The Trump administration’s crackdown on DEI programs could exacerbate an unexpectedly steep drop in diversity among medical school students, even in states like California, where public universities have been navigating bans on affirmative action for decades. Education and health experts warn that, ultimately, this could harm patient care.

Since taking office, President Donald Trump has issued a handful of executive orders aimed at terminating all diversity, equity, and inclusion, or DEI, initiatives in federally funded programs. And in his March 4 address to Congress, he described the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision banning the consideration of race in college and university admissions as “brave and very powerful.”

Last month, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights — which lost about 50% of its staff in mid-March — directed schools, including postsecondary institutions, to end race-based programs or risk losing federal funding. The “Dear Colleague” letter cited the Supreme Court’s decision.

Paulette Granberry Russell, president and CEO of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, said that “every utterance of ‘diversity’ is now being viewed as a violation or considered unlawful or illegal.” Her organization filed a lawsuit challenging Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

While California and eight other states — Arizona, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, Nebraska, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, and Washington — had already implemented bans of varying degrees on race-based admissions policies well before the Supreme Court decision, schools bolstered diversity in their ranks with equity initiatives such as targeted scholarships, trainings, and recruitment programs.

But the court’s decision and the subsequent state-level backlash — 29 states have since introduced bills to curb diversity initiatives, according to data published by the Chronicle of Higher Education — have tamped down these efforts and led to the recent declines in diversity numbers, education experts said.

After the Supreme Court’s ruling, the numbers of Black and Hispanic medical school enrollees fell by double-digit percentages in the 2024-25 school year compared with the previous year, according to the Association of American Medical Colleges. Black enrollees declined 11.6%, while the number of new students of Hispanic origin fell 10.8%. The decline in enrollment of American Indian or Alaska Native students was even more dramatic, at 22.1%. New Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander enrollment declined 4.3%.

“We knew this would happen,” said Norma Poll-Hunter, AAMC’s senior director of workforce diversity. “But it was double digits — much larger than what we anticipated.”

The fear among educators is the numbers will decline even more under the new administration.

At the end of February, the Education Department launched an online portal encouraging people to “report illegal discriminatory practices at institutions of learning,” stating that students should have “learning free of divisive ideologies and indoctrination.” The agency later issued a “Frequently Asked Questions” document about its new policies, clarifying that it was acceptable to observe events like Black History Month but warning schools that they “must consider whether any school programming discourages members of all races from attending.”

“It definitely has a chilling effect,” Poll-Hunter said. “There is a lot of fear that could cause institutions to limit their efforts.”

Numerous requests for comment from medical schools about the impact of the anti-DEI actions went unreturned. University presidents are staying mum on the issue to protect their institutions, according to reporting from The New York Times.

Utibe Essien, a physician and UCLA assistant professor, said he has heard from some students who fear they won’t be considered for admission under the new policies. Essien, who co-authored a study on the effect of affirmative action bans on medical schools, also said students are worried medical schools will not be as supportive toward students of color as in the past.

“Both of these fears have the risk of limiting the options of schools folks apply to and potentially those who consider medicine as an option at all,” Essien said, adding that the “lawsuits around equity policies and just the climate of anti-diversity have brought institutions to this place where they feel uncomfortable.”

In early February, the Pacific Legal Foundation filed a lawsuit against the University of California-San Francisco’s Benioff Children’s Hospital Oakland over an internship program designed to introduce “underrepresented minority high school students to health professions.”

Attorney Andrew Quinio filed the suit, which argues that its plaintiff, a white teenager, was not accepted to the program after disclosing in an interview that she identified as white.

“From a legal standpoint, the issue that comes about from all this is: How do you choose diversity without running afoul of the Constitution?” Quinio said. “For those who want diversity as a goal, it cannot be a goal that is achieved with discrimination.”

UC Health spokesperson Heather Harper declined to comment on the suit on behalf of the hospital system.

Another lawsuit filed in February accuses the University of California of favoring Black and Latino students over Asian American and white applicants in its undergraduate admissions. Specifically, the complaint states that UC officials pushed campuses to use a “holistic” approach to admissions and “move away from objective criteria towards more subjective assessments of the overall appeal of individual candidates.”

The scrutiny of that approach to admissions could threaten diversity at the UC-Davis School of Medicine, which for years has employed a “race-neutral, holistic admissions model” that reportedly tripled enrollment of Black, Latino, and Native American students.

“How do you define diversity? Does it now include the way we consider how someone’s lived experience may be influenced by how they grew up? The type of school, the income of their family? All of those are diversity,” said Granberry Russell, of the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. “What might they view as an unlawful proxy for diversity equity and inclusion? That’s what we’re confronted with.”

California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, recently joined other state attorneys general to issue guidance urging that schools continue their DEI programs despite the federal messaging, saying that legal precedent allows for the activities. California is also among several states suing the administration over its deep cuts to the Education Department.

If the recent decline in diversity among newly enrolled students holds or gets worse, it could have long-term consequences for patient care, academic experts said, pointing toward the vast racial disparities in health outcomes in the U.S., particularly for Black people.

A higher proportion of Black primary care doctors is associated with longer life expectancy and lower mortality rates among Black people, according to a 2023 study published by the JAMA Network.

Physicians of color are also more likely to build their careers in medically underserved communities, studies have shown, which is increasingly important as the AAMC projects a shortage of up to 40,400 primary care doctors by 2036.

“The physician shortage persists, and it’s dire in rural communities,” Poll-Hunter said. “We know that diversity efforts are really about improving access for everyone. More diversity leads to greater access to care — everyone is benefiting from it.”

This article was produced by KFF Health News, which publishes California Healthline, an editorially independent service of the California Health Care Foundation. 

As Congress mulls potentially massive cuts to federal Medicaid funding, health centers that serve Native American communities, such as the Oneida Community Health Center near Green Bay, Wisconsin, are bracing for catastrophe.

That’s because more than 40% of the about 15,000 patients the center serves are enrolled in Medicaid. Cuts to the program would be detrimental to those patients and the facility, said Debra Danforth, the director of the Oneida Comprehensive Health Division and a citizen of the Oneida Nation.

“It would be a tremendous hit,” she said.

The facility provides a range of services to most of the Oneida Nation’s 17,000 people, including ambulatory care, internal medicine, family practice, and obstetrics. The tribe is one of two in Wisconsin that have an “open-door policy,” Danforth said, which means that the facility is open to members of any federally recognized tribe.

But Danforth and many other tribal health officials say Medicaid cuts would cause service reductions at health facilities that serve Native Americans.

Indian Country has a unique relationship to Medicaid, because the program helps tribes cover chronic funding shortfalls from the Indian Health Service, the federal agency responsible for providing health care to Native Americans.

Medicaid has accounted for about two-thirds of third-party revenue for tribal health providers, creating financial stability and helping facilities pay operational costs. More than a million Native Americans enrolled in Medicaid or the closely related Children’s Health Insurance Program also rely on the insurance to pay for care outside of tribal health facilities without going into significant medical debt. Tribal leaders are calling on Congress to exempt tribes from cuts and are preparing to fight to preserve their access.

“Medicaid is one of the ways in which the federal government meets its trust and treaty obligations to provide health care to us,” said Liz Malerba, director of policy and legislative affairs for the United South and Eastern Tribes Sovereignty Protection Fund, a nonprofit policy advocacy organization for 33 tribes spanning from Texas to Maine. Malerba is a citizen of the Mohegan Tribe.

“So we view any disruption or cut to Medicaid as an abrogation of that responsibility,” she said.

Tribes face an arduous task in providing care to a population that experiences severe health disparities, a high incidence of chronic illness, and, at least in western states, a life expectancy of 64 years — the lowest of any demographic group in the U.S. Yet, in recent years, some tribes have expanded access to care for their communities by adding health services and providers, enabled in part by Medicaid reimbursements.

During the last two fiscal years, five urban Indian organizations in Montana saw funding growth of nearly $3 million, said Lisa James, director of development for the Montana Consortium for Urban Indian Health, during a webinar in February organized by the Georgetown University Center for Children and Families and the National Council of Urban Indian Health.

The increased revenue was “instrumental,” James said, allowing clinics in the state to add services that previously had not been available unless referred out for, including behavioral health services. Clinics were also able to expand operating hours and staffing.

Montana’s five urban Indian clinics, in Missoula, Helena, Butte, Great Falls, and Billings, serve 30,000 people, including some who are not Native American or enrolled in a tribe. The clinics provide a wide range of services, including primary care, dental care, disease prevention, health education, and substance use prevention.

James said Medicaid cuts would require Montana’s urban Indian health organizations to cut services and limit their ability to address health disparities.

American Indian and Alaska Native people under age 65 are more likely to be uninsured than white people under 65, but 30% rely on Medicaid compared with 15% of their white counterparts, according to KFF data for 2017 to 2021. More than 40% of American Indian and Alaska Native children are enrolled in Medicaid or CHIP, which provides health insurance to kids whose families are not eligible for Medicaid. KFF is a health information nonprofit that includes KFF Health News.

A Georgetown Center for Children and Families report from January found the share of residents enrolled in Medicaid was higher in counties with a significant Native American presence. The proportion on Medicaid in small-town or rural counties that are mostly within tribal statistical areas, tribal subdivisions, reservations, and other Native-designated lands was 28.7%, compared with 22.7% in other small-town or rural counties. About 50% of children in those Native areas were enrolled in Medicaid.

The federal government has already exempted tribes from some of Trump’s executive orders. In late February, Department of Health and Human Services acting general counsel Sean Keveney clarified that tribal health programs would not be affected by an executive order that diversity, equity, and inclusion government programs be terminated, but that the Indian Health Service is expected to discontinue diversity and inclusion hiring efforts established under an Obama-era rule.

HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. also rescinded the layoffs of more than 900 IHS employees in February just hours after they’d received termination notices. During Kennedy’s Senate confirmation hearings, he said he would appoint a Native American as an assistant HHS secretary. The National Indian Health Board, a Washington, D.C.-based nonprofit that advocates for tribes, in December endorsed elevating the director of the Indian Health Service to assistant secretary of HHS.

Jessica Schubel, a senior health care official in Joe Biden’s White House, said exemptions won’t be enough.

“Just because Native Americans are exempt doesn’t mean that they won’t feel the impact of cuts that are made throughout the rest of the program,” she said.

State leaders are also calling for federal Medicaid spending to be spared because cuts to the program would shift costs onto their budgets. Without sustained federal funding, which can cover more than 70% of costs, state lawmakers face decisions such as whether to change eligibility requirements to slim Medicaid rolls, which could cause some Native Americans to lose their health coverage.

Tribal leaders noted that state governments do not have the same responsibility to them as the federal government, yet they face large variations in how they interact with Medicaid depending on their state programs.

President Donald Trump has made seemingly conflicting statements about Medicaid cuts, saying in an interview on Fox News in February that Medicaid and Medicare wouldn’t be touched. In a social media post the same week, Trump expressed strong support for a House budget resolution that would likely require Medicaid cuts.

The budget proposal, which the House approved in late February, requires lawmakers to cut spending to offset tax breaks. The House Committee on Energy and Commerce, which oversees spending on Medicaid and Medicare, is instructed to slash $880 billion over the next decade. The possibility of cuts to the program that, together with CHIP, provides insurance to 79 million people has drawn opposition from national and state organizations.

The federal government reimburses IHS and tribal health facilities 100% of billed costs for American Indian and Alaska Native patients, shielding state budgets from the costs.

Because Medicaid is already a stopgap fix for Native American health programs, tribal leaders said it won’t be a matter of replacing the money but operating with less.

“When you’re talking about somewhere between 30% to 60% of a facility’s budget is made up by Medicaid dollars, that’s a very difficult hole to try and backfill,” said Winn Davis, congressional relations director for the National Indian Health Board.

Congress isn’t required to consult tribes during the budget process, Davis added. Only after changes are made by the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services and state agencies are tribes able to engage with them on implementation.

The amount the federal government spends funding the Native American health system is a much smaller portion of its budget than Medicaid. The IHS projected billing Medicaid about $1.3 billion this fiscal year, which represents less than half of 1% of overall federal spending on Medicaid.

“We are saving more lives,” Malerba said of the additional services Medicaid covers in tribal health care. “It brings us closer to a level of 21st century care that we should all have access to but don’t always.”

This article was published with the support of the Journalism & Women Symposium (JAWS) Health Journalism Fellowship, assisted by grants from The Commonwealth Fund.

KFF Health News is a national newsroom that produces in-depth journalism about health issues and is one of the core operating programs at KFF—an independent source of health policy research, polling, and journalism. Learn more about KFF.

USE OUR CONTENT

This story can be republished for free (details).

“Breaking news: The Trump administration just announced that Medicare will stop covering telehealth starting April 1. … We need to stand up to these Medicare cuts.”

Rep. Ro. Khanna (D-Calif.), in a TikTok video posted Feb. 20, 2025

Rep. Ro Khanna (D-Calif.) posted a Tiktok video on Feb. 20 saying he had “breaking news” about the fate of Medicare coverage for telehealth visits, which allow patients to see health care providers remotely from their homes.

“Breaking news: The Trump administration just announced that Medicare will stop covering telehealth starting April 1,” Khanna said. “We need to stand up to these Medicare cuts.”

The same day, the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services posted a document online titled “Telehealth” that said, “Through March 31, 2025, you can get telehealth services at any location in the U.S., including your home. Starting April 1, 2025, you must be in an office or medical facility located in a rural area (in the U.S.) for most telehealth services.”

CMS did not respond to requests for comment about the post. The White House also did not respond to requests for comment.

The telehealth benefit was first put in place as a temporary Trump-era addition to Medicare coverage during the covid-19 public health emergency.

Khanna’s statement took on more significance leading up to the threat of a government shutdown, but late last week Congress averted one by approving a stopgap spending bill.

The expiration date for the benefit has been known since December, when Congress extended coverage around telehealth through March 31. The roughly 90-day reprieve was part of a compromise after then-President-elect Donald Trump and his ally Elon Musk criticized a sweeping, end-of-year legislative package that would have, among other things, continued those benefits for two years.

Their opposition forced Congress to pass a stripped-down version of the end-of-year bill. Telehealth’s two-year extension, included in the initial bill, became collateral damage.

Last week, just as the clock was ticking down, House Republicans passed a spending bill for the rest of the fiscal year that includes another extension of telehealth flexibilities — this one lasting through September. The Senate then cleared the bill for Trump’s signature, with the support of 10 Democrats, including Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

Regardless, the two-year extension proposed in December — or a permanent extension, as Khanna has urged — looks unlikely.

“President Trump and Elon Musk blew up the continuing resolution last December that would have extended these telehealth authorities by two years,” Khanna told us via email. “Trump should work with Congress to extend telehealth coverage for Medicare beneficiaries.”

It wouldn’t come free. Permanently extending telehealth for medical care under Medicare could cost taxpayers about $25 billion over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office has estimated. The CBO calculated five months of expanded telehealth coverage as costing $663 million, and calculated that that would total almost $25 billion through fiscal year 2031 if spending remained level, which it may not do.

Also, the agency and the Government Accountability Office have raised concerns about fraud and overuse of the benefit, among other potential issues.

Congress made Medicare coverage of behavioral health services delivered remotely permanent in December 2020, but left other telehealth benefits hanging on by a string. Instead, lawmakers extended them for short periods during the nearly two years since the public health emergency officially ended in May 2023.

“Now, once again, we’ve got another deadline where, if Congress doesn’t act, our flexibilities go away,” said Kyle Zebley, senior vice president of public policy for the American Telemedicine Association.

And if, at some point, the telehealth benefits aren’t extended, is it fair to describe the policy change as a cut? Khanna, for instance, plans to introduce the Telehealth Coverage Act, which would require Medicare to cover seniors’ telehealth services.

Politically speaking, it’s a powerful question when trying to leverage public support — and politicians in both parties often accuse their opponents of “cutting” federal benefits when they make changes to programs.

“Khanna is overly dramatic,” said Joseph Antos, a senior fellow emeritus at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.

If the provision expires, Antos said, “this is not a Trump cut.”

But beneficiaries might have a different experience. Since the early days of the pandemic — five years now — millions of patients have come to rely on telehealth for their medical services. That benefit, even with another temporary reprieve, would still be at risk.

According to CMS, more than 1 in 10 Medicare beneficiaries used virtual care services as of 2023. And, after the Trump administration green-lighted telehealth for Medicare recipients in 2020, many private insurers did the same.

Overall telehealth claims in Medicare rose from fewer than 1% of all claims before the covid pandemic to a peak of 13% in April 2020. Now they stand at close to 5%, according to Fair Health, a nonprofit that tracks health care costs.

Those in the telehealth industry are optimistic about the current extension. The Trump administration, they say, has been sending encouraging signals — even highlighting its previous support of telemedicine in its fact sheet on the launch of the President’s Make America Healthy Again Commission.

“We’ve been sweating bullets,” Zebley said. “But it’s been nerve-wracking before. I think we’re going to get it done.”

Antos said, however, that after the extension in the House-passed spending bill, Medicare’s telemedicine benefits could be dead.

Our Ruling

Khanna said, “Breaking news: The Trump administration just announced that Medicare will stop covering telehealth starting April 1. … We need to stand up to these Medicare cuts.”

The statement is partially accurate, because the Trump administration announced the March 31 sunset of Medicare telehealth visits, and some beneficiaries who were using that benefit could see it as a “cut.” But the claim lacks key context that the expiration date was set by Congress, not the Trump administration.

After Khanna’s claim, Congress extended access to telehealth coverage through September.

Based on information that was available at the time, we rate Khanna’s statement Half True.

Our Sources:

Rep. Ro Khanna’s Feb. 20, 2025 TikTok video.

The American Relief Act, 2025.

Vice President J.D. Vance’s X post on behalf of himself and President Donald Trump on the year-end legislative package, Dec. 18, 2024.

One of a flurry of Elon Musk’s X posts deriding the government’s year-end legislative package, Dec. 20, 2024.

Email interview with Rep. Ro Khanna’s office, March 3, 2025.

H.R.1968 — Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025.

H.R.133 — Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021

Phone interview and follow-up texts with Kyle Zebley, senior vice president of public policy for the American Telemedicine Association and executive director of ATA Action, March 3, 2025.

Email interview with Joseph Antos, senior fellow emeritus for public policy research at the think tank the American Enterprise Institute, March 8, 2025.

A Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services post CMS post titled “Telehealth” that includes information to recipients about Medicare telehealth benefits ending April 1, 2025.

The journal Primary Care, “The State of Telehealth Before and After the COVID-19 Pandemic,” April 25, 2022.

CMS, “Medicare Telehealth Trends,” Jan. 1, 2020 and June 30, 2024.

“Fiscal Considerations for the Future of Telehealth,” Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, April 21, 2022.

H.R. 2471, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, Congressional Budget Office, March 14, 2022.

“Medicare and Medicaid: COVID-19 Program Flexibilities and Considerations for Their Continuation,” U.S. Government Accountability Office, May 19, 2021.

Preprint: “Telehealth and Outpatient Utilization: Trends in Evaluation and Management Visits Among Medicare Fee-For-Service Beneficiaries, 2019-2024,” March 6, 2025.

Preprint: “Association Between Telehealth Use and Downstream 30-Day Medicare Spending,” Feb. 11, 2025.

Ro Khanna’s press release on the telehealth bill he’s introducing.

“Annual Number of Users of Online Doctor Consultations Worldwide From 2017 to 2028,” Statista Market Insights, March 15, 2024.

ATA Action letter to Congress, Jan. 13, 2025.

Make America Healthy Again fact sheet, Feb. 13, 2025.

CMS, “Medicare Telehealth Trends Report,” October 2024.