Key Takeaways:

• With Democrats at the helm in January, congressional scrutiny into higher education is likely to continue, but with a different lens.
• Democratic-led congressional investigations are likely to focus on institutions’ deals with the Trump administration and similar efforts to comply with pressure from the administration, as well as on Title IX and sexual assault policies and procedures.
• Investigations targeting federal government actors—on issues such as the integrity of federal civil rights enforcement, the dismantling of the Department of Education, and research funding—will draw in colleges and universities as witnesses with heavy compliance burdens.

During the 118th and 119th Congresses, Republican-led committees used every tool at their disposal to investigate colleges and universities: document demands, the first subpoenas to universities in the history of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, transcribed interviews, hearings with sitting presidents, and staff reports calling out institutions by name. With Democrats having won both the House and the Senate, the gavel and investigations power will be in new hands when the 120th Congress convenes in January 2027. Higher education is likely to remain a focus, but the 120th Congress will ask very different questions, treating institutions less as alleged wrongdoers than as witnesses to, and in some cases counterparties of, the Trump administration. Key congressional Democrats have already signaled their intent to investigate how colleges and universities may have changed their policies in response to pressure from the administration.

Democratic chairs of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP), Judiciary, and Finance Committees in the Senate will be able to open parallel investigations and coordinate with their House counterparts. Committees in both chambers are likely to seek communications with the executive branch from private parties, including colleges and universities, looking for examples and narratives that help Democrats frame issues ahead of the 2028 presidential election. Meanwhile, although congressional Republicans will lose the power to issue subpoenas, they will remain an active minority and are likely to coordinate tactics with the administration’s independent enforcement agenda, which we expect to continue. Institutions, therefore, could face competing investigations from Washington, each seeking to build a different narrative.

Issues Likely to Draw Democratic Scrutiny

Democratic members have spent the past two years signaling what they intend to examine: institutions’ deals with the administration, Title IX policies and practices, the integrity of federal civil rights enforcement, the dismantling of the Department of Education, research funding, tax enforcement, accreditation, and the treatment of international students. Even where the institution is not the target of the investigation—and Congress is investigating a federal government agency’s actions—colleges and universities may be compelled to participate as witnesses, with a burden to respond and comply.

Settlements, resolution agreements, and the Compact. In August 2025, Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-CA) and Sens. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) led a group of colleagues in warning a university reportedly negotiating with the administration that a settlement “of this magnitude under apparent political pressure” “may warrant rigorous Congressional oversight and inquiry.” Rep. Bobby Scott (D-VA), who is likely to chair the Education and the Workforce Committee, has said that universities that entered into resolution agreements ending DEI-related partnerships have become “complicit” in the Department of Education’s “illegitimate campaign to limit opportunities for underrepresented minorities.” That criticism may extend to institutions that scaled back or ended DEI programs under federal pressure without any formal agreement. Democrats are also likely to examine the October 2025 Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, which offered preferential access to federal research funding to institutions that accepted a list of policy commitments, and the administration’s 2026 follow-on “call to action.” Expect requests for negotiation records, board materials, internal deliberations over DEI and other policy changes, and communications with federal agencies and the White House.

Title IX. Recent high-profile fraternity cases have put campus sexual assault back at the center of the Title IX debate, after the Department of Education rescinded the Biden-era Title IX regulations and reinstated its first-term rules. House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D-NY), who is expected to become Speaker, has called one such case “deeply searing” and said it “requires a very serious investigation.” On October 9, 2026, Reps. Maxine Dexter (D-OR) and Suzanne Bonamici (D-OR), Democratic Women’s Caucus Chair Teresa Leger Fernández (D-NM), and dozens of other House Democrats asked the Department’s Inspector General to investigate its Title IX enforcement, arguing that the reinstated rule “only weakens protections and processes for student survivors.” Expect requests for sexual misconduct policies, training materials, and case records.

Integrity of civil rights enforcement. In August 2026, a Justice Department attorney and several other federal employees assigned to the administration’s antisemitism task force alleged in a whistleblower disclosure that investigations of several prominent universities had “predetermined” outcomes and were used to pressure the universities into settlements. Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD), who is expected to chair the Judiciary Committee, has called the administration’s antisemitism investigation “fake, a pre-baked frame-up operation thoroughly political in nature” and has demanded a transcribed interview of Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon and records concerning the administration’s investigations of, and settlements with, several universities. In the Senate, HELP Committee Ranking Member Bernie Sanders (I-VT) released a minority staff report in April 2026 finding that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights had reached a 12-year low in protecting students from discrimination. Expect requests for institutions’ communications with task force members and investigators, records of interviews and site visits, and documents showing how findings and settlement terms were reached.

Dismantling of the Department of Education. Rep. Scott has called the transfer of the Department’s functions to other agencies an “abdication of the federal government’s responsibility” to students, and Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Sanders, Patty Murray (D-WA), and Tammy Baldwin (D-WI) have asked the Government Accountability Office to investigate the transfer. Expect requests for information on how the transfers have affected student aid administration, civil rights complaints, and institutions’ dealings with the Department.

Research funding. With control of both chambers, Democrats will hold the power of the purse and are likely to use it to block cuts to federal funding agencies and restore stability to research funding. They are also likely to examine grant terminations, caps on indirect-cost reimbursement, and proposals to give political appointees greater control over awards. Rep. Scott has urged the Department to withdraw the proposed grant-rule changes that would expand its ability to terminate grants and encourage lower indirect-cost rates, and Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT), who is expected to chair the Appropriations Committee, may again use appropriations riders to limit unilateral cuts in the fiscal year 2027 spending process. Expect requests for inventories of terminated grants and stop-work orders, related agency communications, and assessments of the effect on research programs and personnel.

Use of the tax code against universities. Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA), who is likely to lead the Ways and Means Committee, has called the administration’s effort to revoke a leading university’s tax-exempt status “unconstitutional” and “illegal” and an example of “weaponizing the power of our government.” Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) has said that the Treasury Department’s September 2026 proposed rule on race-conscious programs “underscores Trump’s plans to target his political enemies by any means necessary.” Expect requests for communications with the IRS and the Treasury Department and for information on how threatened or proposed tax actions have affected institutions’ operations, use of donor-restricted funds, and fundraising.

Other possible subjects.

• Sen. Dick Durbin (D-IL), the retiring Ranking Member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, led 35 Senate Democrats in pressing the administration to reconsider student visa revocations, and those visa revocations, along with terminations of student records in the Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) and arrests of international student activists, are likely to draw attention.
• So is the Department’s proposed rule requiring accreditors to promote “intellectual diversity,” which Sens. Schiff, Murray, Van Hollen, and Durbin have opposed as “weaponizing” the accreditation process.
• New federal loan limits, which Rep. Scott has criticized, will also draw scrutiny—though cost messaging cuts both ways, and Democrats may also examine institutions’ own tuition and financial aid practices.
• Expect requests for data on international enrollment, communications with immigration authorities, and accreditation and financial aid materials.

Republican and Administration Priorities Will Continue

Although they will be in the minority, Republicans will continue to press on antisemitism and campus discipline; DEI and admissions, especially at medical, law, and business schools; foreign gifts and research security under Section 117 of the Higher Education Act; tax-exempt status and endowments; accreditation; and Title IX and athletics. Research security is likely to remain a bipartisan concern: the House Select Committee on the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is expected to continue, and its current chair, Rep. John Moolenaar (R-MI), has joined Republican colleagues in pressing concerns about CCP influence at American universities. Meanwhile, the administration’s executive tools—including the Department of Justice’s False Claims Act enforcement and Title VI reviews of admissions practices, the Internal Revenue Service’s threatened revocation of tax-exempt status, and Equal Employment Opportunity Commission subpoenas—do not depend on the composition of Congress.

What Is at Stake

Records and testimony produced to Congress do not stay there. They can be used by civil plaintiffs and state attorneys general, can prompt executive enforcement, and often become public through staff reports and the press. Institutions also face reputational harm with students, faculty, donors, and the public, and leaders who testify face personal exposure. Because congressional investigations lack many of the protections of litigation—there is often no judge to resolve disputes over relevance, burden, or privilege—a response should be coordinated with pending litigation and the institution’s communications strategy.

Steps to Take Now

Institutions should begin preparing now, before new majorities send their first letters.

• Revisit minority letters. A letter from a committee’s minority members that an institution could set aside this past year may return in January backed by a subpoena, and how the institution handled the first request will become part of the story.
• Map facts and risks under privilege. Conduct a counsel-directed review of interactions with the White House and executive agencies, settlement and Compact deliberations, grant terminations, Section 117 filings, and admissions-data submissions.
• Know the record. Anticipate areas of investigation,, take stock of where relevant records are maintained, and consider privacy obligations, such as those under FERPA.
• Assemble a response team. Designate legal, government affairs, and communications leads now, while there is more time for planning.
• Answer today’s minority inquiries with tomorrow’s majority in mind. Keep positions consistent across both parties and the institution’s many constituencies.
• Develop a narrative and a communications protocol. Ground the institution’s message in its mission and values, strengthen relationships with delegation members and committee staff on both sides, and make clear to personnel which channels to use, including for text messages and social media.

* * *

The coming weeks will bring new committee assignments, rules, and the first signals of the 120th Congress’s investigative agenda. We will discuss these developments in greater detail in our November 10, 2026 webinar. In the meantime, Foley Hoag’s Education and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations practice groups remain ready to help colleges and universities prepare for and respond to congressional inquiries.