The recent proposal by the General Services Administration (GSA) to update certification requirements in the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) has ignited a firestorm in the higher education community. This System for Award Management, or SAM.gov, serves as the central hub where organizations must register to receive any form of federal financial assistance, ranging from research grants to student aid loans. Virtually every college and university in the United States relies on federal funding streams that necessitate SAM registration, making this proposal a potential game-changer for campus operations nationwide.

Higher education associations, including heavyweights like the American Council on Education (ACE) and the Association of American Universities (AAU), have united in strong denunciation, labeling the changes as vague, overbroad, and a threat to academic freedom and institutional autonomy. The controversy centers on new certifications that tie funding eligibility to compliance with interpretations of anti-discrimination laws, restrictions on supporting undocumented immigrants, and prohibitions against facilitating terrorism. As comments flooded in—nearly 22,000 during the public period ending March 30, 2026—institutions brace for what could be sweeping repercussions.

What is the GSA Proposal?

The GSA, an independent agency that streamlines federal operations including procurement and property management, published the proposal on January 28, 2026, in the Federal Register. It seeks to amend the Financial Assistance General Representations and Certifications form in SAM.gov, which all recipients must complete during initial registration and annual renewals. SAM.gov registration is mandatory for accessing grants, cooperative agreements, loans, insurance, and direct appropriations from any federal agency.

The updates aim to align certifications with recent executive orders and Department of Justice (DOJ) guidance, specifically Executive Order 14173 issued January 21, 2025, titled "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity," and a July 29, 2025, DOJ memo on unlawful discrimination. GSA estimates it will affect 222,760 entities annually, imposing about 2.75 hours of burden per response, totaling over 612,000 hours nationwide.

Breaking Down the Key Certifications

The proposal introduces three main certification pillars, each fraught with interpretive challenges according to critics.

• Anti-Discrimination/DEI Compliance: Recipients must certify they do not engage in practices deemed "unlawful discrimination" based on race, color, or other protected characteristics. Examples flagged include race-based scholarships, hiring preferences, diversity statements in job applications, 'cultural competence' training that stereotypes groups, 'diverse slate' hiring policies, and programs requiring narratives about overcoming racial obstacles. Violations could encompass affinity groups, cultural celebrations, or even certain curriculum elements if interpreted as discriminatory.
• Immigration Enforcement: Institutions must affirm they are not "knowingly bringing or attempting to bring an illegal alien into the United States," nor transporting, concealing, harboring, shielding, hiring, or recruiting undocumented individuals for profit. Further, no inducing non-citizens to enter or reside illegally with reckless disregard for status. This language echoes 8 U.S.C. § 1324 but is criticized for vagueness in an academic context—does providing in-state tuition to DACA recipients or supporting international student visas count?
• Anti-Terrorism: Certifications prohibit funding, subsidizing, or facilitating violence, terrorism, or illegal activities threatening public safety or national security, drawing from laws like 18 U.S.C. §§ 2339A/B. Broad terms like "facilitate" raise alarms over protest activities, research on conflict zones, or hosting speakers with controversial views.

Crucially, false certifications could trigger False Claims Act (FCA) liability, with treble damages and penalties up to $27,018 per claim, plus personal liability for signatories—potentially existential risks for universities.

Higher Education's Coordinated Pushback

The response has been swift and collective. On March 23, 2026, ACE led a coalition of 22 associations—including AAU, American Association of Community Colleges (AACC), Association of Public and Land-grant Universities (APLU), American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU), and National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU)—in urging GSA to rescind the proposal entirely. Their letter argues it forces compliance with contested, non-binding guidance that may conflict with state laws.ACE coalition letter

AAU's separate comments emphasize support for enforcing federal immigration and anti-terrorism laws but decry the proposal's reliance on undefined terms like "illegal DEI" or "harbor." They warn it could ensnare lawful activities, citing ongoing litigation like Rhode Island Against Domestic Violence v. Kennedy. AAUP, PEN America, and scholarly societies like NAEd joined forces, arguing it mandates a "surveillance-like campus culture."

Photo by Harati Project on Unsplash

"Institutions are asked to certify they are not doing something without being told clearly what that something is." – AAU Comments

Why the Alarm: Vagueness and Chilling Effects

Critics highlight the proposal's lack of definitions. What constitutes a "diversity statement"? Could required faculty evaluations mentioning inclusive teaching violate it? For immigration, providing legal aid clinics or scholarships to undocumented students (via private funds) might be misconstrued. Terrorism clauses could impact Middle East studies or free speech on campuses amid recent protests.

Jon Fansmith of ACE noted, "What they’re asking you to certify is that you are in compliance with their interpretation of a law, not with what the actual law says." This uncertainty could lead institutions to preemptively dismantle DEI offices, affinity groups, and international support services to avoid FCA risks.

Financial Implications for Campuses

Higher education's dependence on federal dollars amplifies the stakes. In FY2024, universities performed $45 billion in federally funded R&D, primarily from NSF ($9B request for FY2026) and NIH ($38B extramural). Pell Grants alone totaled $38.6 billion in 2024-25, with maximum awards at $7,395 for 2026-27, aiding 6-7 million low-income students.

Loss of access—even temporarily—could halt research labs, delay student aid disbursements, and trigger enrollment drops. Public universities, often 10-20% reliant on federal revenue, face acute risks; research powerhouses like those in AAU could see "existential" FCA exposures from thousands of grants.NSF academic R&D data

Legal and Historical Context

This fits a pattern of Trump administration efforts to curb DEI and enforce immigration via funding levers, echoing blocked Education Department directives. Courts have enjoined similar measures, but the 4th Circuit's February 2026 ruling upheld key EO provisions. Still, vagueness challenges loom under APA notice-and-comment failures claimed by AG coalitions.

Historically, Title VI has protected minorities; now repurposed against perceived reverse discrimination. State DEI bans in 10+ states add complexity, as federal certs may clash.

Stakeholder Perspectives

Administrators: Fear compliance audits diverting resources from core missions.

Faculty: Worry over academic freedom, research censorship.

Students: International and undocumented fear support cuts.

Supporters argue it enforces existing law, preventing discrimination and sanctuary-like policies. GSA views it as modernization.

Photo by Mauro Lima on Unsplash

Next Steps and Outlook

With comments closed, GSA reviews amid litigation threats. Universities audit programs, consult legal counsel, and lobby. Long-term, it could reshape DEI, hiring, and campus policies—or fizzle in courts. Institutions should monitor SAM.gov updates and prepare contingency funding.Full Inside Higher Ed coverage

For higher ed professionals navigating this, staying informed via associations like ACE is key. AcademicJobs.com offers resources on policy impacts amid career shifts.