The Trump Administration Just Opened a Federal Probe Into Smith College for Admitting Trans Women

The U.S. Department of Education opened a Title IX investigation on May 4 into Smith College, the historically women’s liberal arts college in Northampton, Massachusetts, over its long-standing policy of admitting transgender women. The probe is being run by the Office for Civil Rights and was triggered by a 2025 complaint from Defending Education, a conservative legal group that filed similar complaints against several women’s colleges over the past two years.

Smith has admitted trans women — and nonbinary applicants assigned female at birth — since 2015. So has Mount Holyoke. So has Bryn Mawr. The Seven Sisters as a category have been working from updated trans-inclusive admissions policies for a full decade. What is new is the federal government’s posture toward those policies.

What the investigation actually claims

Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 prohibits sex discrimination in federally funded education. It also contains an explicit carve-out for single-sex undergraduate institutions — the legal foundation that allowed women’s colleges to continue existing after the law passed.

The Trump administration’s Department of Education argues that this carve-out applies only to “biological sex” and not to gender identity. Under that reading, Smith is in violation of Title IX in two ways at once: the school is treating itself as a women’s college (taking advantage of the carve-out) while admitting people the administration does not classify as women (forfeiting the carve-out).

The complaint specifically cites Smith’s 2025 commencement, at which the college awarded an honorary degree to Adm. Rachel Levine, the former U.S. assistant secretary for health, the highest-ranking openly transgender official in U.S. government history. Defending Education argued in its filing that honoring Levine was evidence that Smith had “abandoned” its mission as a women’s college.

What’s at stake for Smith

Federal Title IX investigations can result in voluntary resolution agreements, formal findings of violation, or — in the most extreme outcomes — referral to the Department of Justice and a loss of federal funding. The last scenario is rare and has not been reached against any university in living memory, but the administration has telegraphed willingness to pursue it.

Smith’s federal funding includes Pell Grants for low-income students, federal student loan eligibility, research grants from agencies like the NIH and NSF, and Title IV-related work-study programs. Loss of any of those would be devastating; loss of all of them would functionally end the school. That is almost certainly not where this lands. But it is the worst-case shape of what the administration has put on the table.

Why this is part of a pattern, not an exception

The Smith investigation is the latest in a long series of moves by the Trump administration to roll back federal recognition of trans people. Since January 2025, the administration has issued executive orders restricting trans military service, narrowing federal definitions of sex to “biological” categories, and directing federal agencies to interpret civil rights laws without reference to gender identity.

The Department of Education has been one of the most active agencies on this brief. It has issued guidance ordering schools to refuse trans students access to facilities and sports consistent with their gender identity; it has reopened cases against school districts that affirm trans students; and as of last week, it is now using Title IX as the legal vehicle to challenge admissions policies that have been in place for a decade.

The pattern: the administration is asking federal courts to rewrite the meaning of “sex” in federal civil rights law to exclude trans people. The Smith case is one of the highest-profile institutional tests of that effort.

How Smith and other women’s colleges are responding

Smith President Sarah Willie-LeBreton has not yet issued a formal statement, but the college has repeatedly defended its admissions policy as consistent with both Title IX and the school’s mission. In its 2015 announcement of the policy, Smith framed inclusion of trans women as a logical extension of admitting women — full stop.

Other women’s colleges that admit trans women include Wellesley, Mount Holyoke, Bryn Mawr, Barnard, and Mills. Several of those have received Defending Education complaints in the same wave. The colleges have generally coordinated through the Women’s College Coalition, which is expected to release a joint statement in the coming weeks.

Legal observers expect litigation. The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal, and the Transgender Law Center have all signaled interest in intervening on Smith’s behalf if a formal violation finding is issued. The constitutional questions — whether the federal executive branch can unilaterally redefine “sex” under Title IX without congressional action — are likely to end up in the federal appeals courts and, eventually, the Supreme Court.

What to watch

• The next 60 days: OCR investigations typically open with a request for documents and interview availability. Smith’s response timeline will signal whether the college is preparing to fight or to negotiate.
• Other women’s colleges: Watch whether Defending Education files additional complaints, and whether the administration consolidates several into a single investigation.
• Litigation: If OCR issues a formal finding of violation, expect a federal lawsuit within weeks, likely seeking an injunction. The First Circuit, which covers Massachusetts, has historically been more protective of LGBTQ+ rights than several others.
• Congress: A handful of Democratic senators and representatives have signaled intent to introduce legislation reaffirming that Title IX protections include gender identity. None of that is moving in the current Republican-controlled Congress, but the public record will matter for the next election cycle.

For trans students considering women’s colleges in fall 2026 admissions cycles, the institutions themselves have not changed their policies. The federal government has changed its posture toward those policies. The question of which side prevails is now in the hands of OCR, the courts, and ultimately whichever administration is in office when the litigation finishes.

This story sits inside a larger pattern that has defined U.S. trans rights coverage for nearly a year and a half. The strategy is steady; the targets keep widening.