Overview
The federal grant landscape for colleges and universities has changed significantly over the past year. New executive orders, agency grant conditions, proposed government-wide certifications, and an increasingly active False Claims Act (FCA) enforcement posture are creating new compliance risks.
Four developments warrant particular attention this fall as institutions renew or enter into new grant agreements:
- New certifications and grant conditions—Increasingly, federal agencies require institutions to certify compliance with federal policies concerning DEI, immigration, foreign influence, public safety, and other federal priorities. Some certifications extend beyond the particular activities supported by a grant.
- Heightened FCA exposure—The Justice Department (DOJ)’s Civil Rights Fraud Initiative and new certification requirements increase the consequences of making an inaccurate certification. Institutions should carefully evaluate their representations when accepting awards or drawing down funds.
- Foreign funding and research compliance—Section 117 enforcement and restrictions concerning foreign research relationships and malign foreign talent recruitment programs create additional obligations for institutions with international funding and research activities.
- A potentially new grant administration framework—The Office of Management and Budget’s (OMB) proposed Uniform Grants Regulation would substantially revise the federal framework for grant administration, including changes to discretionary award review, peer review, indirect cost rates, fixed amount awards, and agency authority over awards. OMB has targeted October 1, 2026, for finalization.
Key executive orders and federal agency actions
The following developments are particularly relevant to institutions seeking, renewing, or administering federal grants during the 2026–2027 academic year:
Date: January 21, 2025
Action: Executive Order 14173
Directs agencies to include in federal grants certification and compliance requirements concerning illegal discrimination, including requirements that grantees are not engaged in prohibited DEI practices, and identifies compliance with those requirements as material to federal payment decisions under the FCA.
Date:April 23, 2025
Action: Executive Order 14282
Directs enhanced enforcement of Section 117 and provides that compliance with foreign-funding disclosure requirements may be material to federal grant eligibility.
Date: August 7, 2025
Action: Executive Order 14332
Directs agencies to impose additional controls on discretionary grantmaking, including restrictions tied to specified federal priorities and greater agency oversight of grant awards.
Date: 2025–2026
Action: New agency grant terms and certifications
National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), and other agencies have incorporated additional requirements concerning DEI, anti-discrimination, foreign influence, research personnel, and other federal priorities into grant terms and certifications.
Date: January 28, 2026
Action: Proposed SAM.gov certifications
GSA proposed government-wide certifications addressing compliance with federal anti-discrimination requirements, including alignment with DOJ’s July 2025 guidance and EO 14173. When finalized, these would add another layer of institution-wide compliance obligations for federal financial assistance recipients.
Date: March 26, 2026
Action: Executive Order 14398
Requires a new contract clause concerning “racially discriminatory DEI activities” and provides for termination, suspension, debarment, and potential FCA enforcement. Institutions holding federal procurement contracts should assess these requirements separately from their grant obligations.
Date: April 17, 2026
Action: FAR Council implementation guidance
Effective April 25, 2026, directs the inclusion of the new clause (FAR 52.222-90) in new contracts immediately and in most existing contracts by December 31, 2026.
Date: May 29, 2026
Action: Proposed OMB Uniform Grants Regulation
Would substantially revise the federal grant framework, including discretionary award review, peer review, indirect costs, fixed amount awards, and agency authority over awards. OMB has targeted October 1, 2026, for finalization.
Before you certify: Assess the FCA risk
Certification is the common thread running through many of these developments. Increasingly, institutions must attest to compliance with requirements that may extend beyond the specific grant-funded activity. DOJ intends to use the FCA to pursue alleged violations of federal civil rights requirements, and several recent federal actions expressly characterize compliance as material to government payment decisions. Most notably, in April 2026, DOJ announced its first resolution under the Civil Rights Fraud Initiative: a $17 million settlement with a federal contractor over alleged discriminatory DEI practices, including diversity-linked compensation and restricted-access programs. Practices DOJ has characterized as actionable include tying compensation to diversity metrics, maintaining demographic hiring targets, using “diverse slates” in recruitment, and limiting access to mentoring or leadership programs based on protected characteristics.
A certification that is inaccurate when made, or becomes inaccurate during the award period, can create significant exposure. The FCA permits treble damages and statutory penalties, and qui tam provisions provide financial incentives for whistleblowers to bring claims. Indeed, DOJ has expressly encouraged private qui tam actions under the FCA. In doing so, DOJ has highlighted that public-facing statements about institutional DEI commitments, including on websites, in annual reports, and in strategic plans, could serve as the factual predicate for a whistleblower complaint asserting a gap between institutional representations and certified compliance.
The practical takeaway is straightforward: Institutions should not treat a grant certification as a routine administrative action. Before an authorized official signs, the institution should understand what is being certified, identify the institutional policies and practices implicated by the certification, and document the basis for its compliance determination.
What institutions should do now
Establish a certification review process
Before accepting a new award, renewing an existing award, or making a required certification, identify the representations being made and determine who is responsible for reviewing them.
Where certifications reach institution-wide conduct, the review should extend beyond the particular grant-funded activity. Consider centralizing certification sign-off and involving counsel before certifications are executed.
Conduct a focused compliance review
Institutions should prioritize areas most likely to create certification or grant-eligibility issues, including:
- DEI-related programs and practices
- Section 117 foreign-funding disclosures
- Foreign research relationships and malign foreign talent recruitment program requirements
- Current NIH, NSF, and other agency grant terms
- Federal procurement contracts, if applicable
The goal is not necessarily to undertake a wholesale review of every institutional program. Rather, institutions should identify the specific required representations and map those representations against their existing practices.
Document the analysis
Where requirements are ambiguous or institutional practices present potential compliance questions, document factually the institution’s good-faith analysis before the certification is made.
Contemporaneous documentation, including a compliance checklist, can help establish the basis for the institution’s interpretation and, where appropriate, its reliance on legal advice.
Prepare for changes to the grant framework
Institutions must assess how the proposed Uniform Grants Regulation could affect their grant portfolios and administrative processes. Although the proposal remains subject to change, an October 1, 2026, effective date would place the new framework squarely within the 2026–2027 academic year, necessitating prompt responsive actions.
Key proposed changes are detailed in our June 3, 2026, alert, but also include conversion of the Uniform Guidance from non-binding guidance to a legally binding regulation, expanded agency authority to terminate awards based on current policy priorities (even absent recipient noncompliance), required senior political appointee review of discretionary awards, new restrictions on funding activities involving DEI or disparate-impact theories, and prohibition of fixed-amount awards except where expressly authorized by statute.
Treat public commitments as part of the compliance picture
Institutions considering a response by year-end to the Education Department’s recently issued National Call to Action should involve counsel before publishing commitments. While the Call to Action is not itself legally binding, institutions should consider whether statements concerning institutional policies or practices could later be used to measure whether the institution’s actual conduct is consistent with its representations.
What to watch this fall
The legal and regulatory landscape remains unsettled. Litigation has challenged several federal actions, but institutions should note that the principal injunction blocking enforcement of the DEI-related grant provisions was vacated by the Fourth Circuit in February 2026, and the case was subsequently dismissed by the plaintiffs in late June. While other litigation remains pending in different circuits, institutions should not assume that judicial intervention will prevent enforcement of current requirements.
Institutions also should continue to monitor:
- The OMB Uniform Grants Regulation (expected October 2026),
- Finalized SAM.gov certifications, which could create government-wide attestation requirements,
- Continued DOJ FCA enforcement activity involving civil rights and federal funding, which will further clarify the government’s positions, and
- Developments concerning Section 117 and foreign-funding enforcement
For the 2026–2027 academic year, federal grant compliance entails more than complying with the terms of an individual award. Institutions must consider how their broader institutional policies and practices intersect with their representations to the federal government. As a result, before the fall grant cycle accelerates, colleges and universities should establish a clear process for reviewing certifications and grant terms, confirm Section 117 and research compliance, assess potential FCA exposure, and prepare for possible changes to the federal grant framework.
The institutions best positioned to navigate this environment will be those that address these issues proactively and holistically before an authorized official signs the certification—not after a federal agency or whistleblower questions it.