritocracy," which established a mandate to eliminate "disparate-impact liability" in federal regulations and civil rights enforcement "to the maximum degree possible."
The agency also positioned the rule as a necessary response to an evolving judicial climate, explicitly citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which struck down affirmative action in college admissions.
According to the rule's preamble, the threat of disparate-impact lawsuits legally coerced funding recipients into "racial balancing" to avoid lopsided statistics—the type of race-conscious decision-making the current judicial consensus views as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause.
"Disparate-impact liability encourages and, in some cases, requires covered entities to engage in the intentional use of race and racial balancing to eliminate those disparate outcomes...the exact conduct the Equal Protection Clause forbids," the department wrote.
DHS also targeted affirmative action provisions within its employment and grant rules, arguing that previous requirements encouraging recipients to proactively "overcome the effects of prior discrimination" lacked narrow tailoring and promoted potentially illegal preferences.
Bypassing Public Comment
In an unusual procedural move that is likely to trigger immediate pushback from civil rights organizations, DHS bypassed the traditional public notice-and-comment period usually required under the Administrative Procedure Act.
The department instead invoked a statutory exception for rules "relating to agency management or personnel or to public property, loans, grants, benefits, or contracts," allowing the rule to take effect immediately upon publication. DHS justified the urgency by stating it needed to "promptly harmonize its rule with DOJ’s rule" to eliminate legal uncertainty and lower compliance costs for its grantees.
While administration officials view the change as a vital victory for deregulation and the colorblind rule of law, civil rights groups warn that it leaves minority communities highly vulnerable. Without the legal tool of disparate impact, advocates argue that systemic barriers in disaster relief distribution, cybersecurity training allocation, and municipal emergency planning will become nearly impossible to challenge in a court of law.
This is breaking news, updates to follow.
View 0 Comments
Submit Correction
View Editorial & AI Guidelines