Biden Grants Given Based on Race! – Investigation

A man whispering to another man with a surprised expression in a formal setting

HHS has opened a civil-rights probe into Biden-era healthcare training fellowships alleged to use race-based criteria—putting government-sanctioned preferences on a collision course with the Constitution.

Story Highlights

HHS Office for Civil Rights is investigating claims of unlawful race-based selection in Biden-era training grants ^[1].
The complaint targets specific mental health “minority fellowships” launched in 2024 under prior policies ^[1].
Similar HHS workforce programs touted emphasis on institutions serving minority communities, raising legal questions post–Students for Fair Admissions ^[2].
The Trump administration previously directed agencies to avoid racial preferences in grants, a standard relevant to the review ^[11]^[14].

HHS Civil-Rights Investigation Centers on Alleged Race-Based Criteria

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Office for Civil Rights confirmed it is investigating a complaint that Biden-era healthcare training fellowships relied on race-based selection criteria, potentially violating civil-rights law and federal anti-preference rules ^[1]. According to the report, an HHS regional manager notified complainant William Jacobson that the office is probing whether the fellowships imposed illegal race requirements ^[1]. The inquiry focuses on three mental health–related “minority fellowships” rolled out in September 2024, with the complaint arguing these awards unlawfully favored applicants by race ^[1].

The Washington Times report states the programs at issue were developed during the prior administration and are now under scrutiny as the Trump administration’s HHS evaluates their compliance with the Constitution and federal statutes ^[1]. The complaint contends these fellowships, framed around diversity and representation, crossed the legal line into explicit racial preferences ^[1]. The Office for Civil Rights review will determine whether selection practices, eligibility language, or award administration violated prohibitions on discrimination in federally funded programs ^[1].

Legal Landscape: Pipeline Goals Versus Prohibited Preferences

Past HHS workforce initiatives have emphasized expanding pipelines at institutions serving minority communities, a strategy agencies have described as improving representation in health and technology fields ^[2]. A 2021 public health informatics workforce program awarded $73 million to 10 institutions, highlighting an emphasis on minority-serving institutions to strengthen the talent pipeline ^[2]. Supporters argue such outreach and capacity-building do not require exclusionary criteria. Critics counter that, in practice, race-conscious design can blur into preference when eligibility or selection tilts based on race ^[2].

This HHS investigation unfolds amid heightened scrutiny following the Supreme Court’s limits on racial classifications in education, with complaints increasingly challenging fellowships and grants on similar grounds ^[11]. Prior reporting documented claims that three HHS programs conflicted with earlier federal guidance discouraging racial preferences in medical education and research funding ^[11]. The American Association of Medical Colleges summarized a Trump-era directive instructing agencies to avoid using race-based preferences in grants to medical institutions—guidance that frames today’s compliance analysis ^[14].

What the Probe Means for Applicants, Institutions, and Taxpayers

If the Office for Civil Rights confirms unlawful criteria, HHS could require program changes, impose corrective actions on grantees, or pause funding while compliance plans are implemented ^[1]. Federal grantmaking guidance emphasizes lawful, nondiscriminatory administration of awards, and agencies may delay or adjust awards under review to ensure adherence to policy ^[6]^[3]. Institutions participating in the fellowships could face audits of recruitment, eligibility determinations, and selection scoring if race was a factor rather than neutral, needs-based, or merit-focused considerations ^[1]^[3].

HHS probes complaint of racial preferences in Biden-era healthcare training grants – based on @ProtectionEqual complaint https://t.co/UQgPlwBxgO – @washtimes

— William A. Jacobson (@wajacobson) June 2, 2026

For taxpayers, the stakes include confidence that grant dollars serve lawful, effective training rather than ideological boxes or unlawful preferences. While HHS has recently moved to unwind other Biden-era rules that undermined accountability—such as closing a loophole that allowed child-care payments without attendance verification ^[4]—the agency must now decide whether these training fellowships similarly strayed from neutral, constitutional standards. The Trump administration’s posture favors equal treatment under law, rigorous oversight, and transparent criteria that strengthen skills without sorting Americans by race ^[14]^[4].

The Path Forward: Equal Treatment and Stronger, Lawful Pipelines

The core policy question is whether the government can build broader pipelines without resorting to race-based eligibility or selection. Agencies can lawfully target geographic need, income, rural or underserved status, and academic preparation—neutral measures that lift all strivers while respecting the Constitution. The outcome of this HHS probe will signal whether prior programs must realign toward race-neutral criteria that protect opportunity for every applicant, reward merit, and deliver value to patients and communities without discrimination ^[1]^[2]^[14].