Columbia University's acting President Shipman is one to watch

Columbia University named Claire Shipman, Board of Trustees co-chair, as acting President effective immediately on March 28, 2025. After a year of turmoil and following one of the most aggressive political attacks on any university in U.S. history, President Shipman is stepping into a very challenging role. Her education and experience are impressive - one of the first female graduates of Columbia College in Russian Studies, a masters graduate from Columbia's School of International Policy and Administration, and a journalist with a distinguished career. It's hard to imagine anyone better prepared for the Columbia Presidency.

What President Shipman's appointment signals is unclear and may never be understood. The third in a line of Columbia's female Presidents who voiced concerns about anti-Semitism at House of Representatives hearings last year, she may be better informed and credentialed to restore Columbia's reputation than anyone on the planet. Republicans said that removing former acting President Armstrong would improve negotiation and change.

The Israel v. Hamas war was the spark that ignited discontent at Columbia. As one of the most prominent Ivy League institutions in the U.S., Columbia's protests were notable in the early days after the Hamas attack "not just because of the scale or visibility of the demonstrations, but because the issues at stake - academic freedom, institutional neutrality, moral responsibility - converged so powerfully there." (quote from Steven Mintz of Inside Higher Education) Adding activism versus administration, stakeholder advocacy, and the tension between ideals and action derived or contrasted with them, results in a mix that made Columbia vulnerable to attack. The mix of all these issues, reflected to varying degrees and examples across broader U.S. higher education, may eventually result in a new mantra "We are all Columbia" among higher education supporters.

Mintz continued, "To understand the depth of this conflict on campus is to confront not only Middle East politics, but also the shifting terrain of higher education itself: how students find meaning, how universities manage pluralism and whether institutions can still be trusted to hold space for hard, honest conversations - without breaking." Shipman's appointment as acting President is significant for Columbia and for broader higher education in the U.S. Columbia will be a place to watch!

Executive Order - Shut it Down

President Trump's threat and campaign promise to move the responsibility for education to state discretion came to fruition with his March 20, 2025, executive order. Although U.S. Presidential action can't undo an act of Congress, Republicans are likely to echo Trump's promises and actions. In fact, legislation designed to take greater control over higher education are already in place.

How dismantling the Education Department will unfold is yet to be determined. Some analysts say that breaking up the Education Department will preserve its programs but change who oversees them. More ominous and general predictions are that systems will be disrupted, student services will be impaired, and federal support of research fractured. The five specific areas where higher education will be impacted are applying for and dispensing grants and loans, students' civil rights, management of grant programs, data gathering on student progress, and general oversight. The irony of Trump moving to shut down the Education Department so quickly after the confirmation of McMahon as its Secretary is that aggressive staff cuts were already underway with little acknowledgement of the impact. Neal McCluskey, Director of the the Cato Institute, said, "We don't know how many people are actually needed to execute (the department's) jobs, and it's time to find out..." Rather than having a plan, it sounds like fire, ready, aim is the model.

The Education Department will be very difficult to dismantle because of legislative mandates that formed it and added to it since it broke out of Health and Human Services. The reduction in staff and elimination of some departments impairs the effectiveness of those who remain in their positions with the Education Department.

Democrats demanded transparency by seeking all documents related to the proposed shut down. The resolution of inquiry filed March 21, 2025, requested memos, emails, and other communication about the reduction in workforce, a move that could impair the ability of the Education Department to fulfill its responsibilities. A specific area of responsibility, student loans, was proposed to move to the Small Business Administration (SBA), which opponents say is a clear violation of the intent of the funding.

Trump's chaos is seen in his business and product failures and in the damage to the U.S. in Trump.1. With the Education Department shut down rationalized by eliminating economic inefficiency, and Musk's project tearing through multiple federal offices, I'm curious who's keeping tab on the inefficiencies racking up as a result of funds wasted on early retirements, staff placed on paid administrative leave while cuts are imposed, and the proliferation of law suits attempting to slow Trump's progress in destroying the infrastructure on which many U.S. citizens relied. What is the ultimate cost of this to be and how much are citizens willing to tolerate?

2025-26 Enrollment predictions

Even in the face of massive turmoil across U.S. higher education as a result of Trump administration criticism, funding cuts, and executive orders, early indications are that applications are up for 2025-26. The 4% rise may partially be the result of increasing use of the common application. However, the increasing number of applications from underrepresented populations and lower socioeconomic backgrounds continues the trend of diversification seen in 2024-25.  The 2025-26 applications for underrepresented students rose 12% which contributed to a surprising 5% increase in prospective domestic students versus a proportional 1% decline in international students.

Some predict further decline of international student enrollment as a result of Trump administration threats to deport pro-Palestinian demonstrators and return to the travel bans of his 1st term. The chilling effect of Trump's rhetoric and executive orders is causing some international students to hesitate in their considerations of studying in the U.S. In the face of three hundred current international students' visas being revoked as of March 28, 2025, coming to the U.S. may not be worth the risk.

As we see institutions position themselves to yield the best class possible for 2024-25, Harvard and other elite institutions have begun to commit to tuition free for students with family incomes under certain levels. This kind of strategy can support a diversity focus based on income, which incidentally captures prospects of diverse cultural backgrounds. Dartmouth saw a decline in its applications after returning to a policy of requiring testing of its applicants.

Where these early figures will take U.S. higher education in the coming year will be critical to budgets but could also bring volatility in campus climate. Providing support to all students in the face of chaotic challenges and changes is an area where many campuses, such as American University, may begin to focus. Trump administration dismantling of DEI programs and initiatives and threats to international students that their study visas could be cancelled for participating in campus protests are destined to result in opposition. LGBTQ+ students in Texas expressed concern as a result of the elimination of DEI programs and supports.

Who stands up to oppose is the big question since diversity in peer-to-peer interaction is central to preparing for the multi-cultural environment of the 21st century. Considering the risk for students from diverse backgrounds, it will be interesting to see if white students engage as allies in support of their classroom peers. As students of all backgrounds take stock of what's happening, campus administrators will have to thread the needle of Trump-era controls versus student support and freedom of expression.

Student Affairs NOW started the Current Campus Context podcasts series to help student affairs educators navigate the complicated array of issues ahead. Suggestions in the 2nd episode included advising students as they attempt to discern and express opposition and relating campus issues to broader political eras and movements. Judiciary branch responses to campus issues is essential and, thus far, legal challenges have been successful in blocking the most egregious violations of separation of powers conventions and caselaw.

Is defense of higher education imminent?

My reflections on the 2024 election cycle and Trump's 2nd coming included a lot of gloom and doom. One of the issues that drove the gloom was the seeming lack of push back to Trump's tidal wave of executive orders, a barrage that frequently tests the boundaries of separation of powers as well as the very foundations of the U.S. Constitution. Law suits to challenge Trump's directives are so numerous that Inside Higher Education is tracking them in updates.

The Education Department's "Dear Colleague" notice to eliminate all DEI within 2 weeks created uncertainty about what was viewed as DEI, making the task of scrubbing exceptionally challenging. The lack of specificity and timetable are complicated by the fact that the directive contradicts established case law, which raises the question of whether the directive was serious or just a way to sow chaos and create fear. Self-regulation in the face of threats led to wide reduction or elimination of diversity-related programs; even the DEI programs at the University of Michigan were shuttered. The response from the University of Maryland law faculty clarified a number of issues in response to the directive. Part of Trump's anti-DEI directive was blocked by a Federal Judge who offered the opinion that the "language related to canceling equity-related grants was too vague and invited 'arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement'" and the NEA sued to block it as well. The nationwide injunction against Trump's orders was reversed, but the 3 appeal judges opined that how broadly or narrowly the Dear Colleague letter was enforced was the primary issue to watch.

Shawn Harper, diversity scholar at the University of Southern California, offered 11 recommendations for institutions to retain a commitment to DEI in the face of the Education Department's "Dear Colleague" letter, which lacked details and will require considerable time and effort to enforce. Subsequent Education Department guidance allowed observances such as Black History Month, "so long as they do not engage in racial exclusion or discrimination." Condolezza Rice's declaration from years ago that it was "inappropriate to teach about structural racism... because it makes white students 'feel bad for being white'" seems trivial in comparison to Black students' experience when they were the first to break through segregation in higher education.

Perhaps the defense of higher education is emerging. Reading the summary of the recent American Council on Education meeting included the declaration of the organization's President, Ted Mitchell, that "We're under attack" and "These executive orders are an assault on American opportunity and leadership." This ACE meeting included a lot of hand-ringing but closed with the hopeful voice of Freeman Hrabowski, ACE Fellow and president emeritus of the University of Maryland Baltimore County. Hrabowski admonished those in attendance to "use our heads and our hearts," a lesson he learned from participating in the civil rights march in Birmingham, Ala., 60 years ago. "Faith and determination" convinced him that "we would be OK." Faith-based institutions may be able to invoke 1st Amendment guarantees to resist imposition of DEI bans.

The irony of the ACE meeting location could not be more profound - The Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts in Washington, D.C. where musicians and artists are resigning their posts and performers are cancelling appearances in the face of Trump's take-over with cronies in board seats and himself as the chair. Audio of Trump's meeting with the board he installed pledge replacing the "wokey" perspective of the center with something that will be "hot" again, like he has made the U.S. Presidency. The Brookings Institute warned that control of free expression in music and other arts organizations is classic authoritarianism. Trump's take over of the Kennedy Center as well as executive orders that prohibit diversity programs among National Endowment for the Arts and National Endowment for the Humanities puts all arts at risk. Targeting another critical area, J.D. Vance will be in charge of implementing Trump's "Restoring Truth and Sanity to American History," which will include investigating the Smithsonian and National Zoo.

As an amateur musician who has performed with the National Symphony Orchestra at the Kennedy Center under the baton of Antal Dorati and enjoyed a lifetime of music patronage and participation, taking over the Kennedy Center is one of the most bizarre and dangerous moves of a President in pursuit of authoritarian and restrictive rule. My hope and prediction is that artists throughout the U.S. and around the world will call out Trump's take-over for what it is - censorship of the arts.

Trump has signaled his intent to reshape education for many years. The campaign promise "to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical left and Marxist maniacs" was one of Trump's clearest statements of his intent. It's fairly easy to see that beneath the guise of fighting anti-Semitism, including redefining it to conform to the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance, was more about ideologic control than anything else.

With a few notable exceptions, presidents of higher education institutions have remained oddly silent during the early stages of Trump's intervention though survey results of sitting presidents confirm their concerns over the elimination of the Education Department and credibility among the public. The President of the Council of Independent Colleges says that, while diverse in perspective, many presidents are responding with quiet resistance. Adaptive leadership that considers the context of each institution may be one way to formulate a response to the chaos. Self-censorship is not a strategy for self-preservation is the advice offered by some faculty who believe that the threats to higher education have reached a turning point. Student responses in defense of higher education have been limited thus far and any future resistance is complicated by lack of public support.

Trump's attack, and capitulation by Columbia University's President, is not a good sign and could establish a precedent that will impact other institutions. Education Secretary McMahon's pronouncement that Columbia is on the "right track" to restore funding may actually not be helpful in the face of faculty who pushed for confrontation rather than appeasement. The AAUP filed suit on behalf of Columbia faculty asserting that the threat of funding cuts were a "cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control." The announcement of Claire Shipman as interim-President in the aftermath of Trump administration demands on Columbia signals a variety of things and what happens going forward will be one of the most interesting higher education leadership cases to watch in the coming months.

Public opinion is an important driver of the conversation about education and the majority do not support funding cuts for education. Responses will need to mobilize grass roots organizing principles that draw diverse groups to act together. Numerous institutions have begun to adopt statement neutrality in an apparent effort to avoid accusations of viewpoint bias. A Heterodox report lauds neutrality by saying "these policies represent a critical step toward restoring universities as trusted spaces for free inquiry and intellectual growth."

Perhaps the current complacency is the result of fear, perhaps disbelief that the chaos is serious. The energy to fight back may be building with possible activism coming even from conservative corners in reaction to Musk, whose leadership of the so-called Department of Government Efficiency has been sloppy and resulted in numerous reversals. McMahon announced a meeting to brief employees on the "final mission" of the Education Department, which was then cancelled after rumors of Trump's executive order to eliminate it. Approximately half of Education Department staff were fired on February 11, 2025, with promises to return responsibility to the states. A court order required the Education Department to rehire some probationary employees as more law suits followed from education groups. Dismantling research capability and financial assistance to students are at least two areas where impact is most likely. The false starts and changes are Trump's hallmark and demoralize everyone involved. Education Department staff reeling in the face of lay-offs is only one example. Democrats have begun to actively criticize McMahon's cuts to the Department staff.

With Trump signing the Executive Order to eliminate the Education Department on March 20, 2025, the question of defense of higher education elevated to a different level. Although an Executive Order cannot undo an act of Congress, Republican legislative action is sure to follow.

The problem with travel

I've previously reflected on travel on my other blog with the post traveling with a critical perspective. The insights I gained from my own travel and observing others has seeped into some of my published articles and particularly at the recent Leadership Educators' Institute (LEI) conference.

Rick Steves' insights on travel reinforce the insights I've gained through the privilege of travel. The New York Times podcast should be viewed by anyone preparing for travel as a way to inspire courage and curiosity.

Observing travel of others, and reflecting on my own decisions revealed an evolving understanding of what travel can mean. My travel started where Steves says most people start - the safe environs of Europe. However, as he says, the more transformational travel experiences were to settings that were very different than his (and my) cultural background in the West. Two of my best stretch-travel experiences were with my youngest daughter, Darbi, when we traveled to Morocco and the second was with Diane when we were guided through the Kerala region of India with Sha as our personal guide. Steves' characterization of travel pilgrimage is so important - seeking to engage with reality by being immersed in things we never expected. As an illustration of his point, some of my favorite travel experiences have involved getting lost or stumbling into a musical event that was not anticipated.

Steves advised travelers to skip all the crowded destinations where tourists clamor to the same spots for their FaceBook and Instagram shots. These are the commercialized places that are typically void of any real historical artifacts. He advised finding a way to put yourself in the places where there are real people and engaging with them in direct human encounter.

While I don't judge others' motivations or experience in travel, I've come to the belief that any travel in the future for me will be shaped by intention, preparation and a critical perspective. In order to achieve that, I've committed to travel that signals curiosity and humility, preserves natural resources, and adds to, rather than detracting from, the welfare of local people and preserves culture.

A good life for all

I often reflect on the good life that I've been privileged to have and wondered how I got here. I've actually begun to compose a life story that charts the experiences and events of my family's life that resulted in my two brothers and me having dramatically different lives, yet each including purpose and fulfillment and ultimately a life well lived.

Higher education philosophers and luminaries have long characterized one of its primary purposes being to help students learn about, and acquire habits to be successful in pursuing, a good life. As contemporary educators move through the current period of skepticism about higher education's effectiveness, with its disparity in outcomes across institutions, cultural groups, and socio-economic statuses, some way of understanding where we've fallen short is imperative. And if you are wondering what "fallen short" means, the State of the Nation report provides ample evidence and specifics. The report asserts that, while the U.S. has become increasingly wealthy, life expectancy and key quality of life elements have declined in comparison to other advanced countries.

Steve Mintz of Inside Higher Education recently posted two thought pieces that captured my imagination. The first was an opinion on how the erosion of meaning and connection has undermined achieving a happy and good life for many in the contemporary age. Mintz cites classic authors who blamed "consumerism, technological advancement, careerism and hyperindividualism" as having eroded aspiration for and achievement of meaning and happiness. Countering the preoccupation with work and loss of leisure and community ties can be achieved by "fostering engagement with nature, community and the arts."

Drafting these simple points from Mintz' first article felt elitist in many ways. After all, who really is able to escape preoccupation with work and pursue more leisure and community ties other than the elites of most communities? Especially in the face of his second article, one focused on the shift in understanding racism and violence, it is clear that prejudices and systems of oppression are in place to make sure that not all people have access to the good life. Inequality, hate, and prejudice may seem to be new but have been debated by scholars for over a century - proof that the systems are entrenched in ways that are difficult to challenge. Sustaining these systems is fortified by legacies of colonialism, capitalism and racial inequality, and neocolonialism 

The 2024 U.S. national election

The days before the 2024 national election brought varying reports of how Senate and House elections would go and diverse predictions related to the "toss up" between Harris and Trump. The days before the November 5 final balloting included increasing threats that a Trump administration would undo the U.S. Education Department, warnings in Pennsylvania that public campuses couldn't restrict election-related speech, some faculty bringing the election into the classroom and others canceling classes, campuses in swing states mobilizing students to vote, and VP Harris bringing her message back home to Howard University on election-watch night.

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. Threats to NSF could cut key student research opportunities. 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. 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. 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. NIH imposed a hiring freeze over the uncertainty related to funding but restoration of NIH grants may be possible through internal appeals as well as law suits. 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.

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 and $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.

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. 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.

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. 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 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.