The Trust Agenda

Trump administration officials, particularly Secretary McMahon in Education, have driven a narrative that U.S. higher education can no longer be trusted and/or is trustable. This agenda is long-standing and Trump is not letting go, which renowned scholars Lee Bollinger (Columbia University) and Geoffrey Stone (University of Chicago) declare in their book, Academic Freedom in the Era of Trump, is equivalent to McCarthyism. There is little doubt that common factors from McCarthyism such as intentionally eroding public confidence, spurious and numerous claims, and persistence are the playbook for Trump and MAGA allies.

What to do about Trump's attempts to dismantle U.S. higher education has been a topic of discussion over the length of his first administration and is now becoming more urgent in the 2nd round. The podcast discussion of the AAC&U "The Trust Agenda" describes the reasons behind and the report provides a framework for how higher education can work together to combat the often unsupported and antagonistic assertions made by Trump.

After directly attacking key institutions, it is predictable that Trump would move on to attack accreditation because it is one of the core foundations for credibility of institutions in the U.S. and many colleges and universities beyond its boundaries. The new Education Department accreditation proposal takes authority away from existing groups under the guise of their having neglected their "position of public trust." Policy experts and accreditation officials "fear that the proposal will permanently politicize the long-standing evaluation mechanism designed to create uniform standards for American colleges and universities."

The Department of Defense (DOD) demanded records of 30 U.S. universities with international partnerships. The notice required an "'immediate and comprehensive' audit of their partnerships with foreign institutions that it says could be a threat to national security" by the end of the month (August, 2026). The claim is not new and is part of the relay race of attacking higher education under the direction of the Trump administration.

Elite colleges and universities were the first target - largely because their visibility makes them vulnerable and, secondarily, once the top falls, the rest are easy to take down. Whether it's the AAC&U solidarity stance or other strategies to come, higher education and those who value it must come together in vocal opposition to what's happening.

Further updates to follow - watch for changes on my blog.

Rays of hope or trepidation in 2026-27

Sixty-one percent of colleges and universities expressed confidence that they would meet their 2026-27 enrollment targets. As campuses open, the enrollment projections are likely to vary by institutional size, location, and programs. While students presumably have the last word, parents (in the case of students directly out of high school) have significant influence. Parents place affordability and job prospects after graduation at the top of their list.

Higher education is definitely going through a major transition, largely brought on by the Trump administration's attacks but also confounded by cost, credibility, and demographic shifts. The problem is that Trump and Secretary of Education (what's left of it) McMahon continue to prod with assertions like, a "forthright conversation with the American people is long overdue." McMahon sent a list of questions on Monday, August 3, to the higher education community calling for open and transparent responses to what she presumes are public concerns. Some faculty are courageous enough to own the disconnect on some issues but called for equal transparency from Trump officials about what they are after.

While some might read McMahon's memo to the leaders of elite higher education institutions as constructive, it is fairly obvious that she continues to push Trump narratives. Education leaders are likely ambivalent about responding at all, assuming that the new initiative may be a trojan horse for the previous "Compact for Excellence in Higher Education" or involve complex questions that, if responded to honestly, can easily be turned into "gotcha" by McMahon. The trojan horse emerged in the Heritage Foundation's "Model State Legislation to Codify the Federal Higher Education Compact." Having failed to achieve direct coercive control, the plan is to control institutions by making "state regulators the only authority over colleges by destroying accreditation and academic standards." Characterizing McMahon's latest move as designed to divide and weaken higher education, institutions are being encouraged to stand together in resisting the continued provocations she pushes out. As announced by Governor DiSantis, the 40 Florida public institutions "Welcomed the call" and already comply with many of its conditions. The UNC system President and Board Chair also responded on behalf of North Carolina's 17 public institutions.

Writing for Forbes, David Rosowsky proposed that the best response to McMahon and Trump is to govern seriously by addressing legitimate questions that will contribute to improved quality and credibility over the long-run. He said, "Rather than treating Compact 2.0 as an ideological battlefield, presidents and governing boards should use it as an opportunity to demonstrate institutional competence."

K-12 educators face their own battles with McMahon. The irony of allegations against the K-12 education sector for not enforcing sexual harassment measures is that McMahon continues to fight law suits against her for ignoring sexual harassment in her previous role as the executive of the WWE.

The current dynamics facing higher education require letting go of responding as if "everything is fine." The new FINE is Feelings I'm Not Expressing. Coming from a psychiatric background, Jessi Gold recommends that decision-making meetings and interaction in general move from the niceness of "fine" and begin to be honest about what educators are feeling - devalued and under attack. One of the most important realities of the Trump era is that the attacks by DOJ were all predetermined in order to discredit higher education's best institutions. It is unclear if DOJ will investigate the whistleblower's letter that revealed the intentionality of targeting elite institutions like Columbia and Brown. These attacks are hyper-political which, unfortunately, may have exploited the growing partisanship that has emerged amid the decline of tenure and shared governance. According to the President of AAUP, Todd Wolfson, higher education quality and access cannot "survive endless disinvestment, political interference, attacks on academic freedom and the systematic erosion of the people whose work makes universities possible."

One of the most important challenges to discuss and to strongly assert is that Trump administration policies and practices are burning America's talent pipeline at both ends. Stephen Aguilar opines, "In the same month, Washington made it harder for Americans to afford advanced training and for international students to stay and finish theirs. You cannot win an AI race this way." Aguilar's perspective comes from experience in cultivating AI, a field fueled by approximately two-thirds international graduate students.

Showing international students the door contradicts the fact the "more than half of America's billion-dollar startups had an immigrant founder," a quarter of whom arrived as international students. Before even the worst of Trump policies were known, international student visa applications dropped by 24% in 2025. Common applications from international students dropped by 10% for 2026 and some campuses report that the actual number of students who showed up to study was down 25%. Trump's policies risk lost talent development and the decline in overall international student enrollment will cost the overall U.S. economy $3.4 billion. The "Length of stay" directive for international students is being challenged by 8 higher education groups which could help but the perception of U.S. governmental hostility will be difficult to overcome. Although previously overturned, Trump returned to increasing the fee for H-1B visas for international employees to $103,265.

On the domestic side, the Department of Justice declared STEM programs directed at underrepresented populations as unconstitutional, cutting off the opportunity to cultivate a critical segment of talent among U.S. youth. In addition, previously proposed (and yet to be approved) OMB policies are being imposed - "States and subgrantees that receive grants would have to comply with the president's numerous executive orders, which aren't supposed to carry the force of law." This is, yet again, extortion to require compliance without legislative action.

The chaos created by Trump administration attacks and policy changes complicates higher education leaders' attempts to plan. Budget insecurity is a particular area of vulnerability that institutions must manage and the strategy differs based on prestige and resources. One trend is to cut staff positions and pour more resources into faculty positions. Time will tell if focusing resources on academic core will result in better student retention and learning.

The rise of progressive candidates for public office has met with hysteria among both mainstream Democrats and MAGA devotees. However, the assertions of these candidates that Trump cares little for the average American is anything but radical. Exposing the bizarre juxtaposition of anti-immigrant and America 1st perspectives versus welcoming talent from around the world and restoring conciliatory diplomacy is core to getting the U.S. back on track - hopefully sooner than later.

Gerontocracy and its impact on education

I am among the older of those who as youth are known as the "baby boomers." As an early beneficiary of policies and infrastructure development intended to educate the "boomer bulge," I was able to go to college paying relatively low tuition and receiving scholarships to help me close the gap between what I was able to pay and the actual cost of attendance. Having this privilege drew me into higher education as a career and I've always thought of my work in supporting students as central to the proposition that higher education was both a public good and individual benefit. This belief worked for me and many others in the boomer generation.

Unfortunately, some boomers have forgotten that their privileges were supported by a public commitment to their welfare and futures. The result - resistance to funding higher education through taxes and in the worst cases, reluctance to fund their own children's educations. Most unfortunately, declining financial support through taxes coincides with diversification in higher education. Many campuses today are non-majority, meaning there is no dominant cultural group, and the public's support has plummeted in proportion with this demographic.

The recent Inside Higher Education review, "Gerontocracy in America," offered a flicker of hope to address the problems we face. Gerontocracy does not assert personal privilege based on age nor does it advocate denial of opportunity to others. Instead, Samuel Moyn, author of Gerontocracy..., claims that gerontocracy is structural and thus can be addressed without offense to anyone who might bristle at being blamed for the current status of our society or conditions of education in particular. If you want more detail, review my summary which I completed after having read the full text.

The amazing thing about gerontocracy is that it is like other types of prejudice. "... generational bias - like other kinds of bias - is actually strong enough to defeat self-interest. For example, voters old enough to receive Social Security are often the most anti-immigration, even though increased immigration is the easiest way to improve Social Security's finances." Denying entry into the U.S. of younger immigrants who will pay into Social Security undermines the most promising strategy to balance the books before Social Security collapses under too much demand.

The problem isn't boomers themselves but the income polarization resulting from the creation of 401(k) accounts coupled with Social Security benefits. At income polarization's most extreme manifestation, the wealthiest among boomers and younger generations are moving their work and lives around the world to safe havens to protect themselves, regardless of the impact of the communities where they work or resided. Boomers who benefit from structural economic benefits, and who have also accumulated wealth through home ownership and value appreciation, can blindly vote against their own and society's benefit as they vote to protect their status. Especially in the face of fears about health complications in aging and perhaps the devastating impact of unfunded long-term care, boomers are inclined to hunker down and to hoard when using their resources could help the U.S. economy correct persistent income polarization.

As the review of Moyn's books indicates, "a combination of more progressive taxes with greater service provision at the end of life - say, expanding Medicare to cover long-term care - would dislodge money from static accounts and get it flowing through the economy. It would allow families to devote resources to their kids, rather than to private equity-funded chains, and it would give the elderly reassurance that they'll be OK at the end of life."

While the resolution to gerontocracy offered above is only one speculative attempt, I am compelled by this review to start talking with my boomer peers, reversing the blaming that often occurs, and starting conversation about the true public good and individual benefit from which we emerged as a very large and powerful cohort - large and powerful enough to discern solutions in which we could all take pride - across generations. A more just world could result, with quality education readily available to all, and peace of mind being the bonus we could all collect.

Intentional dismantling of America

There have been so many issues to which I've objected politically and personally - starting with Trump #1 and now accelerating in Trump #2. Former U.S. Ambassador Rice is a reasoned voice, emerging from the moment she entered the national and international arena. That's why her address to the Steamboat Institute has so much weight.

Ambassador Rice addresses the five elements of international power and influence; military, economic, global network, domestic strength, and soft power. Her remarks, the "Status of the U.S. in the World" is a must-view. Take a few minutes to view her remarks and then copy the link and send it to everyone you know.

One of the greatest points of influence in the world is that the U.S. has led the world in scientific and health-related research. The Trump administration made it clear that it did not support the systems that dispense research funding from the beginning and the final blow seems to have arrived with the firing of the National Science Foundation chair and dismissal of its board, a move protested by 13 former NSF board leaders. U.S. science leaders called for confirmation of Trump's NSF nominee, presumable to allow fair consideration and debate of his credentials to lead the organization to continued innovation and supremacy in research. With no rationale and declining comment when asked, NSF froze funding for Duke, Harvard, Princeton, and Yale, later reversing the freeze for Duke, Harvard and Yale. Princeton was almost back to being approved.

DOJ's launch of alleged discrimination in medical school admissions against 15 institutions is another example of the persistent attacks of Trump officials on science and health-related programs. DOJ concluded that University of California Davis Med offered preferential admission based on race and faulted University of California San Diego for using "hardship" as a criterion for admission. Perhaps a Medical School boom will broaden access so that, regardless of attacks on existing institutions,  there will be enough programs to prepare the number of health professionals required to respond to an aging population in the U.S. House Republics continued the pressure by requiring UCLA, UC San Franciso, and University of Illinois Med Schools to testify in a hearing investigating racial bias in admissions. The question remains, what evidence does DOJ have and what's the goal?

Duke University's Law School was the first found to have discriminated in admissions by DOJ. There will surely be others to follow considering the enthusiasm of DOJ to reinforce Trump's attacks on higher education. William & Mary in Virginia emerged as the next target for accusations of discrimination in admissions.

NSF isn't the only granting agency being transformed by Trump, as demonstrated by his moving some research away from academia. The Office of Management and Budgets (OMB) posted new rules for comment that modify all federal grant process, including placing Trump's cronies in senior decision making roles, capping indirect costs, and prohibiting diversity and (in Trump's words) "Green scam" research. A judge deemed the termination of grants that "no longer effectuate agency priorities" as an inadequate rationale. Health & Human Services, now serving as a reviewer for NIH funding, is sometimes asking for substantive changes in renewals or new research focus. The changes in final decision-making authority at NIH will result in complete control of communication of scientific findings by political appointees, warned two former employees of NIH. Higher education and public health associations warned that the political take-over of research would replace peer review of scientific inquiries with partisan control.

After losing in court for denying grant funding by the National Endowment of the Humanities, Trump officials came back to ask if institutions still wanted their grants.  Where were the apologies for the institutional harm caused be capricious and destructive actions on the behalf of the government?

Education is a hallmark of U.S. influence in the world. Trump's desire, and Secretary McMahon's steps to diminish and/or close the Education Department, highlight a fundamental difference in purposes. McMahon was confronted by Democrats and defended by Republicans over interagency agreements, graduate student loan caps, and threats to TRIO. The early days of Trump #2 slashed $1.3 Billion from the Education Department contracts and $504 Billion in grants, some of which was under the DOGE initiative. Trump and his appointees believe that education should focus on workforce preparation, and specifically work that pays well.

The interagency agreements shifting responsibilities from the Education Department to other governmental entities continue to be activated. In the example of civil rights investigations, DOJ will take the responsibility for investigating complaints and the Education Department is presumed to make the final determination of the governmental response. At the same time, Education scrapped statistical analyses in favor of overt and intentional discrimination, leaving more room for subjective determination in civil rights cases. Critics fear that the changes disenfranchise those with complaints that are not supported by the Trump administration. Democrats subsequently undertook efforts to impeach McMahon for violation of her oath of office and the transfer of responsibilities in the interagency agreements. While the attacks continued to emerge, some Republicans moved to support specific offices that they viewed as worthy of retention. Trump officials are also being sued for his April directive halting DEI-contractors in federal programs. Regardless of push-back and wins in many suits against the Education Department, another round of regulations is soon to emerge.

The Trump bulldozer continued in mid-summer 2026. Plans are underway to remove the Education Department from its current location in the LBJ building. Simultaneous to the move, House Republicans proposed legislation to dismantle Education.

The debate between education for the public good versus private gain defines the fundamental dichotomy, one that does not have to be mutually exclusive but has been a schism since colonial days. The persistence of this identity crisis undermines the historic commitment of the U.S. Constitution - "And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor." This statement is foundational to higher education's commitment to both individuals and each other. The AAC&U published a report on how colleges can regain credibility among students, families, and other stakeholders. The recommendation is to "confront 'difficult questions' about how higher ed can fulfill its mission and prioritize community engagement.

Higher education leaders face a no-win dilemma when under direct attack or when policy changes require fundamental changes. Institutions that acquiesced to Trump's targeting may have eased the immediate pain but the extortion they endured ultimately undermines institutional autonomy. Attendees at the meeting of the National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) were told to be careful to respond to only directives that are real versus those that are more about rhetoric. Even though warned not to appear by his attorneys, Harvard's President spoke to Washington's Economic Club of the risks of institutions caving to Trump administration demands. Northwestern's capitulation after former President Schill's deference in Congressional testimony and subsequent punishment of Professor Thrasher is particularly egregious.

With the broader higher education sector under attack, student affairs could easily get lost in the shuffle of the politics of big decisions. The Student Affairs NOW Leading through the Storm: Capacity and Clarity to Lead through Complexity addresses the different sources of turmoil and recommends how student affairs leaders can bridge with academic colleagues by building a shared curricular approach to the shared work of student learning. An amazing example of micro-management, Trump officials declared that affinity housing, sometimes used by student affairs to support special populations or intensify residential learning, violated the Fair Housing Act. The level of micro-intervention is daunting but Cameron Beatty argues that perspective and a commitment to persist is essential to maintaining sanity for those who value equity and justice.

Peter Lake, higher education legal scholar, has a wait and see perspective on Trump's "One Big Beautiful Act." While it isn't clear how all the proposed policy changes will impact students and institutions, Lake suggests that after the "Edupocalypse" higher education may emerge as a more ambitious and advanced sector.

Part of the problem is that U.S. higher education was built on the assumption of scarcity. This scarcity philosophy has driven competition for admission, escalated costs, and undermined public perceptions of higher education in general. The predicament is self-inflicted and the only way out is to adopt a new philosophy - abundance of resources based on sharing knowledge and working together to advance the public good. Noah Pickus of Duke University is pushing for greater collaboration, sharing of innovation success and failure. and learning how to transform the higher education sector through his writing and the creation of the Future Universities Alliance.

The U.S. was built on supporting a talented citizenry, collected from throughout the globe, and benefitting from education and opportunity. These very foundations are being dismantled to weaken the resistance to Trump's either ignorant or purposeful vision of a declining America.

Future-proofing graduates

Contemplating what higher education must do to prepare graduates for the workforces and communities of the future can take us down many pathways. The question is, how can consensus be built that will draw faculty and staff together in a concerted effort to actually do something that will be effective.

Using AI to generate ideas about where higher education should focus resulted in four areas:

• Metacognitive agility - The ability to "learn how to learn" and the humility to remain a "rookie" as tools evolve every few months.
• Ethical discernment - AI can provide options, but it lacks a moral compass. The ability to weigh the societal and human consequences of a decision is a premium trait.
• Empathic leadership - Managing teams in an era of uncertainty requires high emotional intelligence (EQ) to maintain morale and navigate complex human conflicts.
• Systems thinking - The capacity to connect dots across disparate disciplines (e.g., law, tech and sociology) to solve "wicked" problems that AI sees only in fragments.

These are verbatim from Gemini 3 Thinking - because I couldn't find ways to improve them. The question is if higher education has the ability to shift to such encompassing and critical areas when many in the academy are metaphorically focused on how many angels can dance on the tip of a pin. Higher education's work goes beyond knowledge production to negotiating with others about how that knowledge is to be used. Restoring trust in higher education is an important priority and visions of the future; the AAUP statement provides a pathway which faculty may be willing to support.

Beyond discussions and statements about what today's students need to learn in order to thrive in the present and future, it's important to look at the choices students make about how they will engage and with whom. It may have been written in 2009 but Alexander Astin's Four Critical Years was way ahead of the thinking of most educators; his research indicated that the most important factor in student learning was peer influence. Assuming that this is still true in an age of technology and growing isolation, addressing students' choices in the use of their time is essential. Unfortunately, Professor Neil Gross' insights about how contemporary students are hunkering down in their own silos has to be addressed. Gross argues that polarization is dividing students and, although they are creating the dynamic, "colleges aren't doing enough to counteract their ideological self-isolation."

It's fascinating that Pope Leo XIV is the most prominent international leader to make a definitive statement about how to respond to the emergence of AI. His "Magnifica Humanitas" advocates "Without careful attention, an educational system lacking in a love for truth may emerge, in which an incessant flow of information replaces the essential exercise of research, reflection and discernment. As knowledge becomes increasingly fragmented, it becomes difficult to grasp reality as a whole, to ask profound questions about meaning, or to develop authentic, critical and creative thought."

Beyond AI, the job market for recent graduates is not good but it's not as bad as the "Great Recession" of 2007-08. Regardless of the challenges, "... most recent labor market data shows that a college degree remains 'an investment that pays off over the full career, not just those first couple of years [after college].'" The advanced intellectual skills acquired in college "are going to be critical to an environment where technological change is advancing at the pace that AI seems to be."

While current students and recent graduates fret over job prospects, they should take heart by looking further into the future and predictions that there will be a growing labor shortage resulting in as high as a 6 million person gap by 2032. Young men are noticeably more skeptical about the benefit of pursuing a college degree which is a huge risk for them and employers of the future. Ten community colleges joined the "Unlocking Opportunity Project" designed to steer students toward high-value programs by 27% which also resulted in a 25% decrease in low-value program enrollment.

Displacement of current workers sends a clear message to students, policy makers and other stakeholders. As a result, current students are already rethinking their majors in the light of AI's emergence. Four out of ten students are anxious about how AI will impact their job prospects. As entry-level jobs lag, 43% of students are considering graduate school, 58% are looking to entrepreneurship opportunities. Some graduates are accepting jobs they intend to leave as soon as possible. Graduates' concerns about having AI skills for future workplaces is exacerbated by no clear indication of what that involves. Some institutions are turning to partnerships with local businesses to discern and offer programs that address future AI skills. Institutions like the University of Virginia and State University of New York are focusing on AI literacy and action to respond to students' anxiety and other institutions were embedding AI competencies into courses and majors by Fall of 2026. A faculty & staff committee at MIT advised that AI was fundamentally changing the learning experience, complicating the measurement of student achievement and resulting in greater social isolation. To demonstrate how important the AI question is, the New York Times reported that Anthropic planned to postpone release of its newest model (Mythos) because the prototype was too good at finding software weaknesses. Even as the AI-influenced employment landscape unfolds, graduates are relatively optimistic about their futures, seeing value in their degrees and 79% believing that it is "not too likely" or "not at all likely" to result in loss of their jobs.

Otto Scharmer, futurist and visionary, predicts that "We may be entering a new axial age." He says that the first axial age occurred when humans moved from hunter-gatherers to communities of increasing complexity and advancing technologies. Today's "polycrisis of climate chaos, mass migration, increasing warfare and transformative AI represents a rupture of comparable magnitude. The crisis of depleted social soil of the planet will require the recreation of educational and media ecosystems, democratic structures, and economic systems. Changes this fundamental will not take place quickly but will emerge gradually in the cracks of existing institutions. In this scenario, the future-proofed graduate will live in a world where disruption is normalized and welcomed as the process of recreation unfolds.

Attention to how AI will change workplaces and opportunities needs to be balanced with a people-first commitment, one that focuses on developing different capabilities and capacities. Factors like metacognitive ability, ethical discernment, empathic leadership, and systems thinking can serve as a rallying point for educators if they come together in an effort to preserve our humanity and connections with each other. Advocates say that the major return on investment of humanities education is cultivating these characteristics and the bottom line is that higher education is human, by contrast to AI. The most recent Student Voice survey reinforces the importance of students' believing that they matter and reinforcing the journey of discovering purpose as central to students' seeing college attendance as important. Mattering, whether for students or scholars, can be drained out of learning as AI gains prominence as an information seeking and sorting method. However, AI does not have, nor is it likely to be able to replace, human intuition in the discovery and dissemination of knowledge. The Dean at the University of Texas Law School implored colleagues to hold to Socratic methods in teaching "to ensure students are not distracted or reliant upon their screens while engaging in dialogue in class."

Adam Becker, in More of Everything, predicts that higher education could become increasingly enmeshed with AI companies and oligarchs. To avoid this Becker suggests that higher education must define itself as a counterweight to AI. Specifically, higher education cultivates learning that goes beyond technical capability. Broader education matters because in cultivates "the ability to think critically. This includes being able to understand AI, as those who do will be better positioned to shape how it's used ethically and responsibly." As the AI revolution continues to unfold, some caution against efforts to shut it down, those committed to cultivate written skills say that judgement and attention to one's audience must be preserved, and the full taxonomy of dangers offered by some are alarmist.

Collage AI hired a former Berklee School of Music on-line innovator, Carin Nuemberg, as head of academic strategy and partnerships to foster collaboration with faculty using AI. She was drawn to AI because it reminded her of the skepticism that was pervasive as on-line education emerged. Her vision is to create a space where faculty and students can "question, experiment, iterate and improve" the use of AI. As an example of changing perspectives, Scott Latham turned within a year from opposition to encouraging colleges and universities to prepare for the growing impact of AI.

As higher education becomes more resigned to the destiny that AI will create, it isn't only the classroom that will feel the impact. Formulation of institutional communications is a trend being led by Duke and Washington Universities. The article introducing the trend said that use of AI can help "people determine clear goals, identify appropriate audiences and define key messages, using a tone and language that will resonate" with stakeholders.

The President of Wai Kee Kau University predicts that AI will transform higher education in positive ways. It can make providing feedback to students on assignments easier, allowing faculty to focus on more critical responsibilities. The impact on students is that, with AI assistance, they can move from content mastery to navigation and application of knowledge. These benefits come with a shift in responsibility for learning - it is both students and faculty who should engage and shape learning.

Administrative hierarchy, disciplinary provincialism, and obsession with individual and organizational competitive superiority are the hurdles that educators face. After 50+ years as a participant in organizations infested with these dynamics and now a continuing observer, I can't state more emphatically how important it is to get serious about breaking down these barriers and joining together in serving students by striving to future-proof them for the changing world we inhabit.

War in the Middle East

After watching the attack by Israel and the U.S. on Iran and the resulting war enveloping the entire Middle East, one has to wonder where all of this will lead. Safe havens in the Arabian Gulf for the wealthy who could build more wealth by not having to pay taxes are suddenly the targets of missiles and drones.  Travelers and expatriate workers are looking for a way out but airports close and open depending on the apparent threat of Iranian or friendly fire risks.

Before considering the current dilemma faced by countries in the Gulf region, it's important to have background about the role each has played. Specifically, Qatar has been the global center for diplomacy for some time and especially leading up to the summer of 2025. This role was carefully crafted for geographic, economic, and political purposes. Some have seen Qatar as playing all sides from the middle but, instead, it should be seen as attempting to bring resolution to regional conflicts. The March 2026 Iranian attack on natural gas production in Qatar as well as the disruption of everyday life makes it obvious that Qatar is paying a huge price. Qatar's Prime Minister stated the obvious after Israel's first attack in September - no one benefits from the aggression other than Israel.

U.S. universities who offer programs or branch campuses in the UAE and Qatar moved to virtual learning. Administrators at home and at the branches sites are scrambling to protect, sometimes reassure, and to help those who want a way out. Threats over missiles striking Education City on Saturday, March 14, required evacuation of students from residence halls. QF President for Education Francisco Marmolejo announced, "All the universities have been providing the flexibility for people who decide to leave the country on a temporary basis, with the assumption, of course, that they will come back when the situation becomes more normal." After attacks on its higher education institutions, Iran vowed to retaliate with attacks on U.S. universities that have branches in the Middle East. Iran's threats resulted in NYU Abu Dhabi "closing indefinitely" and Qatar's U.S. branches at Education City remaining remote-only. Lebanon University was attacked by Israel resulting in the death of two professors. Attacking Lebanon is part of Israel's assault on the Iranian proxy Hezbollah.

It's hard to predict the long-term consequences for international partnerships in education. Declining interest in partnering is likely but established centers such as Qatar's Education City will hopefully remain as beacons of knowledge diplomacy. International higher education researcher Jason Lane predicted that the current rupture in education partnerships will make them harder to sustain and result in wariness about the future.

The ripple effect of rising energy costs is something that the US and Israel evidently did not consider. As Iran blocks shipping through the Straits of Hormuz, campuses in Bangladesh and Pakistan are restricting energy use which is forcing them to move classes online.

As the damage in lives lost, property destroyed, reputations tarnished, and dashed hope rises, it is hard to figure out what the motivation(s) were to attack. Pronouncements by President Trump and military staff conflict, causing questions or disbelief that any of what is being said is honest. As opposition to the attacks by the U.S. and Israel on Iran continued to unfold, GOP House leaders pushed the narrative that U.S. higher education is systemically antisemitic. This view is central to controlling criticism of Israel and Trump administration complicity. Was there a threat that Iran was ready to attack or is this simply a very costly distraction from the reality of failed governance, desperation for respect, and striving to accumulate more wealth? As the story unfolds, I will add more commentary by linking to others' analysis.

One of the saddest implications of the combination of the Gaza v. Israel war and the U.S./Israel attack on Iran is the declining support for Israel seen in multiple countries around the world. Rather than drawing sympathy as a victim, Israel is now seen by some as a punitive aggressor and the Israeli government increasingly conflated with Zionism. The apparent rise of anti-Semitism is bringing increased investment and participation to Jewish Studies programs. 

Public reaction to the University of Michigan's commencement speaker brought condemnation and praise for comments viewed as pro-Palestinian. Derek Peterson defended himself when publicly criticized by University President Grasso by saying, "We're not a school made up of people who are wilting flowers and pearl clutchers who are offended at the slightest provocation." To not speak publicly about contemporary issues is to forfeit the duty of a public institution. John Wilson of Inside Higher Education defended Peterson and other potential commencement speakers, saying, "...universities committed to intellectual liberty do not impose safe spaces where ideas are banned. The commencement ceremony represents what is best about a college and its commitment to knowledge, and that includes the freedom of speakers to express themselves and challenge the audience." Reflecting the flip side of speaker cancellation, former President Shapiro of Northwestern University withdrew as Georgetown's commencement speaker when students protested what they saw as pro-Zionist views. The number of campuses experiencing controversy over commencement speakers may relate to students seeing these celebrations as uniquely reflective of who they are. In other cases it's the faculty who object but with academic freedom centered in their dissent.

The Brookings Institute summary provides both background and proposes scenarios of where the war on Iran is headed. What is clear is that regime change is unlikely and that the best outcome is some sort of "deal" that allows Trump to save face but leaves Iran to its own devices to maintain or modify its governmental rule.

Dangers of transactionalism

In the current national environment, one based substantially if not completely on a transactional way of relating to the public, opposition, and former international partnerships, higher education has to hold the ground of individual, collective, and public transformation.

Kathy Johnson Bowles Inside Higher Education article warns that "The corporatization of education attracts people in direct opposition to many in the sector who believe education serves the public good. Education in the service of the public good isn't always for tangible, monetary effect. It is a pathway for self-actualization, knowledge development, independent thought and agency. It provides tools for communicating, problem-solving and betterment. Students are seen as individuals with innate value and potential for success, defined by their capacity, strengths and beliefs. Here, education is society's great leveler - egalitarian and democratic."

Bowles' critique includes critical insights that signal transactionality. These include cults of personality, invisible webs of communication, over-reliance on relationships over evidence, and the wielding of power and money. Transactional colleagues and the networks they create "benefit the self and the acquisition of power, prestige and money" yielding the ultimate public good that many have believed education was all about virtually impossible to achieve. In a follow-up, Bowles warned of "avoidant leadership" that soothes rather than deals with the reality of circumstances that call for complex and innovative solutions. In a rather strange revelation, Yale University's President asserted that Yale had contributed to the erosion of public trust. At face value, this perspective looks like a transactional resolution of questions Yale faces, but in simpler terms the accusation was more about access and cost of attending Yale.

Holding on to a goal of something other than a transactional approach is tough. The 2026 survey of university presidents revealed a plethora of challenges that have to be navigated. With the flurry of Trump administration interventions eliminating DEI, restricting research funding, overhauling financial aid, challenging accreditation systems, and more, what's a president to do? The most important commitment is to avoid hunkering down, reducing deliberation, and spinning everything as okay. Facing the challenges of the Trump era requires authenticity, practicality, and keeping the end goal of advancing education central in all discussions.

Who has voice in the academic community is a critical considerations when considering the risks of transactionalism. Academic faculty were accorded academic freedom and protections to allow them to do research and to teach without fear of retaliation if they explore issues that are politically volatile. The academic freedom that faculty possess is often protected by presumed shared governance, which unfortunately may be an idea far too quaint for the complex times in which we now live. In fact, other academic staff are not protected under an academic freedom assumption and face punishment if they step out of line from the accepted narrative.  Educational decision making, data interpretation and reporting, policy advocacy, and research and assessment are all potentially compromised if administrators, academic support and student affairs staff do not have the same protections as faculty.

The transactions around budget are some of the most difficult to resolve and it's clear that pressure on state funding will increase. The unfortunate part is that states are managing many competing priorities and in some cases higher education may be seen as a discretionary item that can be postponed.