Professional?

Most of those employed in higher education and student affairs work refer to themselves as professionals. And most have prepared by pursuing graduate degrees that include philosophical grounding, a codified body of research and theory, standards, ethics, and of course, advanced education and credentialing. These attributes are often assumed but not articulated as defining what it means to be professional.

The initiative by the Trump administration to define certain fields as professional and excluding others ignores the criteria of what it means to be professional. Instead, the initiative is designed to control who has access to loans to complete higher levels of graduate and professional education. Specifically, students in graduate programs classified as "professional" will have double the access to student loans than those falling outside the definition. The proposed changes are under a 30-day review, which will surely include the assertion that capping loans "will not only limit opportunities for socioeconomic mobility, but also cause workforce shortages in high-demand, high-cost careers such as nursing, physical therapy and audiology as well as high-demand, low-return careers such as social work and education." One critique focused on the training of physician assistants, who due to the intensity of their preparation, cannot work while studying. Inability to seek loan assistance for PA professional training would seriously impact building a critical element of the work force in the health sector.

While the issue of cost of graduate preparation is important, it will be interesting to see if assertions about what is professional will include conversation about what is required of those who have worked hard to obtain degrees and who adhere to professional standards that improve the quality and outcome of their work. The Trump administration is full of appointees whose backgrounds and expertise may not conform to common professional standards. Is that perhaps a contributing factor to their defining "professional" based on what financial assistance is available rather than to the competence they bring to their work?

Trauma and renewal?

My career-long and post-working observations of higher education have left me with lingering questions of how higher education should respond to the trauma of falling enrollment, declining budgets, public skepticism, and attacks by Trump administration leaders. As Secretary McMahon persists in downsizing (and potentially eliminating) the Education Department, officials either decry the carnage or scramble to find a way to preserve essential commitments without the Department's infrastuctural help. Questions of how diversity of enrollment can be supported if realigned in the Department of Labor or how educationally purposeful international education can be maintained in the Department of State are vexing to say the least. Educators who are invested in these issues will no doubt strive to hold the ground of their values and commitments.

Rachel Toor, Inside Higher Education contributor and co-founder of The Sandbox, asked the central question in her recent essay "Is Higher Ed Broken?" Relying on observation from professional conferences, campus visits, and conversations with college presidents, Toor explains that change is resisted from above (oversight Boards) and below (mid-management, faculty, and staff). She describes the dilemma of all the in-between in saying, "Meanwhile, most of us are stuck in the messy middle, trying to do everything everywhere all at once. Research, workforce training, student life, athletics, DEI, study abroad, mental health - missions layered like geological strata. The result? Silos, identity crisis, bloat and burnout."

Trump has advocated and incrementally implemented a "Shut it down" strategy for the Education Department. His demonizing of education in general has accelerated concerns about whether or not pursuing higher education has sufficient return on investment to justify the effort and money. While there have been herculean efforts to respond to the barrage of policies and administrative changes, the dizzying pace has been exhausting for most higher education leaders. Secretary McMahon defended changing assignment of its responsibilities to other federal agencies as experimental, which could later be confirmed by legislative sanction at a later date. Trump claims that moving Education Department functions makes way for states to take more responsibility while McMahon claims that the federal funding shutdown confirmed that ED is irrelevant. Dismantling the Education Department isn't new to the GOP, which routinely results in resistance such as Senator Warren's push to investigate what is happening. It's important to remember that the plan to shut it down was all in the Project 2025 plan of the Heritage Foundation.

It is unlikely that Rachel Toor's insights will raise sufficient awareness to bring change but the major point she makes is that the middle of the higher education industry have to mobilize to address systemic issues that most are reluctant to face. Especially when it comes to faculty, flexible hours and negligible accountability are privileges that are difficult to uproot. Robert Reich's book, Coming Up Short, ends with a poignant description of the joys of faculty life. As I suggest in this review, with the privileges of faculty life comes the responsibility of legacy - something that shows you gave your best effort in your life's work. And the best effort now has to include saving our higher education institutions, small and large, public and private, struggling or privileged.

Credit ratings for higher education institutions project a challenging future. Specifically, Fitch reported that "'the value proposition for a higher education degree' amid declining job-placement rates and rising concerns about affordability" will lead to "consolidation across the sector, from mergers and closures to restructuring and more."

I bemoan the loss of higher education as I experienced it during my working career. However, in order to survive the trauma of what is underway, faculty, student affairs and other staff, will all have to consider models that will renew and protect the commitments of enriched and deeper learning, preparation for engaged citizenship, and preparation for an ever-changing world of work. And the number of our institutions will decline, look different, and abandon privileges that are no longer fiscally feasible.

2026-27 Enrollment Predictions

The data is beginning to emerge on enrollment for 2026-27. The early applications on Common App show increases from underrepresented groups and a decline of international applications. Selective institutions are experiencing the smallest increases. "International students applying dropped 9 percent compared to this point last year, driven by a 14 percent drop in applicants from India." The erratic policies and pronouncements of the Trump administration have created uncertainty that international students must consider when they apply to study abroad.

The irony of the decline in enrollment at non-selective and community colleges is that they are lower cost and they are typically not subject to the political scrutiny that more prominent and elite colleges face. If cost and public perception are so important, how is it that some data show relative stability in the ranks of more expensive and selective institutions? Cost transparency is important and it should be coupled with the growing realization among students and families that increased return on investment comes when students attend more visible and elite colleges. Having suffered precipitous decline over the last several years, two-thirds of Americans say that attending college is not "worth the cost because people often graduate without specific job sklls and with a large amount of debt to pay off."

To even the competition, institutions could expand the return on investment from improving just economic opportunity to ongoing financial support while in college, belonging, and ultimately to employment opportunity. Oh, and by the way, offering paid internship opportunities might be a big draw because it enriches students' experience while contributing to covering the cost of attendance. Paid internships can also help reduce regional brain drain as demonstrated the Virginia Economic Development Partnerships.

Resisting the Trump Compact - What happened?

Growing competition for international students

The "Big 4" destinations for international students used to be pretty definitive - United States, United Kingdom, Australia, and Canada. The number is expanding and now includes 14 different countries and Canada may be slipping faster than the other 3 of the big 4. Affordability is a key issue, especially among Chinese students who are looking for educational opportunity as China's economy and job opportunity for young people declines. Other important factors include "linguistic familiarity, geographical proximity and - arguably - better employment and internship opportunities."

Eight-five percent of U.S. educators blame the decline in U.S. international enrollment on Trump administration visa restrictions and government regulations. While U.S. enrollment struggles the international numbers are up in Asia and Europe.

Chinese students fueled graduate program enrollment in particular, which underwrote and supported domestic graduate students at U.S. institutions. The Chinese enrollment "grew from around 62,000 to over 317,000" from 2005 to 2019. As of 2025, more Chinese students studied in countries outside the "Big 4" than any of their individual enrollments. If the international higher education espoused purpose was to increase access, competition from Asia and the Middle East is an indication that it worked. In numerous cases the founders of new institutions that are now competing with the "Big 4" were educated in U.S. institutions. They went back to their home countries as founders of new institutions and educational partnerships.

For those committed to wholistic education and student affairs programs, the challenge is that sometimes internationals who studied in the U.S. didn't actually engage fully. Out of class engagement in U.S. institutions varies greatly by students' country origin and campus environment, an issue seldom addressed through intentional initiatives. Roberts & Ammigan (2014) assembled expert authors who contributed chapters advising education leaders on how to do a better job and perhaps it's time to take a deeper dive into how international students experience their days in the U.S. A brief introduction to Supporting International Students in U.S. Higher Education introduces this theory and practice informed resource.

The current decrease in undergraduate and graduate international students, largely fueled by uncertainties inflicted by the Trump administration, extends into next year with 2026-27 Common Apps down. Higher education leaders are pushing for higher education to be exempt from the new $100,000 H1-B visas in order to improve the prospects for post-graduate training that is a significant motivator for international students. More broadly, hostile immigration policies and enforcement are creating uncertainty among all international students who would have previously liked to study in the U.S.

In a bizarre reversal of sentiment, Trump declared on Fox news that higher education should continue enrolling international students. His rationale - the financial gain they bring to budgets - nothing about the quality of the learning environment or knowledge diplomacy! Trump's changing stance, and contradiction of his appointees, cause international applicants to wonder where the US stands. The sad reality is that international students deserve to be treated as more than an financial commodity. Of particular note are J-1 and OPT visas, which are a highly valued for international students that granting of which can be unpredictable or exploitive.

Are students flourishing?

There is not much question that higher education is experiencing a shake up in enrollment. My previous blog post on 2025-26 enrollment provides background with some ups and lots of downs for this year and years to come. The negativity that Trump and his appointees, particularly in the Education Department, have fostered has undermined confidence in U.S. higher education. However, most of the evidence is that students are still interested in pursuing degrees but the perceived return on investment varies by state and many other factors. Workforce placement of college graduates has declined but their salaries continued to be higher than non-college graduates. Although not clearly understood, the motivation to complete a degree is a combination of preparing for future work and the rest is about quality of life. The appeal for international students may be a bit more complex, primarily due to erratic changes in visa policies unfolding every day.

Even when the waters are rough, higher education faculty and staff know that they have to maintain focus on what's important - retention and graduation. I've been a fan of instruments such as the HERI First-Year Survey and the National Survey of Student Engagement. Having used both extensively to determine students' patterns of engagement, satisfaction, and achievement of goals, they provide longitudinal and comparative data that is extremely useful in determining how to improve students' experience. The Generation Lab findings show that most students at U.S. campuses believe they are valued and supported, which is key to satisfaction and retention. Unfortunately, the Student Voice Survey found that about a third of students are disengaged outside of class. This research helped by determining the motivations for student involvement and what approaches are attractive to them. Students of diverse cultural and first-generation backgrounds often feel less valued and included, which should be addressed from a strength and resilience lens rather than as a deficit.

While HERI, NSSE, and Student Voice are useful and results allow educators to look back and plan forward, the administration and results are from a time and place that is static. The University of Arizona created the New Student Information Form (NSIF) that allows staff "to respond to individuals' needs and create strategic initiatives within various departments and offices that ensure no student is left behind." Having access to "in the moment" information can then be used to target individual students or groups. The first 6 weeks at college are particularly important as students establish patterns of engagement, apathy, or disillusionment. Concerns such as affordability, making friends, getting a job, and navigating difficult political dynamics often trouble students. In general, each of these surveys support a "steady as she goes" focus for student affairs work. Some institutions are pushing even harder by creating incentives for student involvement. Lynn University and University of Kentucky provide financial rewards, recognizing that student involvement is often undermined by students' need to work.

Beyond these practical measures of participation and needs, another issue that is critical to study is if students are developing in ways that allow them to flourish. Are they developing in ways that will foster the good life that so many hope for as an outcome of the college experience? Harvard University has been studying flourishing and created the Flourishing survey that will be available for broader institutional use in the Spring of 2026. Part of the Human Flourishing Program, the higher education survey will be used to help institutions determine how and where to focus efforts to foster flourishing as a lifestyle commitment and as a quantifiable outcome of attending college.

Alignment of Islam and Dewey

As a result of my experience serving Qatar Foundation from 2007-14, I have often referenced my belief that the culture of the Middle East and Islam provide for extraordinary alignment with student affairs purpose and goals. Abdul Hafidz Zaid's "The essence of education in the perspective of John Dewey" is a compelling confirmation of my beliefs.

While Zaid's essay does not mention student affairs as a field, the elements of Dewey's philosophy that he cites are straight out of the "Student Personnel Point of View" (ACE, 1937). Zaid provides extraordinary support for education that honors experience, is holistic, and affirms all learners.

Higher education personnel, whether in academic or student affairs, will do well to reference Dewey's importance historically. In addition, Dewey's advice can draw institutions and faculty/staff together in some of the most important commitments any higher education organization can pursue.

The major impediment to drawing faculty and staff together is the competitive isolation that has emerged in Western higher education over the last 100 years. In some ways the hierarchical nature of our institutions seemed to make sense in the context of the Industrial Revolution's focus on productivity and quality. The problem is that applying these concepts led to increasingly complicated, large, and impersonal environments.

I recently blogged on two concepts that might offer an alternative to our current organization challenges. My longer post on Generous Leadership introduces the ideas of generosity and authentizotic culture, ideas that may help to improve academic environments. Take the link to look more deeply into these ideas.

Charlie Kirk's assassination controversy

No humane or reasonable human being would want another's life taken. The assassination of Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University has been deplored by the vast majority of conservatives and liberals alike. Yet, the way that condemnation has been communicated has created a tidal wave of statements and calls for civility across higher education. The problem was that Kirk's appearances on college campuses, having become the central voice for conservative youth, were often riddled with comments that offended or ridiculed others. When reference is made to his conservative youth platform statements, accusations of insensitivity quickly follow.

A central point of criticism is that U.S. higher education created a hostile space for conservative voices, thus setting off the dynamics that resulted in Kirk's death. The accusations flying from conservative to liberal and vice versa include violation of free speech rights on both sides. The self and declaratory censorship of media as well as firing of faculty and staff on numerous campuses is an authoritarian's dream - closing down communication on a topic deeply harmful to so many students, faculty, and staff across a wide political spectrum. Most fundamentally, to silence distasteful dissent about Kirk is a dangerous abridgment of the First-Amendment.

To say the least, Charlie Kirk was controversial primarily because of how he was portrayed. His portrayal, if not a real persona, caused liberals to condemn his speech and perspective. However, conservatives have said that he advocated dialogue between conservative and liberal advocates. Van Jones, frequent CNN commentator, confirmed Kirk's advocacy for dialogue at least in Jones' specific case. The linked article is from the Conservative Brief and it is notable that Jones' report of Kirk reaching out to him has been reported across all media.

While conservatives portray Charlie Kirk as a champion of free speech, others say that his approach demonstrated discourse outside the bounds of civility. The "Prove me wrong" format he used on college campuses was more like a trap to ultimately lead to a previously determined desired outcome. Critics portray the strategy as victimizing impressionable young adults who naively walked into "debates" on rehearsed topics that were conservative talking points. For those who believe in critical discourse or any type of real debate, "Prove me wrong" is anything but. As Cory Nichols' FACEBOOK post proposes, "his certainty was performative rather than earned, and his victories were manufactured rather than genuine."

Grief over Charlie Kirk's death fueled a surge in Turning Point new members. Advocacy for free speech is part of the impetus for the increased interests but, due to the way Kirk approached it, educators fear what may unfold. In the face of embattled views of the limits and conditions of free speech, education leaders warn against restricting any speakers on campus.

The Education Department's launch of grants to fund "Patriotic Education" appears to be another way to erase lived history in favor of a narrative of nobility. The proposal is to add elements of patriotism to various education grant processes that present "the history of America grounded in an accurate, honest, unifying, inspiring, and ennobling characterization of the American founding and foundational principles" and how "the United States has admirably grown closer to its noble principles through its history."

A Turning Point USA event at UC Berkeley drew protesters. Arrests and a DOJ investigation followed. Such events and the government's response may take place elsewhere, forcing campus administrators to choose between free expression versus being placed in the spotlight of the government.

Secretary of Education McMahon characterized those who celebrated Kirk's death as a fringe population. New College in Florida proposed a statue of Kirk as a testament to his legacy. Visa status of those who make light of Kirk's assassination are being threatened by the State Department. Academics in the U.S. (Arkansas) and the U.K. have been disciplined for statements they made about Kirk. More actions are sure to unfold as the fires of conflict are fanned - I will continue to update this post to reflect them.

Resistance and ingenuity are essential while under fire

It's hard to find reason for optimism about the future of U.S. higher education these days. As higher education faces its greatest challenges in decades, including the 9-11-25 assassination of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, it's critical to identify evidence to instill hope. Several revelations may warrant optimism:

• The long-standing antipathy between faculty and administration makes every campus vulnerable, asserted Adrianna Kezar and Susan Elrod. Several recommendations about how to get on the same page included growing campus-based leadership programs and including multiple stakeholders in decision making. Otherwise, they say, "divided we fall."
• National Institute of Health (NIH) funding might have been restored but, due to splitting hairs about judicial process, the Supreme Court allowed the $800 million in cuts to stand. SCOTUS ruling portends a bleak future for scientific research. Adding risk to the cuts, many of the scientists appointed by Biden are being dismissed from the NIH Board and the Director ordered review of all current or planned research for conformity to Trump's priorities.  By mid-September NIH funding appeared to be on the path to full restoration but disruption of critical cancer and infectious disease research could be irreparable.
• The worst fears of research funding cuts were not realized with NIH and NSF approved grants comparable to past years. The number of new and continuing grants dropped slightly.
• There is a flicker of hope that Congress will muster the confidence to resist Trump's cuts to science research funding. Considering Trump's flagrant violation of so many rules, that GAO determined that Trump violated federal statutes when he retracted NIH funding may or may not make a difference.
• Opposition to the GOP funding bill is eroding at least partially due to deleting several policies which concerned educators and leaders. Changes included modification to Pell Grant eligibility, endowment taxes for small colleges, accountability measures, and FAFSA. These actions are a betrayal of those who seek to improve their lives by pursuing advanced education. One of the more interesting provisions proposed in the reconciliation bill would prohibit the Education Department from making decisions with economic impact of more than $100 million or other adverse impact on the economy. On the other hand, the staff cuts in the Education Department are undermining its ability to respond to routine questions.
• The Senate Appropriations Committee rejected some of Trump's funding cuts for education.
• NEH grant funding is at risk but a Federal Judge blocked the cancellations, at least for now.
• $5 billion worth of funding for K-12 and post-secondary education was restored by Trump, but slow action resulted in program cuts and staff reductions in the face of uncertainty.
• The ruling that the University of California system cannot be denied funding and can't be extorted will hopefully set a precedent for other states and institutions that are challenging Trump's interventions.
• Amidst the relentless Trump attacks, Americans began to express greater confidence in the value of higher education, which grew more decisively into the fall of 2025. The fact that the vast majority of Americans oppose the attacks appears to make little difference to Trump. Higher education needs to tell its story and contrast it with the impoverished America that results from declining quality and access to education. Americans and internationals want high quality and they want learning to be apolitical.
• Although the Trump chaos seems daunting, scholar and administrator Radenka Maric asserts that U.S. higher education is still the most promising environment for international scholars.
• The 2025 Student Voice survey indicates that most students trust the institutions where they attend with issues such as affordability, access, and perceptions that faculty care being important.
• Universities are beginning to innovate to make sure that international students can continue their studies even in the prospect of continuing attacks. Harvard's Kennedy School will offer a combination of distance learning coupled with in-person attendance in Canada.
• The Inside Higher Education tracker helps to stay up with the cases filed against the Trump administration. The rulings of district and appeal courts largely confirm what most higher education officials believe - that Trump is flagrantly overstepping Executive authority as well as breaking the law. Concerns remain on how the Supreme Court will act when cases against Trump rise to its level.
• A win for free speech, District Court Judge Young ruled that punishment of pro-Palestine demonstrators was unconstitutional. The ruling referred to invidious arrests and threats of deportation to tamp down opposition to Israel's destruction of Gaza.
• Against these few sources of hope, higher education leaders are warning that Biden administration measures designed to increase oversight of for-profit colleges may provide the platform for Trump to tighten the screws on all U.S. higher education.
• Perhaps the greatest hope can be found in the shift in the general public's view of Trump's use of executive powers. The growing opposition to Trump's initiatives varies by topic and political identification but the trends are moving against Trump and his implementation of Project 2025 and related interventions.
• Referring to them as a critical national security resource, Brian Heuser catalogued the many ways and agencies of the U.S. government that could not function without the training provided through higher education.
• Undercutting strategies and policies that have come out of the Education Department and Secretary of State Trump declared that U.S. institutions should maintain current levels of international students.
• Dean of Stanford's Law School, Erin Chemerinsky, told Association of Public and Land-grant Universities that the Supreme Court must be the guardrails to keep Trump from irreparably harming universities.
• Acts of bravery and resistance are seen in courses that study Trump and his rise to power. The fear of facing Trump's ire is apparently overridden by the urgency of the sheer number of books and courses that are now available.

These are only small wins. There is no question that the everything, everywhere, all at once attack is still underway and reflects a pattern of confusion and weaponization of the DOJ to create fear.  The claim of Antisemitism in higher education is challenged by provosts, who see the assertion as creating fear in expressing free speech. Deeper learning and discussion is the only way forward on any bias or discrimination rather than policy directives and punishments. Fear has spread as a result of secret surveillance to identify faculty and staff who don't toe the line on conservative edicts. Teaching under intimidation of being reported makes it extremely difficulty for faculty.

Attacks on higher education leaders, such as University of Virginia, show that the focus is on both public and private institutions. The results can lead to dramatic outcomes such as the resignation of UVa's President due to conservative alumni pressure who were strategically appointed by Governor Youngkin. Youngkin's appointments were overturned but appeal to Virginia's Supreme Court returned the issue to Circuit Court. As UVa issued public calls for nominations for an interim President, one has to wonder who would be willing to go into the crucible of conservative activism. Democratic state legislators demanded answers about the circumstances surrounding the resignation of UVa's President and warned against compliance with the "compact" that Trump subsequently proposed. Virginia's newly elected Governor Spanberger called for a pause in the UVA Presidential search within a week of her victory. With new cover now available from Spanberger's election, former UVa President Jim Ryan broke his silence and accused the Board of misrepresenting the reasons for his resignation.

Other university presidents are watching, with the UVa ouster a frightening signal that more conservative targeting could come their way. George Mason University's President has been seen as the next target but its Board showed its support by giving President George Washington a raise. Trump administration officials charged GMU for violation of civil rights, but the President declared that George Mason's diversity of enrollment is part of its identity and later refused to accept the Education Department demands. GMU professor James Finkelstein warned that caving to the Education Department would damage GMU's reputation and contribute to further encroachment there and elsewhere. The House Judiciary Committee later accused GMU's President of misrepresentation when he was called before the committee. Virginia democrats accused Charles Stimson, a GMU rector who previously affiliated with the Heritage Foundation, of having conflicts of interest. George Washington University was targeted for its deliberate indifference toward Jewish students. A UVa professor observing the arrival of new students warns that the Trump administration will not stop with just attacking presidents. Both UVa and George Mason suggest a pattern that Trump will continue to use - threaten funding, challenge admissions process, and sweeping demands such as prohibiting DEI work without defining what is really being prohibited. The DOJ and UVa settled the investigation into recruitment/admission practices and DEI initiatives but the agreement does not preclude future investigations. Democrats fought back by denying 14 Youngkin appointments to university boards throughout the state.

The Supreme Court's approval of Trump and McMahon's firing of Education Department and the House  reduction of National Science Foundation (NSF) funding by 23% demonstrate a blatant disregard for the importance of education in the U.S. and around the world. It's not difficult to see the Supreme Court's support as integral to the Department of Labor taking over Education's oversight of adult education, Education's abandoning minority-serving institutions (MSI), or the GOP proposal to reduce Education Department funding by 15%. Moving oversight of Tribal Colleges to the Department of the Interior has leaders on edge, fearing both shifting policy statements and reduced funding.

Declaration that U.S. institutions should join McMahon in making higher education great again ironically reflected the present condition that many higher education leaders assert already exists. Using the government shut-down over Congressional spending authorization as an excuse, the Education Department fired 500 employees. Ironically, Trump's gutting the Institute of Education Sciences will make needed or desired reform more difficult. The AAUP might agree with some reforms but assuming opposition creates automatic and entrenched resistance. With persistent department reductions and legal challenges underway, leaders reassure that the Education Department is under attack but will survive.

Reductions in staff at the Education Department will impact numerous programs and policy implementation processes. For example, reduction at the Office of Civil Rights could provide an opportunity for alternative policy enforcement at the state level. However, states stepping in to protect students from discrimination will automatically result in uneven enforcement and opportunity. Additionally, the Fund for the Improvement of Secondary Education has issued its priorities but who's left to review applications, make decisions, and manage the administrative process of implementation? The FIPSE priorities are in artificial intelligence, civil discourse, accreditation, and short-term programs particularly related to workforce development.

As the feuds over federal funding extended through October 2025, campuses struggled to fill the gaps where funding lapsed. Judicial actions helped in some circumstances such as Federal District Court Judge Illston blocking the Trump administration firing of federal employees. Illston's decision asserted that the "actions were likely unlawful and that the plaintiffs had a good case for arguing they were politically motivated." The government shut down ended on November 12, 2025, but it remains to be seen if the Education Department staff will return to their positions.

Investigation of University of Michigan's foreign funding and the growing number of campus presidents brought before the House Committee seems to never end. Add to these barriers the restrictions being placed on international students and the future of U.S. scientific and knowledge exchange is dim. Host to a large number of undergraduate and graduate international students, the University of Chicago received a request for admissions information from the Department of Justice and Homeland Security. Isolation and restriction does not create shared prosperity and in fact push innovation to other places. For example, China is on its way, or may already outpace funding of research and development in the U.S.

The financial extortion of U.S. higher education, mostly focused on elite institutions, is creating widespread chaos. The Trump funding cuts were imposed and then negotiations were undertaken to restore them. Trump's directive for his political appointees to review all existing and future grants will not only create a bottleneck but will introduce ideology into final reviews. Taking it from individual institutions to a systemic level, Trump may tie federal funding to fulfill his agenda rather than basing awards on scientific merit, de facto privileging Trump's ideological viewpoint.

Trump's proposed Compact for Academic Excellence was used to seduce 9 selective institutions he singled out. The President of the U of Texas system board enthusiastically embraced Trump's proposal but other Presidents were more cautious with broader higher education leaders decrying the initiative. An important first move that will help others was MIT's rejection of the compact followed by Brown. MIT's rejection included assertion that it already met many of the Compact conditions. UPenn and USC rejected and offered feedback to the Trump administration on alignment and disconnects of the Compact proposal. Mirroring other rejection letters, UPenn's President indicated "Penn seeks no special consideration beyond fair and merit-based funding."  UVa and Dartmouth followed by rejecting the Compact, leaving only 3 of the original institutions to respond. On the last day for requested response, University of Arizona declined the Compact by saying it didn't need preferred treatment and that the supremacy of U.S. research relied on open competition. Although not on the initial COMPACT invitation list, but as one of the most prominent public selective institutions, UNC's President preemptively said "no." Redirecting research funding to Compact institutions would punish regular recipients and high performers.

In order to help the public understand what the Compact includes, the "No Kings" movement urged follow-up to rallies across the world in a webinar. The "Unpack the Compact" virtual conference on October 27, 2025, was the beginning of a student movement to resist the Compact. Over 1,500 participants were advised about how to organize campus protests with the first on November 7, 2025. A recording of the virtual conference is available and can be accessed by passcode (4G.a?fMA). Educators who wish to support students in protesting the Trump compact should spread the word about the November 7 protest movement. Faculty, staff, alumni, and retired educators should support students by attending the protests and helping to protect against enforcement efforts designed to silence opposition.

A few of the conditions in the Trump Compact are; not considering identity markers in hiring and admission, freezing tuition for 5 years, capping international enrollment at 15%, defining sex by reproductive and biological determinants, and shutting down departments that "punish, belittle" or "spark violence against conservative ideas." When buy-in crumbled among the initial nine institutions, Trump invited the entirety of U.S. higher education to join the Compact, but adversaries warn that the default position should automatically be "no response."

Freezing tuition for 5 years is a condition of the Trump Compact that is sure to find support among students and their families. Especially in the case of elite institutions that have billions in their endowments, a reasonable question is why not cap tuition by using a portion of those resources? Regardless of signing on to the Compact or not, it is in all higher education institutions' best interest to deal with rising costs rather than cede control to the Trump administration.

Selling out to advance Trump's agenda will likely be a defining moment that will compromise academic freedom and institutional autonomy. "No university that is committed to independently searching for the truth, or to producing students who can think for themselves, should submit to the deliberate and possibly illegal humiliations contained in the compact" opined Post and Ginsberg, senior law professors at Yale and Chicago. As reactions continued to unfold, California's Governor Newsom vowed to cut funding for any institution that agreed to Trump's Compact. Although the evidence indicates that acceptance of the Compact is illegal and violates fundamentals of higher learning Trump solicited more institutions to join. Offering the Compact to all included both carrots and potential sticks but the central requirements of viewpoint diversity, institutional neutrality, and student expression are fraught with complicating "viewpoint" bias. The hope is that few will take the Compact offer although some governing boards are encouraging compliance. Seeking safety, the voices of most university presidents were muted as they struggled to determine their options and repercussions. Institutions chose different ways to articulate not adopting the Compact, some leaving the door open to future consideration, which provides a mosaic of their unique purposes and values. Inside Higher Education's map of responses will continue to unfold in the coming days.

Not surprisingly, New College of Florida was at the head of the line in accepting the Trump administration invitation to join the Compact. Incidentally, Florida's DOGE analysis revealed that New College is already out-pacing other Florida institutions in per student cost. The second to embrace the Compact was Grand Canyon University in Arizona and the 3rd was Valley Forge Military College that enrolled 83 students in 2023. St. Augustine intends to help shape the Compact model and Oakwood University joined as the 2nd HBCU to sign on. I will continue to update the list of institutions that choose this path.

November 21 was the original date set for institutions to express intent to join the Compact. Public universities have been reluctant to reveal their intent and the overall pattern demonstrates little interest in commenting on or joining the Compact movement. With 17 outfight rejections, 4 expressing interest, and the rest not responding, extension of the deadline might be a possibility, However, extending the deadline might just prolong the pain of the ultimate outcome - disinterest.

The financial implications of Trump's interventions are too numerous to list but some institutional examples follow. Nearly 600 voluntary separations from Duke University are part of its resettling its finances, exacerbated by the potential loss of $108 million loss in federal grants and contracts. Northwestern is laying off 425 staff to attempt to balance the books with $790 million reduction in federal funding. The funding cuts, appearance at Congressional hearings, and other turmoil led to Northwestern's President resigning. Northwestern settled with the Trump administration for $75 million, a decision that caused critics to say that the institution was not only complying with Trump demands but actively collaborating in the demise of institutional autonomy. The Northwestern cave won't be the last because holding out can cost more than institutions are willing to pay. Brown University is taking out a $500 million loan to fill funding gaps but it may not be necessary since the Trump administration restored $510 million in exchange for non-monetary concessions. The University of Chicago is freezing all but 2 Arts & Humanities graduate program admissions in anticipation of budget reductions. The University of Chicago impacts both the institution and all its prospective graduate students. As the list grew to include more institutions, Washington University in St. Louis cut or declined to hire 500+ positions to save $52 million. The list of institutions cutting staff and budgets grew even more by October 2025.

Manipulation of programs that have helped students fund their higher education is another lever being pulled by the Education Department. Democratic Senators pressed Secretary McMahon on pausing income-based debt relief provisions saying that the move was creating uncertainty for borrowers who have been paying their loans off for decades. The Department of Education's proposed changes in the Public Service Loan Forgiveness (PSLF) program would impact individual students by limiting forgiveness to students who choose employers that adhere to Trump's political objectives. Denial of SNAP benefits, and subsequent restoration of 50% of the funding, left campuses scrambling to meeting students' needs.

Which institutions are next? UNC was asked to submit 70 courses for examination by the Oversight Project that is funded by the Heritage Foundation. UCLA was informed by DOJ that they are being investigated for violation of Civil Rights Law and, indeed, funding was withdrawn under the premise that UCLA's priorities do not align with NSF priorities. Trump hopes UCLA enters into a voluntary resolution and Trump wants a $1.2 billion payout, the details of which were made public in response to a law suit filed by UCLA faculty. A blow to Trump's UCLA intervention, a Federal Judge ordered restoration of an undisclosed amount of NSF funding and later court action restored $500 million in grants. The  University of California system is "in dialogue" about its $584 million in research funding while cuts to funding for minority serving institutions was a death blow to the California State system. The DOJ continued to push by suing California over its policy of offering in-state tuition rates for undocumented students.

Heaping on at the state level, 22 states have initiated laws censoring higher education. Texas lawmakers created an oversight body to monitor compliance with their mandates and then abolished Faculty Senates, replacing them with toothless boards. The President of Texas A&M resigned under pressure about DEI initiatives; his resignation drew mixed reactions due to the controversy over student allegations against a professor for teaching non-conforming gender ideas. Texas A&M implemented review of any courses that include race and gender-related issues. The University of Texas sought to limit speech based on state legislative mandate, but judicial review prohibited its implementation. In the face of diminishing impact, perhaps Trump's efforts to reform are losing steam.

The DOJ declaration that DEI is unlawful clearly paved the way for more allegations and investigations on the horizon. The crackdown resulted in the closing of 120 TRIO Programs that target equalizing enrollment of male and female students. Trump officials demand for admission data, an attempt to prove race-based decision, met uniform resistance. The 30 year tracking of campus climate for students of color demonstrates that the need for DEI attention will not go away, regardless of attacks and dismantling of programs on many campuses. Department of Education demands for access to race-based admission data signals enrollment mix as central to the anti-DEI initiative. However, the Federal District Judge's ruling against the anti-DEI order will complicate the attack. Usurping the power to appointment Board members, Indiana's Governor asked for investigation of plagiarism by Indiana University's President. Under anti-DEI investigation, Ohio State began to limit conference participation with affinity-related organizations.

Columbia's capitulation to the Trump administration in a $221 million settlement is a difficult pill to swallow. Columbia received in exchange the release of billions in research funding that will benefit the institution, its students, and the general public. However, buckling under pressure has been condemned as "playing along with a narrative of widespread antisemitism... going along with a narrative rather than challenging it." Secretary McMahon seemed to twist the knife in her declaration that "Columbia's reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate." The settlement stopped the investigations and restored some research funding but included everything from the financial penalties, to eliminating DEI, review of admission policies, and program reviews.  The settlement is a huge win for authoritarianism and a threat to all U.S. higher education.

Mutual support among institutions is emerging and may be the result of Harvard challenging Trump on several grounds. DHS appears to be moderating in their demands related to international student enrollment. One has to hope that Harvard will not "take a deal" but, even before negotiations could conclude, Trump administration officials came back with more threats. Any negotiation or capitulation to Trump's administration yield to the bogus claim of antisemitism when Islamophobia is a far worse problem at Harvard. Throwing in the towel would embolden Trump to go for more, would undermine Harvard's reputation and, most egregiously, it would legitimize authoritarianism as a tool of governing. Fortunately, a measure of sanity may be unfolding due to Judge Burroughs' apparent inclination to favor Harvard's challenge to the withdrawal of federal research funds. The very public attacks on Harvard reveal a comprehensive plan to reform all higher education throughout the U.S.

Harvard considered settling with the Trump administration for $500 million. Simultaneous to the consideration of settlement, HHS referred Harvard to DOJ for investigation for thwarting its investigation. Raising the tensions further, nine Harvard alumni who hold seats in the Senate and House are threatening to investigate Harvard if it caves to the Trump administration. All of higher education celebrated when a Federal Judge ruled Trump's $2.2 billion extortion was unlawful. Although the Harvard case is likely to end up before the Supreme Court, it is a victory for all of higher education and ultimately for the preservation of democratic systems. Piling on again after losing in Federal Court, Trump pressed Harvard to create a vocational training program as part of the settlement with the government. The Education Department initiative fiscal monitoring of Harvard, a move regarded as a continuation of the intimidation it has experienced under the Trump administration. Education also demanded admissions information from Harvard within 20 days. HHS is set to block Harvard from all grant funding, saying that the action is required to protect public interests. After all the flurry, Harvard's research funding was almost entirely restored by late October, 2025, but uncertainty remains.

The capitulation of multiple prestige institutions has been negotiated so far outside the law that most institutions could easily win law suits against the government. Acquiescing to lawless abuse of power is grounds for a warning to those considering or who have given in is that, "if you think Trump will ignore the law and violate rules, then trusting his regime to obey a legal settlement is just as crazy." Not only is capitulation an invitation to push further, it undermines the very dignity and stature of those who compromise in the moment and thus sacrifice their reputations in the future. The reputation of U.S. universities experienced a decline in national rankings even before Trump began his attacks. Out of caution or protest, international scholars are now avoiding the U.S. for travel. One can only hope that rankings do not drop even further as a result of attacks and attempts to regulate.