(NEW HAVEN, Conn.) — Yale University said it’s negotiating with the Department of Justice over a potential resolution of the Trump administration’s findings of alleged racial discrimination in its medical school’s admissions processes, according to a statement by the university’s president.
President Maurie McInnis also confirmed for the first time that the DOJ’s inquiry extends beyond Yale’s medical school, with two pending investigations into admissions processes at Yale College and Yale Law School.
The statement issued on Monday describes recent university-wide changes to admissions processes to meet federal guidelines, stating that “academic strength” is its main consideration when evaluating Yale College applicants.
“We now state explicitly that academic strength has long been the predominant criterion in our holistic evaluation of applicants,” McInnis said.
ABC News has reached out to Yale University and the Department of Justice for a comment.
In May, following a yearlong investigation, the DOJ released a letter of findings alleging that the Yale School of Medicine discriminated based on race in its admissions practices. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 — which prohibits discrimination in any program receiving federal funding — requires that the government seek a voluntary resolution with the institution following an investigation.
McInnis characterized Yale’s decision to engage in this process as “standard” and “required” by law, saying in her statement: “These investigations concern university compliance with federal law…As a university committed to the rule of law, we take that obligation seriously.”
Three legal experts on higher education told ABC News that although, historically, it has been customary for universities to undergo the resolution process, they say it is not required.
“Going back several administrations, there was always the opportunity to say, ‘No, thank you. I don’t want to go through voluntary resolution,'” explained Dr. Peter Lake, law professor and director of Stetson University’s Center for Excellence in Higher Education Law and Policy. “…Most institutions wouldn’t pick that option for various reasons because the consequences could be very severe.”
However, norms surrounding the voluntary resolution process have been called into question since the start of President Donald Trump’s second term, according to legal experts.
“In this instance, and I think that this is why a lot of individuals at Yale and others are raising alarm over a quick settlement is that, we are in uncharted waters with how this administration has used legal mechanisms to try to get higher education to do what it wants,” said Dr. Neal Hutchens, a professor at the University of Kentucky specializing in legal and policy issues in higher education.
“This is pushing an investigation based on a DOJ memorandum that may not have conclusions or interpretations of law that are necessarily sound or that would be backed by courts,” Hutchens continued. “I think there are real questions there, and so, I think there are some real legal questions about why you would necessarily fold too quickly on this.”
Dr. Jonathan Feingold, a professor at the Boston University School of Law, told ABC News that he believes Yale does not “even come close” to violating federal law and criticized the university for engaging with the Trump administration in “good faith.”
“From my perspective, as someone who cares about higher education but has no personal relationship with Yale, even the posture of treating the Trump administration’s investigation as legitimate in entering this sort of process is a betrayal to the entire Yale community,” he said.
Feingold also sees the pursuit of settlements — in lieu of litigation in court — as a common tactic by the Trump administration to place what he sees as undue pressure on universities.
He explained, “I think the institution would benefit, and the community would benefit, actually, from the litigation because you get to put all facts on the table and you don’t get to allow the Trump administration to sort of manufacture the story that it wants to.”
When reports of potential resolution talks first circulated last week, a wide coalition of critics emerged — including the national American Association of University Professors, the Yale undergraduate student government, and Connecticut senator and Yale Law School alum Richard Blumenthal. In various petitions and statements, they have called for the university to resist a settlement and to defend its admissions practices through legal channels.
While Yale’s talks follow a string of settlements between American universities and the Trump administration, other universities have resisted talks with the Trump administration — most notably Harvard University, which is currently fighting DOJ lawsuits over its admissions records and handling of campus protests.
“For instance, Harvard engaged with the new government, but certainly didn’t just accept the demands, and they challenged it in court,” Hutchens told ABC News. “And so, I think Harvard charts a path of just not acquiescence or just not folding, that Yale will have a decision potentially to make.”
In early June, the DOJ announced investigations into the admissions practices of fifteen additional medical schools. These investigations have not yet concluded.
Following McInnis’ statement Monday evening, the Yale chapter of the AAUP — which represents 300 Yale faculty — renewed their call for transparency.
A spokesperson for the Yale AAUP chapter confirmed to ABC News Tuesday that they are currently reviewing legal options, including litigation to “assert our rights as faculty in this matter.”
“[This case] has implications for Yale, but there are [also] a lot of institutions around the country that are wanting to understand what they can do in terms of race-neutral alternatives to still try to assemble classes,” said Lake.
Copyright © 2026, ABC Audio. All rights reserved.