The day after November 3, 2026 - What happens now?

The mid-term election of November 3, 2026, ended up being consequential beyond the predictions. Trump declared that if Republicans lost control of the Legislative branch, the U.S. would descend into chaos. However, with the rebuke of Trump amounting to a landslide, Trump claimed he would work with the new Democratic majorities in both the Senate and House of Representatives. Trump also used a visit to the construction site of his Whitehouse Ballroom to distract from the reality that his being "on the ballot" was substantially the cause of historic losses for the GOP. With distraction as his first step after November 3, it's a good guess that this will continue to be his MO in the coming months. Trump doubled down in demanding unwavering loyalty of those surrounding him by replacing Susie Wiles with Stephen Miller. Some are predicting that increasing insulation from contrary opinions and anger over the 2026 mid-term elections will result in an even more divisive completion of Trump's term of office.

Reports that Trump elevated Miller to "crack skulls" are alarming. Miller is known as a pit bull, an "alpha," or many other characterization, confirming that the potential of any move to reconcile differences with the new Democratic majority in both houses is remote, if not completely out of the question. While I favored backing off threats to Trump and those surrounding him on November 4, it appears that every possible force of law will be required over the next 2 years.

While legislators scramble to respond to Trump's and Miller's barrage of "crazy, the big question is if Washington and state-level politicians will work to serve American citizens by addressing affordability rather than pursuing a new reverse retribution campaign. Important to education, Democrats pledge to renew the commitment to Education which relies on recapturing the House Education Committee and challenging the Secretary's policy actions that are in play. Positive outcomes of the shift away from Trump and the MAGA movement include such things as a surge in international students' interest in studying in the US and the potential to restore tuition discounting for undocumented students.

The stakes for higher education were more significant than past ballots. They included everything from state-level allocations for buildings to  research funding and transgender athletes. At the national level, control of Congress can now reverse the current national environment. The impact for faculty has already emerged in self-censorship and raised concerns about authenticity of colleagues and students' scholarship.

Many educators have a renewed hope that trust can be restored as higher education leans into its core purposes rather than having to defend against constant attacks. As the vanguard for entrenched conservativism, Texas may end up being an example of how to reshape governing boards and overcome public skepticism fostered by partisan influencers. The blue tsunami was substantially driven by young voters, many from diverse experiential and cultural backgrounds with the economy and job opportunity their top priority. Prioritizing education, bringing back responsible leadership and restoring the structure and professionalism of the Department of Education, could bring a renewed commitment that will transform many institutions and the broader higher education industry.

The Brookings Institute What Comes Next: the Consequences of the 2026 midterm elections webinar (includes the "Watch online" link) on November 9 at 2:00 p.m. EST may be of use to the ongoing management of response to the elections. Brookings is non-partisan and provides a big picture view that will likely ripple through campuses. Brief summary points include:

• Up and down the ballot outcomes were the greatest Presidential repudiation the U.S. has experienced since Watergate.
• Democrats elected to office reflect a breadth of perspectives from democratic socialists to a new center left cohort, composing the largest left of center majority in decades. The newly elected include a new Christian center, with higher levels of academic achievement, and more of middle class backgrounds.
• 2026 was a referendum based on dissatisfaction with GOP policies rather than a realignment of political parties. Tech-skepticism, anti-elitism, and broad benefit to all citizens were central.
• While not many will be required, it's uncertain how many elected GOP politicians will cross party lines to achieve real legislative outcomes. State-level changes are more likely than federal.
• An agreement to immigration policy change that Trump will be willing to sign is unlikely. Stephen Miller's role in policy determination will be key.
• There is hope that the norms of political engagement will be addressed through legislation to check Executive orders.
• If GOP politicians are to reach across the isle, accountability initiatives to hold Trump, his appointees, and family will need to be reigned in.
• Finding common ground on data centers and health care access are the most promising possibilities.
• The impact of billionaires (particularly Musk), super PACs, and dark money was negligible in the 2026 mid-terms; both left and right politicians may come together to dismantle the influence of oligarchs.
• Lamb-duck legislative progress will be minimal over the next 3 months.

The Brookings panel did not address issues directly related to education but the bottom line is that these are the trends that may be prominent as the U.S. moves out of Trump-dominated era. Regardless of where educators are on the political spectrum, engaging in respectful and constructive ways post the mid-term elections is essential. Nancy L. Thomas, executive director of the American Association of Colleges & Universities' Institute for Democracy and Higher Education, advised on the behalf of AACU "The Morning After: Managing the Day(s) and Week(s) After Election Day":

• Prepare to facilitate difficult conversations - Encourage candor and anticipate conflict.
• Decide in advance whether and how you will disclose your personal views - Assure students that their perspectives will receive a fair hearing and without retaliatory consequences.
• Challenge disinformation - Push students to examine evidence, question unsupported assertions and take responsibility for fact-checking.
• Prepare for uncertain outcomes - Remind students that election results may be incomplete or contested and help them distinguish between verified information, uncertainty and speculation.

The 2026 mid-term election results set the stage for leaders in higher education to mobilize reason and renewal. This is a golden opportunity to improve the way institutions function and how they are perceived. However, these complicated times call for leadership that engages in mutual problem-solving that honors the expertise of faculty and staff who have the "on the ground" understanding of students and other constituents. Gillian Hayes declares that "standard leadership advice fails with experts," which misses the point that shared leadership has emerged in some institutions and is replacing the old models of leading that often resulted in patronizing, fake praise, and platitudes.

In an ideal world where free inquiry and expression are protected, the morning and days after will be active and it will be rife with opportunity to learn. We are experiencing extreme partisanship with frightening examples of falsehood and recrimination. Higher education is the ideal place to sort out how we got her and how we move on as a country that honors discourse and safeguards democratic practices and institutions.

Mattering for students, faculty, & staff

Back to the early 1980s, the concept of "mattering" was introduced by Nancy Schlossberg while she served on the faculty at the University of Maryland. Nancy was prolific in her writing and influenced higher education and adult development.

A new version of mattering is ascribed by Jennifer Breheny Wallace in Mattering: The Secret to a Life of Deep Connection and Purpose. She says:

What I've learned in my research is that most people don't disengage because they're lazy. They disengage when they stop believing that they - or their efforts - matter. Pulling back becomes a form of self-protection, a coping strategy. Think of it this way - it hurts less to withdraw your effort than to keep giving your energy to a place that makes you feel invisible.

But I've also seen workplaces that lean into building cultures of mattering - educators, tech entrepreneurs, finance executives and more. Different industries, different kinds of pressure. But these organizations had arrived at the same fundamental truth: When employees know they are valued, they work harder, stay loyal and bring more energy to their work.

I haven't read Wallace's book but her commentary in promoting the book appears to be more focused on employee engagement rather than young or older adult development. I hope that she cited Schlossberg somewhere in her new book.

The concept of mattering is applicable across environments from business, community development, education, and beyond. Having used the concept numerous times throughout my career and first incorporating it in my writing in 1989 (Designing Campus Activities to Foster a Sense of Community, Roberts (ed), I've idealized mattering as a broad community or cultural context. Doing so advocated that somehow entire organizations, with all their complexities and growing diversity, could somehow achieve a state where everyone felt valued and affirmed.

Now I find myself thinking of the path to making those around me believe they matter as more about cultivating refugium in groups where I live and work. A refugium (plural = refugia) comes from population biology is an environment that is resilient in supporting a threatened group - one few in number or threatened in some other way. This concept is important because, while there may be an effort to create settings that welcome all, attention to those who are in a minority or are threatened requires special attention. It's not just about making a place welcoming and inclusive, it's protecting those who are somehow left behind in the idealistic embrace of community.

A perfect example of "refugium" is a refurbished Columbia University residence hall. The "new residence hall offers a sense of comfort and familiarity... for students who have taken similarly unconventional paths to college." The "unconventional paths" include veterans of military service, a very different demographic that is unrecognized by most educators. The challenge in offering refugium or places of support is that students are sometimes reluctant to acknowledge their challenges, which leads to uneven access. AI has become a source of support and advice for some students, which has numerous shortcomings. However, students who turn to AI say that "Turning to a human is scary, its' vulnerable, and you're afraid of their judgment and emotional reactivity... so it makes a lot of sense for young people to search for a place where those big emotions have a safe place to land."

A 2026 survey across 1,007 students found that students get the most out of college in personal development, networks, belonging, and career preparation - in this order. The results of the survey vary across a number of demographics, which calls to educators' attention that supporting students and helping them fulfill their purposes in college is different and sometimes requires very different approaches. One of the simplest findings of research is that spending time with peers is one of the most important variables contributing to student flourishing.

Young men's participation in higher education has been in decline and many are alarmed at their absence on campus. Central to their willingness to pursue higher education and engage when they are on campus is their sense of being marginalized. Educators convened a conference to explore what can be done and concluded that young men need places to belong and need formal and informal mentor opportunities. One panelist suggested that fraternities could help, which probably drew applause from some in the audience. I would not be one who would endorse the idea since the benefits of fraternal organizations is often overshadowed by their negative social and behavioral complications.

An article by Erec Smith for Inside Higher Education proposed that decline in a sense of mattering has been exacerbated by partisanship and violence. Using the specific incidence of Charlie Kirk's shooting, Smith opined ",,, if our response to political violence consists only of condemning murder and teaching rhetorical skills, we leave a deeper problem untouched. When dialogue fails, the answer is not simply better speech - it is the creation of a civil society in which speech offers people a genuine sense of mattering.

The Trump administration rabidly pursued closing down anything related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). These initiatives were designed to make all students feel that they matter, thus increasing enrollment and retention. The law suit brought against Trump by the National Association of Diversity Officers and others was denied. Plaintiffs said that the Federal Judge's decision, while not entirely supportive of their claim, clarified parameters of Trump's executive order.

Schlossberg and Wallace's advocacy for focusing on mattering is important, and, we need to carefully examine how to engage those who are at the margins. Refugium have resulted in miraculous restoration and healing in nature and perhaps a similar miracle can happen in students' experiences.

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.

Documenting the crack-down on academic freedom, Scholars at Risk (SAR) reported a 50% decline in U.S. institutional autonomy from 2015 to 2025 in its latest Free to Think report. This decline is greater than countries such as Hungary and Turkey that are noted for their descent into autocracy. The debate about campus speech and who has the right to define what can be expressed began in earnest 2 years ago as the second Trump administration went into action. The American Civil Liberties identified the pro-Palestinian demonstrations of 2024 as the stimulus to what has now become Education Secretary McMahon's "Call to Action" in 2026 against "unruly and violent protestors." Many protests were characterized as fostering anti-Semitism, an approach that conflated government policies of Israel with treatment of Jewish citizens in the U.S. Institutional policies are being revisited from the 2024 student protests - some tightening time and place restrictions and others loosening them. Revisiting these policies is particular important in the face of evidence that so called "civil discourse and viewpoint diversity" policies are "part of a conservative and pro-Israel agenda - not a nonpartisan campaign." Students perceive their rights are threatened with only 37% saying they believe free speech is secure.

The silver lining in the challenges to open expression on campus is that some institutions are responding with broad initiatives that foster civility. Auburn University received a $22 million to establish an Institute for Civic Leadership named after the Georgia governor who championed the idea. The Institute will "prepare students for 'lives of character, informed citizenship and responsible leadership." Of course, who defines these important qualities and devises methods to cultivate them will be pivotal.

Looking back at the pattern, it is clear that Trump administration officials attacking pro-Palestinian demonstrations, then unequivocally supporting Israel's destruction of Gaza, set up a narrative of pro-Palestinian support being anti-Semitic. The world has now realized that the Israeli government, not Jewish people, sought the goal that student protestors saw from the start - genocide. The same strategy of claiming anti-Semitism among countries striving to end the war against Iran is resulting in incalculable harm throughout the Arabian Gulf. Isn't it interesting that student activists were the first to recognize what was happening?

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. A survey of senior administrators reflected a significant level of unease as they face the 2026-27 academic year. Provosts, who trend positive, express concern over dwindling resources. Some believe that the impact of Trump's intervention in accreditation will likely be neglible, nor will it contribute to innovation. While the idea of overhauling accreditation processes might have merit, suspicion that has grown from the plethora of Education Department changes than have been antagonistic results in skepticism about anything coming from Trump and his designees. 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, claiming that research collaboration with entities engaged in activities that threaten the U.S. must cease. The notice required an "'immediate and comprehensive' audit of their partnerships" by the end of the month (August, 2026). By late October 2026, DOD identified 81 termination-related practices among the 30 targeted institutions. Presumably a preventive strategies, UNC shut down its partnership with Fudan University in Shanghai. Within a week, Brandeis Professors at Center for Human Rights under Law published a Chicago Tribune Opinion "Is Qatar Encouraging Antisemitism on College Campuses?" claiming that Northwestern University's Education City partnership sought to bias its students against Jews. Granted the Chicago Tribune article is an "Opinion," but it should be recognized as part of the continuing effort to disrupt Qatar's efforts to provide educational opportunity for students in the Middle East and beyond. The claim of inappropriate entanglement with foreign interests is not new and is part of the relay race of attacking higher education under the direction of the Trump administration. After criticizing elite and liberal education institutions, Department of Defense Secretary Hegseth identified five institutions where new cadet corps programs will be offered.

The state of research in higher education is being undermined on multiple fronts. Dispersal of NSF funding is over $1 billion behind. Regardless of ineptitude across current agency administrations, Trump seeks control over the granting of more funds. An Oval Office conference with OMB and NIH targeted NIH for "research projects that didn't align with the president's priorities, even though the agency has already cut multiple grants that support research in diverse communities, women's health and transgender issues." In some cases, the courts are serving as a barrier, and in the case of Education Department denials for "divisive ideologies," a Federal Judge ruled that funding had to be restored. The proposal to grant the Education Department greater authority in denying or canceling grants has drawn broad condemnation.

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. Serving as the primary and perpetual target, Harvard has fought back vigorously. 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. 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.

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, some institutions have met new heights of enrollment but results 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." Part of advocating different models of higher learning, McMahon identified Arizona State University as exemplary and Vanderbilt for avoiding ideological bias in learning. What's interesting is that McMahon cherry-picking to reinforce her bias declines to acknowledge ASU's inclusion and global engagement as core to its public mission.

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. Citing the limited understanding senior leaders often have about their institutions' academic commitments, involving faculty in drafting a response to McMahon is critical.

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." By contrast, the Presidents of the AAUP and AFT countered McMahon's call for essential reforms of higher education saying, "Having used federal power to punish and attempt to punish educational institutions for resisting your political demands, you now call upon colleges and universities to commit to federally prescribed reform. Given that you have not accounted for the Education Departments' departure from law and statutory purpose, this letter is particularly galling."

The Future Universities Alliance convened by Noah Pickus at Duke University brought representatives from 49 institutions from 23 countries to engage in conversations about big changes they had already made and the process of innovation that these institutions were pursuing. The participants were placed in "sandbox pods of four to six institutions" and what they realized through sharing was that the "secret sauce is getting the right people in the room: Those who lean into humility, curiosity and a sense of mission."

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. Trump's "Golden Age" of science fund of $6 billion is fraught with problems because you can't build global talent without explicitly welcoming talent from other countries throughout the world. Denial of loan forgiveness for service to community, currently being challenged by 90,000 public servants, is another fascinating contradiction in Department of Education policy.

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. The new guidelines were to have gone into effect September 15, 2026 but District Judge Saylor blocked it's implementation before it went into effect.

On other restrictive policy directives, Trump returned to increasing the fee for H-1B visas for international employees to $103,265. In the flurry of Trump initiatives that are undermining international student enrollment, institutions can provide help to applicants who are denied F-1 study visas but any aid should avoid going beyond normal advising. Trump proposals to change rules for curricular practical training (CPT) is being challenged by higher education groups with the lawsuit based on unlawful restriction. Nine institutions are under investigation for J-1 visa violations, a provision that allows non-U.S. citizens to teach, lecture, or conduct research.

Trump initially proposed that international students seeking optional practical training (OPT) would be charged $70K each, another hurdle for continued education and training. This and other policy changes for international students contradicts the "growing body of research into the impacts of highly skilled immigration on the American economy" which "shows that international workers like those using optional practical training tend to spark innovation, build businesses and create jobs." If the increased $100,000 fee for each OPT goes into effect, talent and innovation will suffer.

Trump rescinded $810 million in funds to support migrant students and international programs. These cuts could highly impact the availability of language development programs on campus. In addition, attacks on faculty resulted in a precipitous drop in internationals seeking research opportunities in U.S. institutions. One can only guess how these directives are impacting the decline in recognition of U.S. institutions in international rankings.

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. Seeking to undermine any college that seeks to promote equality, Trump threatened to remove tax exempt status for institutions for providing assistance to students based on a criteria of being underserved. It is difficulty to determine if retrenchment in programs that support diverse enrollment goes far enough to demonstrate compliance. In the case of the University of Texas, faculty fear that modification of programs may not be sufficient and that the ultimate outcome may be elimination altogether. 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." Required compliance without legislative action is lawless extortion in the Trump "act before they catch me" strategy.

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, faulted University of California San Diego for using "hardship" as a criterion for admission, and found George Washington University's Med School guilty of racial discrimination. 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. UCSF was later accused by DOJ for discriminating against White and Asian applicants. The OSU School of Medicine became the 10th institution that DOJ claimed discriminated in admissions. The question remains, what evidence does DOJ have and what's the goal?

UC Berkley's law school and Duke's medical school were later accused by DOJ and HHS of discrimination against Asian and white applicants. UCLA's Law School was later added to the DOJ list as discriminating in admission. There will surely be others to follow considering the enthusiasm of DOJ to reinforce Trump's attacks on higher education. William & Mary in Virginia joined the targeted institutions accused 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. While the Director claims a commitment to restore trust in NIH, skeptics are waiting for the proof in action. Funds earmarked for biomedical research being diverted to the Department of Defense is another example of the systematic destruction of science and health research,

Graduate students in the sciences have been hit hard by restraints on research funding. Coupled with growing discontent with what higher education careers offer, graduate students are question the effort and expense of pursuing graduate education. Is the "sacrifice now, security never, values optional" contract available in many institutions one they want to buy?

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. Lawyers suing the Education Department on the behalf of dismissed staff have been denied access to over 900 records as they sought evidence for plaintiffs. 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. Cornell University faculty added their perspective to recommendations previously offered by Vanderbilt and Yale on what can be done to weather the storm and prepare for future challenges. Cornell's making the cultivation of "judgement" central is one of its most compelling recommendations.

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. Continuing to push the narrative of hostility against Jewish students, the House of Representatives passed legislation that will block federal aid for any college that boycotts Israel and added fuel to the fire by accusing the American Psychological Association of fostering antisemitism.

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.