The stakes for higher education were very high with Trump declaring during his campaign, "We spend more money on higher education than any other country, and yet they're turning our students into communists and terrorists and sympathizers of many, many different dimensions." Campuses turned to a variety of strategies to calm anxiety and election day included youth enthusiasm that many hoped would carry the ballot. But by election night that anxiety moved to a sour mood at Howard University where Harris supporters had hoped to celebrate. The mood shifted from sour to devastation as Harris conceded to Trump. As citizens, and particularly faculty, staff, and students on college campuses, woke up to a Trump win, questions began to emerge about where the U.S. government is headed. America joined the rightward shift of wealthy countries around the world and the reality that fundamental change is ahead was on many minds.
The second Trump presidency raises major anxiety and speculation as educators reflect on public concerns over the value of postsecondary education and resentments about culture issues. The hopes and fears of higher education leaders cover a variety of topics, which often stand at odds to what conservative Republicans want in general from higher education.
Trump's preference for attention to research security and federal budget reduction rather than support of the breadth of research conducted by universities is discouraging researchers, which could result in loss of critical research capability. Confusion over Trump's executive order have researchers pursuing grants with NIH or NSF in limbo. Higher education leaders warned of loss of medical research funding, that warning coming to fruition in NIH grant cancellation for LGBTQ+ related areas. A Federal Court issued a stay on allowable indirect costs for NIH grants but in the longer term some agreement on acceptable rates of indirect cost recovery is probably in order. NIH imposed a hiring freeze over the uncertainty related to funding but the hope of restoring NIH grants may be possible through internal appeals as well as law suits. The NIH resumed key grant review teams by mid-April, 2025, but followed quickly with a stipulation that funding would be denied to institutions with DEI initiatives and Israel boycotts.
Threats to NSF could cut key student research opportunities, which are only part of the 400 cut through Musk's efforts and 700 more grants, cumulatively leading to the Director stepping down. The uncertainty about research may have been the minimalist goal but a very real impact is evident in multiple campuses imposing hiring freezes. Senator Ted Cruz compiled his own list of 3,400 left-leaning NSF grantees that should be cut.
The National Day of Action, organized by a coalition of union groups, demonstrated against the cuts to higher education, including the cap on indirect cost recovery. The Institute for Education Sciences budget was cut $900 million in funding but it was initially unclear what exactly was defunded.The most dangerous impact of cuts to NIH and NSF is that 75% of scientists say they are consider moving to other countries to be able to pursue their research. This podcast on why academics are leaving reveals the deeper issues beyond only the faculty who are leaving because of their loss of research funding.
The reality that Trump would eventually target the National Endowment for Humanities unfolded. NEH focuses research and publishing on culture, society, and values, which contribute to other prominent institutions such as the Smithsonian Institution that is also now being scrutinized for its diversity content. Terminations of 65% of NEH employees and termination of grants continued to dismantle its focus on the documentation and education about history and culture.
Some administrators welcome the possibility that there will be reduced red-tape but remain concerned about policy intervention, especially after Trump's attempt to cancel federal grants. The impact of executive actions in the first 10 days was impossible to determine due to the lag in policy formulation and implementation as well as legal challenges that have already begun. Law schools and organizations representing them are sounding alarms that Trump appears to have no intent to abide by the law or court rulings. Placing Elon Musk in a position to make arbitrary decisions on funding throughout federal programs without regard to accurate reporting, transparency, and accountability will likely have devastating effects.
Understanding that Trump takes pride in creating uncertainty and chaos is profoundly important. Complaints about the chaos will have little impact on him or his base, primarily due to the long-term commitment Trump has made to discrediting the "deep state" and anyone who opposes him. Those attempting to analyze disinformation, distrust, and divisiveness need to understand that these three "Ds" are the basis for his appeal to those who voted for him; the disenchanted middle and lower socioeconomic classes have never felt any of the systems worked for them and their lived experience confirms their belief.
Particularly in relation to the attacks on DEI, faculty and staff are left to determine whether to respond in silence or with resistance. What institutions should do is another matter since community colleges began their "Education for All" push back but elite institutions need to understand that sitting idle and cowering will not work with Trump. As an example, Columbia University was one of the first places to feel the pressure when 3 federal departments considered cuts to $54 million in funding based on assertions of institutional antisemitism.Ultimately, $400 million in federal contracts with more than $250 million coming from NIH were cut from Columbia University. The federal funding cuts hit Columbia's post-docs and research faculty immediately. Columbia's President, Katrina Armstrong, is at the pinnacle of visibility as she navigates Trump administration demands and the expectations of her institution.
Concerns immediately arose that Columbia's capitulation to the Trump administration attack delivered a win reflecting a dangerous imposition power. The New York Times reported that Columbia was a target emanating from a failed real estate deal proposed by Trump 25 years ago, which could mean the attack could be a singular vendetta of political theater. However, U.S. Constitution law scholars issued a statement through ACLU offering the opinion that Trump's attack violated 1st Amendment free speech provisions as well as Title VI procedural guidelines. The Columbia press release was a de facto admission that Jewish student complaints were not appropriately addressed; remedies demanded by Trump were modified in specifics but the broad compliance drew condemnation from the AAUP President and others.
The weaponization of funding is unprecedented and reflects the "exercise of raw power to intimidate, enforce obedience, and silence dissent" of all higher education. The overreach from the Federal level to control budget and program is a warning to all institutions. The Columbia chapter of AAUP equated the Trump administration demands to ransom and indicated Jewish student demands had eclipsed the grievances of other groups. Proof of the threat to other institutions is that 60 other higher education institutions were informed that they are "under investigation," Signaling a central focus, Senate Republicans returned to hearings on accusations of universities not addressing anti-Semitism. As an example of the capriciousness of Trump's "investigations," UPenn's "proactive punishment" reducing federal funding by $175 million was threatened in the media, which administrators pledged to "understand and address." There is a possibility that the attack on Columbia isn't only about higher education but also about a wider number of institutions being taken over by Trump and his allies. As the story continued to unfold, Harvard's $9 billion in research was being investigated, $210 million in federal funding frozen at Princeton University 2-weeks after its President published an op-ed criticizing Trump's targeting of higher education. Trump administration intent to block $510 million in federal contracts for Brown University added them to the list.
Adding another level of attack, ICE arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a graduate of Columbia University, who is not on student visa but a Green Card and is married to a U.S. citizen, for involvement in a Pro-Palestinian demonstration. Khalil's detention was temporarily blocked but he remained isolated from legal representation and his wife who will give birth within the coming month. Daniel Levy, spokesperson for the far-right pro-Israel group Betar, claims to have given the Trump administration leads on Khalil as well as thousands of others. Maybe that's why Trump promised that Khalil is only the first international student (although he is not presently on a student visa) to be deported for being involved in protests. CNN coverage of the Tufts Ph.D. international student taken into custody called lawyers and citizens to push back on criminalization of speech that the Trump administration opposes. The University of Alabama doctoral student from Iran taken into custody supposedly represented a threat to U.S. security but specifics were not available.
Columbia warned international students to be careful what they say or do. Fear spread throughout the U.S. with international student services offices being flooded with concerned students as other scholars and students were apprehended. Columbia's harsh discipline of other students who occupied campus buildings during protests last year may placate conservative critics of the institution. The crackdown on protesters is a direct threat to international students at other campuses, especially in the context of revocation of 300+ international students's visas within 3 weeks leading up to March 28, 2025. Fear and chaos spread as multiple international students have been detained and interrogated. Florida Atlantic University was the first university in the U.S. to permit cooperation with ICE officials, the University of Florida soon followed, and 15 eventually signed on. Two faculty associations sued the Trump administration for creating a "climate of repression and fear on university campuses."
In the face of the 2nd Trump presidency, question has been raised if higher education leaders are up to the task of defending their faculty, staff, and students. The sheer number of executive orders in Trump's first week caused some higher education leaders to warn against "anticipatory obedience," with the cancellation of Rutger's Center for Minority Serving Institutions conference and Michigan State's cancellation of Lunar New Year possible examples. As more executive orders emerged, college presidents became increasingly alarmed, an indication that higher education leaders should not duck and run in the face of chaos and unpredictability. College presidents know that trust is essential but potentially compromised when so many issues have to be addressed at once. Successful leadership of higher education requires skillful story telling and assertion of positive institutional narratives and must include a focus on the public good achieved through educational attainment. Particularly when it comes to protecting non-citizen students, campuses have to be prepared to take action if they are to maintain their integrity as institutions with a duty to care. As of April 7, 2025, the number of international students was expanding rapidly with more than 50 institutions feeling the impact. Unions may provide one of the best ways to push back, largely because collective voices have more influence.
Make no mistake, besides the shock and awe, disdain for law and separation of powers, divide and concur is a favorite for Trump to impose his will. Value and resentment are front and center for the base who brought Trump back for four more years; the result is delight among reactionary conservatives and dismay among progressives. The anti-diversity rhetoric and policy roll-out pitted universities against their own students in two specific examples. One of the first was that, in the face of public pronouncements and denigration of programs to support diversity, students from diverse cultural backgrounds were left to wonder if they will be supported by their institutions, especially when the Education Department is targeted for reduction in scope or elimination. The Israel v. Hamas war provided another wedging opportunity as Trump and conservatives boxed educators into a corner by labeling anything questioning of Israel as antisemitic. Even if Israel v. Hamas went away, conservatives have labeled campuses as grossly insensitive to Jewish students' claims of marginalization and harassment and the plan is to continue to push that narrative by staging antisemitism investigations across U.S. campuses.
Trump's anti-Semitism task force includes 3 cabinet members, lawyers, and Fox News correspondents. The task force is orchestrating funding cuts and multiple investigations of universities and cities for not confronting anti-Semitism. Higher education anti-Semitism hearings started on March 27, 2025 with the calling of "expert" witnesses. The hearing erupted when a panelist, Charles Small who is the founding director and president of the Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism Policy, repeated criticism that Qatar supports Hamas and fosters anti-Semitism. To the credit of Kansas Senator Roger Marshall, Small was quickly called out for his derogatory and unfounded claims against Qatar.
As Trump's directive to "diminish" the role of the Education Department rolled out against strong opposition, especially those who are college educated. Some Education Department staff were placed on leave for having participated in DEI training. Others eliminated from the Education Department represent an invaluable resource for accountability. Trump's consideration of who will serve as Secretary of the Education Department is immensely important. The proposal to appoint Linda McMahon, whose founding and leadership of the WWE is asserted as her business acumen, portends a different path for her versus her predecessor. Her persistence and success with the WWE suggests she could be up to fulfill Trump's campaign promises and would likely move to impose controls on higher education, including the possibility of the Education Department seeking to control costs. McMahon was slow to submit the required materials in order to schedule her confirmation hearing so an interim was appointed. The Senate subcommittee released McMahon's financial disclosure statements and scheduled her initial hearing for the week of February 10, 2025, although other political appointees in Education have already begun. The questions raised by Senators with McMahon covered a wide variety of topics with most confirming her commitment to deliver Trump's charge to return education responsibility to the states and to reduce the scope of the Education Department. As McMahon's nomination moved to the Senate and Trump declared "Long Live the King" in social media, some question if McMahon's appointment even counts. Nicolas Kent, a former lobbyist for career colleges, was appointed as Under Secretary of Education, a position responsible for higher education policy. Trump's appointee to the Office of Civil Rights in the Education Department has a history of strong ties to conservative think tanks and has consulted in drafting legislation to push reform. The acting director of the Office of Civil Rights, which had paused investigations of complaints on campuses, returned to receiving only complaints based on disability, excluding race and gender. McMahon was ultimately confirmed by the Senate and her expressed commitment was to dismantle bureaucracy and return parents to the center of education. McMahon quickly informed Education Department staff to "prepare for a 'momentous final mission' to eliminate 'bureaucratic bloat' and return education to the states" after her appointment.
Prior to McMahon's nomination, some suggested that fears were overstated but Trump's report that McMahon was told to work herself out of the job reinforced his intent. Republican states' support for the elimination of the Education Department, the continued push of the House Committee to impose controls, and details of Project 2025 related to higher education are ominous. Virginia Foxx persistently pressed higher education during her leadership of the House Committee, even though she was unable to pass the College Cost Reduction Act. The failure to approve the Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act left funding to enhance community college's role on the table. Tim Walberg's selection as the head of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce is likely to result in continued pressure for higher education to address cost and preparation for work. Lauding the House-wide efforts to assert influence over higher education, Speaker Johnson declared that more is to come. The draft House budget bill will cut higher education spending by $330 million, a move that is opposed by a majority of the public. Elon Musk's crusade to dig into databases was blocked by a federal judge who cited the importance of maintain confidentiality of student records.
The uncertainty of Walberg's and McMahon's impact are derived at least partially from vague declarations from Trump, but the impact of downsizing and reassigning current Education Department functions would certainly be significant. Democrats attempted to protest Trump's threats against the Education Department but were barred from entering its Washington, D.C. building. Authorization of immigration raids on campuses, regardless of whether it is actionable, is an example of Trump's action that higher education leaders will have to address. In the aftermath of the attempted "pause" of all federal funding, which Trump rescinded within days of rolling it out, retained a commitment to scrub all DEI initiatives and included scrutiny of federal grants from the National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health. The "Dear Colleague" letter demanding that institutions eliminate all DEI efforts resulted in conflicting views about compliance, part of which was possibly premature because the compliance methodology had not been announced. The Musk-driven crusade reduced education research by $350 million and the Education Department declared that DEI violates the Civil Rights Act. The Office of Civil Rights launched 51 investigations to expand "efforts to ensure universities are not discriminating against their students based on race and race stereotypes." Adding another federal agency to the mix, new Secretary of Defense Hegseth immediately moved to prohibit race-based admissions at military academies and Trump dismissed what he labeled as "woke" appointees on the four academies' governing boards. The Naval Academy complied with Hegseth's directive by scrubbing DEI topics from all courses and removing 400 books from its library, including the Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr. and Einstein on Race and Racism. One of the greatest fears was that the Dear Colleague letter encroached upon classroom content and prohibited culturally-based programs. The subsequent clarifying statement indicated that the point was that programs had to be open and first-amendment rights be preserved.
The complaints of Trump and his supporters are animated by socio-economic class bifurcation that is related to higher education access. Those with college degrees are destined to a knowledge class that "tends to invest heavily in their children's education, sending them to private or high-performing public schools and reinforcing a cycle of privilege. This group's tendency to marry within its class further consolidates resources, status and cultural capital with the upper tier, contributing to the reproduction of class advantage." The Hidden Globe exposes how wealth is protected in obscure places that reduce funding of public good for others. The dynamic of class is evident in the pattern of blue and red states in the 2024 election, reinforcing the perception of urban and coastal elites. Perhaps the political challenges to DEI are simply a way to keep whiteness at the center of the conversation, privileging that actually undermines the objectives of inclusion and access.
The opportunity to express opposition is one of the biggest areas of concern. One survey indicated that one-third of faculty report a decline in academic freedom. Another survey indicated that most faculty fear discussing controversial issues, Worse yet, staff don't have the same protections as faculty, as demonstrated by a University of Oregon staff member being placed on leave after posting a derogatory video message about Trump's election. An opposing voice during the 1st Trump administration, the President of Trinity Washington declared that neutrality is impossible during the 2nd run. Presumed neutrality is particularly problematic if institutions seek to maintain a commitment to open inquiry. Maintaining free speech is important and supporting DEI is part of that commitment. Students' express some concerns and blame either fellow students or politicians for escalation of tension over free speech.
The winds of change coming from Trump's election coupled with emerging AI, tariffs, and demographic shifts will challenge many, if not most, campuses. Presidents of higher education institutions are trying to figure out what to expect and whether or not to be public in opposition when their institutions are placed at risk. More reactions are likely to unfold as institutions attempt to preserve a commitment to free speech while discouraging political activism that could exacerbate reactions among conservatives to anti-Trump sentiment. The University of California Center for Free Speech and Civic Engagement offers assistance for those seeking to navigate shifting politics on campus.
Discussants at the November 2024 National Student Vote Summit bemoaned the 8% drop in youth voter participation, attributing the drop to apathy. Many believed the youth vote would be pivotal in 2024 and would result in a Harris/Walz victory, others were pleased with the Trump win. Even though the majority of the college educated youth vote supported Harris, support for her dropped and shifted to Trump with young white male voters primarily responsible for the shift. Part of the new landscape of communication sources, students who voted for Trump were disproportionately activated by podcasts. Republican Brian Harrison leveraged the Trump win to rein in "the rogue administrative state" at Texas A&M with the first example being the elimination of the recently launched program in LGBTQ studies. Ultimately, 57% of student voters believe that casting a ballot didn't count.
Hang on, higher education... but there is always another day. Due to the speed and volume of Trump's actions, Inside Higher Education launched a weekly update, starting after the first 100 days. The imposition of Trump executive actions have spawned a flurry of lawsuits, with many lower courts challenging his actions and even the Supreme Court ruling against him. Examples include blocking changes in the NIH indirect expenses rate, the NEA's challenge to the anti-DEI moves, and 20 state Attorneys General who filed suit over Education Department funding cuts. V.P. Vance's adoption of Andrew Jackson's view of the court, "The chief justice has made his ruling; now let him enforce it," is not encouraging. Focus on short-term crises has to be balanced by attention to the long-term core work of knowledge creation and acquisition.
