AFPI Files Federal Complaints Against Sandia, Stanford and University of Maryland Over DEI Violations

WASHINGTON, D.C.—The America First Policy Institute (AFPI) filed formal complaints this week calling for federal investigation of Sandia National Laboratories, Stanford University and the University of Maryland, alleging the institutions have failed to bring their programs into compliance with federal nondiscrimination law despite months of advance notice.

AFPI filed its complaint against Sandia with the U.S. Department of Energy's (DOE) Office of Inspector General on March 26. Complaints against Stanford and the University of Maryland were filed with the U.S. Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights on March 26 and March 27, respectively.

The filings follow letters AFPI sent to all three institutions in December 2025, identifying programs and practices that may violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Department of Justice’s July 29, 2025, guidance to recipients of federal funding, and related federal nondiscrimination requirements.

"The federal government's position on this couldn't be more explicit," said Leigh Ann O'Neill, AFPI's chief legal affairs officer. "You cannot accept hundreds of millions of dollars in taxpayer funding and then ignore the law to pursue your own agenda. The government gave each institution the opportunity to come into compliance, and it is time they demonstrate that they are."

Sandia National Laboratories

AFPI's complaint to the DOE Inspector General identifies three areas of potential noncompliance at Sandia, a federally funded national laboratory operating under a DOE contract:

• A summer STEM program described in the laboratory's own communications as targeting "Black middle and high school students"
• Employee Resource Groups organized around race, ethnicity and sexual orientation—including the Black Leadership Committee, Hispanic Leadership Committee and Sandia Pride Alliance—which Sandia's website indicates participate directly in recruiting employment candidates
• An employee benefits partnership providing LGBTQ+-specific legal coverage described as supporting "Diversity, Equity and Inclusion"

Sandia's January 2026 response to AFPI's December inquiry pledged future compliance with current administration policies but provided no specifics about corrective action taken. As of the complaint filing date, all identified materials remained publicly posted.

Stanford University

AFPI's complaint to the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights identifies five areas of potential noncompliance at Stanford, which receives billions in federal research funding annually. These include:

• A governance application process requiring applicants for Board of Trustees committee positions to demonstrate commitment to "diversity, equity, and inclusion"
• An Office of the Vice Provost for Institutional Equity whose stated mission may influence hiring, admissions and program participation based on race-conscious criteria
• Eight identity-based cultural centers that reportedly prioritize facility access based on identity affiliation
• Diversity pipeline programs in Stanford's School of Medicine — including the DRIVE Pathway and CVI Summer Research programs — that directed recruitment toward minority candidates
• A Stanford Graduate School of Business executive education program titled "Leverage Diversity and Inclusion for Organizational Excellence." Stanford removed some identified language from program websites following AFPI's December inquiry but did not address the substance of the concerns

Stanford's January 2026 response acknowledged some modifications made following the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard but did not address the full scope of AFPI's complaint.

University of Maryland

AFPI's complaint against the University of Maryland (UMD), filed with the Department of Education Office for Civil Rights, extends the scope of the Institute's enforcement concerns beyond identity-based scholarship programs and DEI institutional policies that may violate Title VI and Title IX, to additionally raise immigration-related allegations.

AFPI's complaint identifies LGBTQ+-restricted scholarship programs including:

• The Rodler-Wood Endowed Scholarship and Fearless Terp Scholarship Fund
• Locker room and restroom policies requiring students to use facilities corresponding to their gender identity rather than biological sex
• UMD also allegedly provides services that may constitute unlawful inducement for illegal aliens to enter or remain in the United States, including a campus hotline connected to an organization that alerts illegal aliens to ICE enforcement activity and provides campus materials that may be used by faculty and staff to avoid cooperating with immigration enforcement agents.

UMD's December 2025 response broadly denied wrongdoing and asserted compliance with applicable federal and state law. AFPI contends the response did not address the specific practices identified in its inquiry.

"Federal nondiscrimination requirements exist, and federal funding is not a blank check," O'Neill said. "When an institution goes beyond ignoring civil rights law and obstructs federal immigration enforcement, it raises concerns that go well beyond our initial inquiry. We expect the relevant agencies will treat these complaints with the seriousness they deserve."