Resistance and ingenuity 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, it's critical to identify evidence to instill hope. Several revelations may warrant optimism:

• National Institute of Health (NIH) funding may be restored after multiple legal challenges alleging that Trump administration officials acted unlawfully. But many of the scientists appointed by Biden are being dismissed by the NIH Board.
• Opposition to the GOP funding bill is eroding at least partially due to deleting several policies which concerned educator 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.
• 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.

These are only small wins but I hope to be able to add more in the coming days. There is no question that the relentless barrage of policy initiatives are still underway and reflect a pattern of weaponization of the DOJ to create fear.  Fear has spread as a result of secret surveillance to identify faculty and staff who don't toe the line on conservative edicts. 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. 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 may be the next target. A UVa professor observing the arrival of new students warns that the Trump administration will not stop with just attacking presidents.

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. 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. Isolation and restriction does not create shared prosperity.

Mutual support among institutions is emerging and may be the result of Harvard challenging Trump on several grounds. 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 will likely embolden Trump to go for more, would undermine Harvard's reputation and, most egregiously, it would legitimize authoritarianism as a tool of governing. The very public attacks on Harvard reveal a comprehensive plan to reform all higher education throughout the U.S.

Trump - 100+ days

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.

The impact of Trump's university crackdown - 100 days

As the daily attacks continue hitting higher education in the U.S., it takes herculean effort to stay on top of the latest crisis. We have to be reminded that 4 years out of office, animated by the designs of the Heritage Foundation's Project 2025, allowed the time to put together the executive orders and loyalist appointees to impose Trump's agenda. We do not live in "normal times" when it comes to the state of the U.S. government. Recognition that the Trump administration is a threat to democratic norms and processes emerged by day 100.

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.

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. However, instead of backing off, Trump officials came back with another $250 million on top of the $400 million they were initially threatened to lose.

The House anti-Semitism Task Force attempted to place Columbia under a consent agreement to force accountability for promises the institution has made. By April 14, 2025, President Shipman appeared to reject the consent decree and joined Harvard in asserting that it would not yield its constitutional rights and independence. By May, 2025, Columbia laid off 180 employees due to "intense financial stain." The next move was the Education Department's assertion that Columbia's accreditation should be withdrawn.

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. Unfortunately, President Shipman's frustrations over accusations of anti-semitism in 2023 when she was on the Columbia Board made it into the hands of the House Committee.

The expanding attacks across higher education may eventually result in a new mantra "We are all Columbia" among higher education supporters. Countering the possibility of any support, faculty at other institutions are considering a boycott of Columbia, citing the "university's active participation 'in an authoritarian assault on universities aimed at destroying their role as sites of teaching, research, learning, and activism essential to building a free and fair world.'" The dilemma is whether Columbia's treatment should evoke others rallying to its defense or if its acquiescence should be condemned by its presumed peers.

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!

By July 2025 it appeared Columbia was close to a settlement with the Trump Administration that included millions in payments for alleged violations of civil rights, changes in DEI initiatives, modification of admission policies, and increasing campus safety for Jewish students.

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.

For a ray of hope, listen to the "I worked at the Department of Education" podcast for a first-hand view of a former staff member. The interview includes the very consoling reflections on how the department strives to work across different U.S. Presidential elections, the complexity of its responsibilities, and the illegality of claims to eliminate its existence.

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. A judge's order directed the reinstatement of Education Department staff, noting that the dismissals essentially eliminated the department. 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 of the Education Department and Republicans refused the demand to see a plan. 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. A counter-indication is that, although underrepresented student applications increased, fewer have been admitted.

The Spring 2025 enrollment increases, primarily in graduate and certificate programs, also raised hopes of strong Fall 2025 figures. The Trump-supported funding of higher education would reduce borrowing limits, which will hit graduate programs in particular. Larger institutions such as NYU and USC have more graduate students than undergrads and these programs are very expensive. Reduction in borrowing will most certainly cause prospective students to hesitate to accept admission offers. As the summer of 2025 unfolded, financial aid packaging became precarious and the yield tool of tuition discounting rose to new levels. Higher education funding cuts being considered by Congress are likely influenced by the entanglement of personal and representational biases of policy makers.

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 2024-25 international enrollment is down 11% and more students are being deported across all types of institutions, numbering 50+ by April 7, 2025. By April 21, 2025, more than 1,500 international students' visas had been revoked. The increased peril that they endure from 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. Although many of Trump's strategies to single out international students have been undone in law suits, every time one strategy is prohibited the Trump team comes up with more ways to restrict international enrollment and relations. Trump's relentless attacks represent a financial risk for many institutions that rely on international students' tuition to offset declining domestic students. Even a 10% drop in international students would result in billions of lost revenue.

International student advisors are scrambling to respond to fears about Trump's reversal on visas, especially targeting those from Muslim countries. A law suit challenging Trump deportation of international students for expressing pro-Palestinian views was allowed to proceed and a federal judge ordered the release of 2 international students held by ICE officials. Offering help is compromised by the fact that ICE officials are bypassing universities, including tracking international students' social media to identify those deemed a "risk" to U.S. security. University officials are challenged by the need to balance the possibility of retaliation from Trump officials as they seek to support international students by resisting visa revocations. Threat to the primary program that supports students and scholars' international experience, the Fulbright program, resulted in its board resigning over political interference.

Due to the potential of not being able to return to the U.S. from their home country if they left for the summer, some institutions encouraged international students to stay and provided assistance such as housing and work. Franklin University in Switzerland is offering an alternative for international students who are struggling with, or have been denied, returning to study in the U.S. Franklin, a member of the 44 institution consortium of Council of Independent Colleges, will offer temporary study until the students can return to their U.S. campus. Studying at a branch campus may become an increasingly attractive option as international students seek to complete their degrees.

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. Illinois adopted a direct admission policy for all public institutions except the University of Illinois and University of Illinois at Chicago in order to increase accessibility. A key to opening the doors to higher education is connecting students to opportunity, particularly among those of first-generation background.

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. Early indications are that the politics of a campus and sense of belonging are important in prospects' decisions, which is especially important among California's recently immigrated students. Trump administration dismantling of DEI programs and initiatives, threats to international students that their study visas could be cancelled, and changes to Pell grants for students with financial need are destined to result in opposition. LGBTQ+ students in Texas expressed concern as a result of the elimination of DEI programs and supports. The other issue that education leaders will need to confront is concern of hiring managers that over half of current graduates are not prepared to know how to conduct themselves in the workforce.

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. As a result of the diminishing focus on transition programs for underrepresented students, where support will be found is up in the air. 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. Some institutions are beginning to focus on collaboration across campus by pulling committees together that are agile and comprehensive in addressing student success.

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.