The podcast "Why Trump's university crackdown is driving professors off U.S. campuses" provides excellent insight from a Yale professor who is leaving for Canada. Perhaps a reflection of its campus cultur, Yale was praised by Trump's anti-Semitism Task Force for cracking down on protests when a far-right Israeli national security minister spoke off campus. Many of the statements in the podcast are deeply disturbing and the fact that they come from a professor who has already made the choice to leave the U.S. has to be acknowledged. However, the evidence even if only half warranted, is surely cause for concern. In addition to faculty looking for other options, the reduction in research funding and targeting of international students will likely undermine critical research work across multiple disciplines. As U.S. university research is undermined by Trump's DEI attacks and funding cuts, China is increasing its funding of research, preparing the way for it to be an attractive alternative to U.S. academic settings. One of the wealthiest and most progressive countries in the world, Norway, is also coming after U.S. academics and the U.K is investing $40 million to attract international scholars. While other countries come after U.S. scholars, the Fulbright-Hays grants that support research engagement were cancelled, closing multiple pathways to international academic collaboration.
One of the most shocking assertions is that the allegation of anti-Semitism in higher education is only a tool for taking control of higher education institutions. As the interviewee says, "The idea of protecting Jews is a pretext for abusing the rights of other people. Then, when people get infuriated that their rights are being abused their anger can be directed against the Jews who can then be scapegoated for the abuses of an abusive regime and there's nothing that this regime would relish more than watching that happen... we have to see that as a set-up." One hundred ten Northwestern University faculty unequivocally declared that they are not okay with the tactic.
The realization that "The administration is similarly using Jewish concerns to cloak more aggressive aims in its efforts to defund American universities" was noted in the April 4, 2025, Atlantic article by Yair Rosenberg. The article also quotes one of Trump's favorites, Stephen Miller, who very bluntly asserted at an October 2024 Trump rally,"America is for Americans and Americans only." V.P. Vance commented in 2021, prior to joining the MAGA movement, "I think if any of us want to do the things that we want to do for our country and for the people who live in it, we have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities in this country."
The point of the Atlantic article was that American Jews are being used and many, if not most, are not going with it. Alleging that Middle East Studies programs are anti-Israel and using Israel and Jewish Studies programs as pawns in attacking higher education is not okay. The American Jewish Committee (AJC) opposed the targeting of higher education and said that addressing anti-Semitism is best countered through a commitment to, "clear guardrails and protest policies, and to promote healthy constructive dialogue - not 'curtail the autonomy and academic freedom of higher education institutions." Arizona banned encampments on campus, perhaps reflecting a trend that my follow elsewhere.
The attack of universities continued with anti-Semitism as the pretext in the vague directive to Harvard, some believe intentionally vague so that administrators would over-comply. Before Trump started the attack, it had already convened task forces to analyze and offer recommendations on combatting anti-Semitic and anti-Arab bias at Harvard, but Trump administration intervention might actually be undermining this goal. President Garber informed the Trump administration that Harvard would not comply with demands, resulting in an immediate freeze on its federal research funds, IRS retracting its tax exempt status, and DHS prohibiting enrollment of international students. Even as Harvard resisted, Education Department officials moved ahead in demanding records on foreign contributions, accused the Harvard Law Review of discrimination, and will prohibit any new federal funding of research. The repressive nature of demands on Harvard necessitated its denial, recognition of which is evident in Trump administration claims that Harvard's letter should not have been sent. If the letter shouldn't have been sent, it's fascinating that McMahon defended the demands as the beginning of negotiation with Harvard over alleged civil rights violations. The legal path to weaponize multiple federal agencies is fraught with complications and Harvard's suit against Trump asserts violations of constitutional law as well as process. Yet, Health and Human Services office of Civil Rights found Harvard in violation of Title VI."
There is growing resistance across many campuses, which seemed slow to come but is building to oppose the Trump discredit and bully strategies. Signatures to the AAC&U statement calling for constructive engagement with the Trump administration grew to 600+ by May 5, 2025 and over 50 higher education associations signed onto a statement to reforge the higher education and federal government compact. In a very personal act of solidarity, select Harvard faculty pledged 10% of their salaries to fund Harvard's legal defense.
Following Harvard's rebuff, Columbia University backtracked on its previous acquiescence and more are anticipated to follow. Northwestern University's legal assistance program was threatened with investigation for helping a pro-Palestine demonstration last year but the House Committee later withdrew its request. Northwestern and Cornell joined the list of universities facing a federal funding freeze, which is likely to have severe implications for ongoing research. The probe of the legal assistance program is above and beyond the broad anti-Semitism allegations that already faced. Northwestern assured its faculty and researchers that their funding would be covered by the University.
Moving from the Ivy League and other elite institutions, Cal Poly, DePaul, and Haverford were called to respond to assertions that they allowed anti-Semitism to go unchecked. Republic house committee grilled the female president from Haverford but seemed more satisfied with the responses of the two males. Tuskegee, Taylor, and Austin Community College were also called to testify. As threats of executive orders or legislative action, a number of campuses responded quickly responded to Pro-Palestine rallies and demonstrations.
Having unleashed directives in numerous area in his first 100 days, apparently the next intervention by the Trump administration will be admissions policies and practices. Both Columbia and Harvard's federal investigations call for admission reform, which follow similar actions at Stanford and the California system institutions. Funding cuts to AmeriCorps will eliminate a source of funding for undocumented students who cannot receive federal assistance to attend college. With TRIO funding under threat of cuts, low-income students and the institutions that serve them could be devastated.
Trump's other "secret weapon" is accreditation which, along with investigation of foreign gifts, was announced in the most recent executive order. Accrediting entities pushed back on what they say is a mischaracterization of their role and expressed willingness to work toward the mutual goals of "enhancing quality, innovation, integrity and accountability" with the Education Department.
College presidents are increasingly fearful of Trump's attacks, which are much more procedural, permanent, and weaponized. It has become painfully clear that Trump's denial of knowledge of Project 2025 during the campaign was a lie and is providing the foundation for his attacks. How the breadth of institutions cutting budgets due to canceled research grants and lower enrollment, as well as navigate the barrage of funding cuts, questions and investigations is difficult to discern. Presidents of elite institutions face a populist era of skepticism that particularly requires "bold leadership, principled decision-making and a deep appreciation for the institution's unique identity." Who will not only survive, but thrive, is the question. The issues will include the changing student profile, cost, marginalization of the humanities and social science, and increased focus on STEM subjects, rethinking general education, and fostering strategic innovation.
