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.