DOE’s Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement: Transparency Push or Privacy Threat?

In the wake of the Supreme Court’s 2023 landmark decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which prohibited race-conscious admissions in higher education, the Trump administration has aggressively pursued greater oversight of college admissions practices. On August 7, 2025, President Trump issued a directive ordering the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) to expand the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) with a new component aimed at monitoring compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

This expansion, formally proposed as the “Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement” (ACTS), represents one of the most significant changes to IPEDS in decades. First announced on August 15, 2025, with an initial 60-day comment period, the proposal was revised and resubmitted for further public input in November 2025, closing on December 15, 2025. As of December 18, 2025, the DOE is reviewing thousands of comments amid intense debate over its implications for transparency, privacy, and institutional autonomy.

The ACTS would require selective four-year institutions—and in limited forms, graduate and professional programs—to report highly disaggregated data on applicants, admits, enrollees, financial aid recipients, and student outcomes. This includes cross-tabulations by race/ethnicity and sex with variables such as admission test scores (in quintiles), high school GPA, family income bands, Pell Grant eligibility, parental education levels, and admission pathways (early decision, early action, regular).

Proponents argue this data is essential for detecting potential discriminatory practices in a post-affirmative action landscape. Yet critics, including a multistate coalition led by California Attorney General Rob Bonta, contend the proposal is flawed, burdensome, and risky—potentially weaponizing data against diversity efforts while failing to deliver usable insights for civil rights enforcement.

Attorney General Rob Bonta’s Strong Opposition

On December 15, 2025—the final day of the comment period—California Attorney General Rob Bonta led a coalition of 17 attorneys general in submitting a forceful comment letter reaffirming their opposition to the ACTS proposal. This follows an earlier submission in October 2025 and underscores persistent concerns that the DOE has inadequately addressed public feedback.

“The Trump Administration has continued to push forward its demand that colleges adhere to unreasonable, unnecessary reporting burdens — all in service of President Trump’s assault on lawful diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and schools he dislikes,” said Attorney General Bonta. “The U.S. Department of Education has ignored feedback from states and the public that this proposal threatens students’ privacy and is highly likely to produce inaccurate or unusable results. We will not allow data to be weaponized against the schools and students its collection should empower. We call on the Department of Education to rescind this fundamentally flawed proposal.”

Bonta’s critique frames the ACTS not merely as a technical data collection effort but as part of a broader ideological campaign against DEI initiatives. The coalition argues that the DOE’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) has failed to meaningfully respond to prior comments highlighting the proposal’s shortcomings.

Key Arguments in the Coalition’s Comment Letter

• Unnecessary for Title VI Enforcement: The disaggregated data would not reliably identify discriminatory intent or practices, as admissions involve multifaceted, holistic reviews that aggregated statistics cannot fully capture.
• Excessive Administrative Burden: Institutions would need to compile never-before-collected data retroactively for multiple years, under unclear instructions and tight timelines, rendering the process “almost unworkable.”
• Privacy Risks to Students: Granular cross-tabulations could produce small cell sizes, enabling re-identification of individuals despite aggregation, with no mandated safeguards like cell suppression or noise infusion.
• Data Quality Concerns: Rushed implementation and untested submission procedures are likely to yield inaccurate, incomplete, or delayed data, undermining any enforcement value.
• Ignored Stakeholder Feedback: The DOE’s responses to the first comment period dismissed substantive issues on privacy, burden, and feasibility without adequate justification.

Coalition Members

The multistate coalition includes the attorneys general of:

1. California (lead)
2. Colorado
3. Connecticut
4. Delaware
5. District of Columbia
6. Hawai‘i
7. Illinois
8. Maine
9. Maryland
10. Massachusetts
11. New Jersey
12. New Mexico
13. New York
14. Nevada
15. Oregon
16. Vermont
17. Washington
18. Wisconsin

Broader Privacy and Practical Concerns

Beyond Bonta’s coalition, numerous stakeholders—including postsecondary data experts, civil rights organizations, and institutional researchers—have echoed worries about re-identification risks. At elite institutions, certain race-sex-variable combinations may yield cell sizes of fewer than 5 or even 1, making anonymity illusory when cross-referenced with public information.

Historical precedents in statistical disclosure limitation highlight these dangers: even anonymized datasets have been de-anonymized through sophisticated linking attacks. Without explicit requirements for de-identification techniques, public release of ACTS tables could expose vulnerable students to scrutiny or harm.

Administrative challenges are equally daunting. Many institutions lack centralized systems to compile such detailed historical data, particularly retroactively. The shortened timelines exacerbate this, potentially leading to errors or non-compliance.

Counterarguments and the Case for Transparency

Supporters of ACTS maintain that sunlight is the best disinfectant for admissions opacity. Disparities in admit rates by race, controlling for qualifications, could signal issues warranting investigation. In an era of public skepticism toward elite institutions, aggregated data promotes accountability without targeting individuals.

Path Forward: Recommended Reforms

To balance legitimate oversight with protections, the DOE should consider:

1. Mandating robust statistical disclosure controls, such as suppressing cells below 10-15 and adding controlled rounding or noise.
2. Phasing in implementation, starting with prospective data and limiting retroactive requirements.
3. Providing extensive technical assistance, clear definitions, and pilot testing with volunteer institutions.
4. Restricting public release of high-risk tables and ensuring data use is confined to targeted civil rights investigations.
5. Engaging in genuine dialogue with critics to refine the supplement before final approval.

Transparency in higher education admissions is vital for trust and equity. However, as Attorney General Bonta and his coalition powerfully argue, the current ACTS proposal risks undermining these goals through overreach and inadequate safeguards. Civil rights enforcement must protect students—not expose them to new vulnerabilities. The DOE should heed the widespread concerns and revise accordingly, or risk a flawed system that benefits no one.