If you read this blog, you know that I integrate emerging news into longer posts rather than short commentary. The posts about the Trump administration, specifically related to education, have become very complicated. However, I hope that they provide a way to understand themes and relationships. Yesterday marked the end of the first 100 days of Trump.2 and today I begin 100+ without a clear expectation of when all of this will slow down. The Brookings Institute perceives that unfolding imposition of Presidential power is a fundamental threat to democracy, primarily due to the erosion of separation of powers.
The American Council on Education summarized Trump's executive actions and Inside Higher Education offered a recap in their Key Podcast on how the higher education landscape was reshaped in the first 100 days. Although some legal challenges have been successful, such as the NIH suit to restore $2.4 billion in research funding, scientists are concerned about the overall future of research in higher education. The ACE advised, "Institutions will need to assess compliance obligations while remaining committed to their core missions of access, inclusion, and academic freedom."
Trump's direct attack, as well as the actions of those he has appointed to his administration, of higher education is in many ways unexplainable.
Fareer Zakaria calls out the destructive impact of what has unfolded. He asks how undermining Harvard in particular and all of higher education in general helps to achieve anything close to making America greater than it has been. Trump persists and the passage by Republican's "
Big, Beautiful Bill" ushers in a new era for higher education.
Various strategies are being used by the Trump administration to force compliance to his will - financial, ideological, and oversight. Financial extortion comes in the form of demands to report international gifts, $3 billion in cuts to NIH and NSF, and defunding the U.S. Education Department. Cuts to grant funding were partially restored by a federal judge who asserted that the NIH cuts were discriminatory. Trump asked the Supreme Court to weigh in after a federal district court ruled against the Education Department staff layoffs. The Supreme Court decision will partially hinge on the accusation that staffing cuts will prevent the Education Department from fulfilling essential services. Secretary McMahon defended her cuts at a congressional hearing where she was accused of usurped authority in a fiery exchange with Democratic representatives. McMahon claimed that intervention is justified by civil rights violations guaranteed through Title VI. NSF declared that it wouldn't fund any research at institutions committed to DEI or that allowed pro-Palestinian demonstrations. The House Committee followed with their sweeping plans to cut funding for education which included taxing endowments and overhauling student loan policy. The Senate version of the funding bill includes concessions that relieved some opponents but much still remains to be negotiated. Ideological control comes through using Title IX as a battering ram against trans rights. Using anti-Semitism claims to attack higher education institutions is now recognized by a majority of citizens as only pretext for the more significant goal of discrediting opponents and imposing conservative ideology. While Republicans remain supportive, others, especially those with college degrees, are concerned about cost and disruption of research. The Trump administration approach has been used by other autocrats and dictators to control those who oppose their directives. As proof, two significant voices, J.D. Vance and Pete Hegseth, echo Trump's criticisms. Vice President J.D. Vance expressed admiration for Hungarian Prime Minister Victor Orban's effectiveness in attacking higher education. Pete Hegseth has removed all references to diversity at the U.S. military academies, a series restriction of academic freedom.
Of course, in order to maintain solvency, U.S. institutions either have to cut budgets or find other sources of revenue. International students are a significant source of revenue for many campuses and they bring $43.8 billion in revenue to the U.S. in general. The State Department revocation of Chinese student visas threatens the 2nd largest national group studying in the U.S. In a familiar pattern and reversing his Secretary of State, Trump directed that Chinese students are welcome only 2 weeks later. Targeting international students not only impacts the revenue bottom line but, coupled with NSG grant funding cuts, risks research capacity. Interest in U.S. universities setting up foreign branch campuses is on the rise as another example of compensating for loss of revenue. As with many issues Trump seeks to influence, the multiple attacks on international enrollment are a "flood the zone" strategy to see what he can get away with. The multiple strategies clearly emerge from a plan, specifically Project 2025 as its contributors and authors flood the Education Department staff.
The problem of looking at branch campuses is that the Trump administration is also critical of international partnerships, which could bring more scrutiny to campuses that choose the branch campus path. But, of course, Trump just visited Qatar where he lavished praise on the country while seeking private deals to expand Trump real estate projects.
To gain oversight control, one of the more consequential targets is accrediting agencies. The Trump administration has positioned accreditation as key to dismantling DEI and going after poor quality institutions, both of which have been only vaguely defined. The intervention to control viewpoint is an impoverished view of the role of higher education. In oder to counter the influence of current accrediting bodies, the Education Department is making way for new accreditors to enter the arena and making it easier for institutions to change accreditors. McMahon doubled-down on Trump's criticism of accrediting organizations. In one of the first examples of the threat of accrediting agencies adhering to Trump's directives, the Middle States Commission warned that Columbia's accreditation could be in jeopardy. The Florida Board of Governors moved along with Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, and the Texas A&M system to create of an alternative accrediting agency Florida Governors agreed to the proposal despite reservations about how it will work.
Elite institutions such as Harvard and Columbia were the first to feel the impact of compliance pressures. Columbia's accreditation was challenged as well as grants withdrawn. While Columbia's compliance with Education Department demands remained unresolved, Barnard settled and agreed to several of the Department's demands. A Harvard spokesperson said that the demands made in the initial letter from the Education Department "'would impose unprecedented and improper control' and would lead to 'chilling implications for higher education.'" Accusations and investigations at Harvard continued and led it to sue the government, which resulted in Trump freezing all grant contracts. How the law suit turns out is yet to be determined but, in the meantime, Harvard pledged to self-fund $250 million of the research that was withdrawn by Trump. Secretary McMahon of the Education Department blamed the victim by declaring that Harvard's lawsuit was the catalyst for approximately 1/3 of Harvard's total research funding being cut. With a stunning "guilty until proven innocent" assertion, Harvard's continued grant funding collapse was attributed to its "continued failure to address anti-Semitic harassment and race discrimination." The Trump administration move to deny Harvard from hosting international students resulted in a temporary restraining order. which was extended to allow for deeper analysis. Meanwhile, prominent universities like the Hong Kong University of Science & Technology offered unconditional acceptance to Harvard's international students. In addition to HKUS&T, other Asian institutions may benefit from the growing perception of U.S. hostility. The Education Department's tracking of foreign gifts resulted in a list of institutions whose external funding was presumed to reflect risks to institutional control. The irony is that Saudi Arabia is at the top of the list of donor governments, which is the first stop on Trump's first international trip, one riddled with as many business deals as foreign affairs negotiations.
Opposition or at least ambivalence about elite institutions and the privileged position they hold in political, economic, and social realms has emerged. The opposition has largely come from middle income citizens who resent the claims of meritocracy in Ivy League education, an assumed benefit that often extends privilege to those who are already very privileged. However, the intensity and repeated attacks from multiple directions has convinced even detractors to side with Harvard, especially since it has emerged as the primary institution to fight back. Asserting that Trump's attack on Harvard threatened all U.S. higher and democracy itself, over 50 other institutions and organizations now support Harvard's law suit against the government. One of the ways that institutions have used to compare themselves is the IPEDS system, which the Education Department is dismantling. A federal judge declined to block Trump from cutting staff at the Institute of Education Sciences, the agency charged with collecting and analyzing K-12 and higher education. Why Trump appointees would want to eliminate an important data collection resource is yet to be determined, but it perhaps relates to a desire to eliminate systems that document the inferiority of institutions that are a risk to students and other constituents such as the now defunct Trump University.
Let this settle in - Trump's declaration on day 100 was that the U.S. economy is in great shape and its government is once again respected around the globe (neither claim documentable and evidence widely available to the contrary). Meanwhile, international student visas are being terminated and ICE officials are declaring that they can deport them at will, students on temporary occupational training visas are being threatened, the State Department initiated review of applications social media accounts of applicants for visas, undocumented students' tuition in sanctuary jurisdictions is being targeted, and all Fulbright applicants related to DEI are being denied. Every time a law suit prohibits the Trump team from its attacks, they come up with something else to disrupt international student presence. The hostility of moves such as these has motivated European countries to "offer refuge" to U.S. academics who are losing research funding and are fearful of losing their academic freedom. The precision of these attacks reflect obsession on detailed, partisan grounds rather than the general welfare of the U.S. One has to wonder if the phrase "Nero fiddled while Rome burned" might be a just characterization for Trump administration neglect of its responsibilities to serve.