Trump Sends West Virginia National Guard to D.C. Without Consulting Mayor Bowser

President Donald Trump has doubled down on his federal intervention in Washington, D.C., calling in reinforcements from West Virginia’s National Guard. The decision, announced August 16, marks an intensification of Trump’s so-called “Making D.C. Safe and Beautiful” campaign, a project already criticized for its political theater and disregard for local autonomy.

The deployment—300 to 400 West Virginia Guard troops—comes just days after Trump invoked Section 740 of the Home Rule Act to seize temporary control of the District’s police. This was the first time any president has used that provision. Combined with D.C.’s own Guard, the new arrivals bring the total number of federally-controlled troops patrolling the capital to more than 800.

The move was made without the consent of D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser, who has called the intervention “unsettling and unprecedented.” Attorney General Brian Schwalb has already filed suit to block Trump’s attempt to install a federally appointed “emergency police commissioner.” Both argue the administration has violated the spirit, if not the letter, of Home Rule.

---

A Manufactured Emergency—And a Convenient Distraction

The federal escalation follows the sensationalized “Big Balls” assault—an incident Trump quickly used to justify invoking sweeping emergency powers. As Higher Education Inquirer previously reported, Trump has leaned heavily on this case to stir fear and project strength, despite the fact that violent crime in D.C. is currently at a 30-year low.

But there’s another layer: the timing. Trump’s deployment of out-of-state Guard troops comes as media scrutiny of the Epstein case intensifies, including renewed focus on how elite institutions enabled and benefited from Epstein’s money. Harvard, MIT, and other universities took his donations, gave him influence, and in some cases provided a veneer of legitimacy to a man whose connections to Trump and other powerful figures remain politically toxic.

The “crime emergency” narrative serves not only as a pretext for overriding D.C.’s fragile autonomy—it also provides the administration with a diversionary spectacle, drowning out scandals that link Trump to Epstein and, by extension, to the culture of impunity within higher education and elite philanthropy.

---

Projection of Strength at Home, Weakness Abroad

Trump’s militarized display in the capital also serves as a contrast to his failure with Vladimir Putin over Alaska’s northern shipping lanes. As climate change opens new Arctic passages, Russia has aggressively asserted control. Trump’s administration has made bold promises to defend U.S. interests, but negotiations with Putin have yielded little. Instead, Russia continues to expand its military and commercial footprint while the U.S. presence stagnates.

Unable to project strength against Putin in the Arctic, Trump has turned to the symbolic occupation of Washington, D.C., where he can choreograph troops and police on American streets. It is authoritarian theater at home to mask diplomatic impotence abroad.

---

State Militias in the Capital

West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey framed the troop deployment as an act of patriotism, fulfilling a request from the Trump White House. But for many in D.C., the symbolism is chilling: a president calling on a neighboring state’s militia to police residents of a city that already lacks voting representation in Congress.

This arrangement underscores the fragility of D.C.’s democratic status. Residents now face not just local disenfranchisement, but the visible presence of outsiders in military fatigues patrolling their neighborhoods—all while national attention is steered away from elite corruption and foreign policy failure.

---

The Bigger Picture

Trump’s willingness to override the District’s autonomy fits neatly into a broader pattern of authoritarian spectacle. The militarized presence on D.C.’s streets may reassure his supporters, but it raises grave questions about precedent. If a president can federalize a city’s police and import out-of-state Guard troops in a moment of historically low crime, what is to stop him from doing so elsewhere?

And just as important: how many of these “emergencies” are staged diversions to shield him from accountability—not only for his political record, but for his ties to Epstein and his inability to stand up to Putin in Alaska?

For HEI, this story is not just about Washington. It is about how crisis politics and higher education’s complicity in elite networks of power intersect to protect the wealthy and connected, while ordinary citizens and students are left with militarized streets, unpayable debts, and shrinking democratic rights.

---

Sources

• Reuters: West Virginia governor to deploy National Guard troops to U.S. capital

• Politico: West Virginia deploys hundreds of National Guard troops to Washington

• Washington Post: D.C. to see more federal troops as Trump pushes to extend emergency

• Time: White House backs off ‘hostile takeover’ of D.C. police after lawsuit

• HEI: Trump Exploits the ‘Big Balls’ Assault

Alaska’s Colleges at the Meltdown’s Edge—Just as the Arctic Heats Up

Alaska’s higher-ed story is a preview of the national “College Meltdown,” only starker. The University of Alaska (UA) system—Anchorage, Fairbanks, and Southeast—has endured a decade of enrollment erosion and austerity politics, punctuated by a 2019 budget crisis that forced regents to declare financial exigency and consider consolidations. The immediate trigger was a proposed $130+ million state cut, later converted into a three-year reduction compact; the long tail is a weakened public research engine in the very state where climate change is moving fastest.

In 2025 the vise tightened again from Washington. UA’s president told regents that more than $50 million in grants had been frozen or canceled under the Trump administration, warning of staff cuts and program impacts if funds failed to materialize. Those freezes were part of a broader chill: federal agencies stepping back from research that even references climate change, just as the Arctic’s transformation accelerates.

This is not an abstract loss. Alaska is the frontline laboratory of global warming: thawing permafrost, vanishing sea ice, collapsing coastal bluffs. UA’s scientists have documented these trends in successive “Alaska’s Changing Environment” assessments; the 2024 update underscores rapid, measurable shifts across temperature, sea ice, wildfire, hydrology, and ecosystems. When the main public research institution loses people and projects, the United States loses the data and know-how it needs to respond.

Climate denial collides with national security

The contradiction at the heart of federal policy is glaring. On one hand, the Trump administration has proposed opening vast swaths of Alaska’s National Petroleum Reserve to drilling and reversing environmental protections—signaling a bet on fossil expansion in a region already warming at double the global rate. On the other hand, the same administration is curtailing climate and Arctic science, even as military planners warn that the Arctic is becoming a contested theater. You can’t secure what you refuse to measure.

The security stakes are real. Russia has spent the past decade refurbishing Soviet-era bases, deploying ice-capable vessels, and leveraging energy projects along the Northern Sea Route (NSR). China has declared itself a “near-Arctic” power and partnered with Moscow on patrols and infrastructure. Meanwhile, the U.S. remains short on icebreakers and Arctic domain awareness—even as traffic through high-latitude passages grows more plausible in low-ice summers. Analysts project that a meaningful share of global shipping could shift north by mid-century, and recent reporting shows the region is already a strategic flashpoint.

That makes UA’s expertise more than a local asset; it’s a pillar of U.S. national security. The University of Alaska Fairbanks hosts the Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (CASR) and degree pathways that fuse climate, emergency management, and security studies—exactly the interdisciplinary skill set defense, Coast Guard, and civil authorities will need as sea lanes open and storms, fires, and thaw-related failures multiply. Undercut these programs, and you undercut America’s ability to see, interpret, and act in the Arctic.

The costs of disinvestment

The 2019 state-level cuts did immediate damage—hiring freezes, program reviews, and fears of accreditation changes—but their larger effect was to signal instability to students, faculty, and funders. Austerity invites a spiral: as programs and personnel disappear, grant competitiveness slips; as labs lose continuity, agencies look elsewhere; as uncertainty grows, students choose out-of-state options. UA leadership has tried to reverse course—prioritizing enrollment, retention, and workforce alignment in recent budgets—but it’s difficult to rebuild a research reputation once the pipeline of projects and people is disrupted.

The 2025 federal freezes amplify that spiral by hitting precisely the projects that matter most: those with “climate” in the title. Researchers report program cancellations and re-scoped solicitations across agencies. That kind of ideological filter doesn’t just reduce funding—it distorts the evidence base that communities, tribal governments, and emergency planners depend on for everything from permafrost-safe housing to coastal relocation plans. It also weakens U.S. credibility in Arctic diplomacy at a time when the Arctic Council is strained and cooperation with Russia is largely stalled.

Why this matters beyond Alaska

Think of UA as America’s northern early-warning system. Its glaciologists, sea-ice modelers, fire scientists, and social scientists collect the longitudinal datasets that turn anecdotes into policy-relevant knowledge. Lose continuity, and you lose the ability to detect regime shifts—abrupt ecosystem changes, cascading infrastructure failures from thaw, new navigation windows that alter shipping economics and risk. Those changes feed directly into maritime safety, domain awareness, and the rules-of-the-road that will govern the NSR and other passages.

Meanwhile, federal moves to expand Arctic drilling create additional operational burdens for emergency response and environmental monitoring—burdens that fall on the same universities being told to do more with less. Opening the door to long-lived oil projects while throttling climate and environmental research is a recipe for higher spill risk, poorer oversight, and costlier disasters.

A pragmatic way forward

Three steps could stabilize UA and, by extension, America’s Arctic posture:

1. Firewall climate science from political interference. Agencies should fund Arctic research on merit, not language policing. Reinstating paused grants and re-issuing climate-related solicitations would immediately restore capacity in labs and field stations.

2. Treat UA as critical national infrastructure. Just as the U.S. is racing to modernize radar and add icebreakers, it should invest in Arctic science and workforce pipelines at UA—scholarships tied to Coast Guard and NOAA service, ship time for sea-ice and fisheries research, and support for Indigenous knowledge partnerships that improve on-the-ground resilience.

3. Align energy decisions with security reality. Every new Arctic extraction project increases environmental and emergency-response exposure in a region where capacity is thin. If policymakers proceed, they owe UA and Alaska communities the monitoring, baseline studies, and response investments that only a healthy public research university can sustain.

The paradox of the College Meltdown is that it hits hardest where public knowledge is most needed. In the Lower 48, that might mean fewer nurses or teachers. In Alaska, it means flying blind in a rapidly changing theater where Russia and China are already maneuvering and where coastlines, sea ice, and permafrost are literally moving under our feet. The University of Alaska is not a nice-to-have. It is how the United States knows what is happening in the Arctic—and how it prepares for what’s next. Weakening it in the name of budget discipline or culture-war messaging is not just shortsighted. It’s a security risk.

---

Sources

• University of Alaska Office of the President, FY2020 budget overview (state veto and reductions).

• University of Alaska Public Affairs timeline (2019 exigency and consolidation actions).

• Alaska Department of Administration, Dunleavy–UA three-year compact (2019).

• Anchorage Daily News, “$50M in grants frozen under Trump administration” (May 28, 2025).

• The Guardian, “Outcry as Trump withdraws support for research that mentions ‘climate’” (Feb. 21, 2025).

• UA/ACCAP, Alaska’s Changing Environment 2.0 (2024 update).

• UAF Center for Arctic Security and Resilience (programs and mission).

• Empower Alaska: UA Arctic expertise overview.

• Wall Street Journal, Russia/China Arctic power projection and U.S. capability gaps (Feb. 2025).

• The Arctic Institute, shipping projections for the Northern Sea Route.

• Arctic Review on Law and Politics, vulnerabilities and governance challenges on the NSR.

• The Guardian, rollback of protections in the National Petroleum Reserve–Alaska (Aug. 2025).

• Alaska Public Media, uneven cuts to Arctic research under Trump (Apr. 2025).

Trump Exploits “Big Balls” Assault: Racialized Fear and Political Diversion

A violent D.C. attack becomes a national spectacle as Trump amplifies fear and racialized stereotypes—despite the fact the only juveniles in custody are a boy and girl from nearby Hyattsville, Maryland.

When Edward “Big Balls” Coristine, former Dogecoin executive, was brutally attacked in Washington, D.C. on August 3, the story might have been covered as a straightforward crime incident. Instead, former President Donald Trump turned it into a spectacle—leveraging the assault to reinforce racialized stereotypes, inflame political tensions, and divert attention from ongoing scrutiny over the Epstein case.

The Incident

Coristine and a female companion were targeted around 3:00 a.m. on Swann Street NW in Logan Circle by a group of roughly ten juveniles attempting a carjacking. Coristine suffered a concussion, a broken nose, and a black eye. His iPhone 16 was stolen. While police quickly intervened, only two of the juveniles—both 15-year-olds from Hyattsville, Maryland, a boy and a girl—were arrested. They were positively identified by the victims and charged with unarmed carjacking. The remaining eight suspects escaped.

Trump’s Rhetorical Spin

On his Truth Social platform, Trump posted a bloody photo of Coristine and labeled the attackers as “local thugs,” framing them as emblematic of out-of-control crime in D.C. He called for juveniles to be tried as adults and renewed his demand for a federal takeover of the District’s justice system.

The rhetoric is striking. Without releasing any confirmed information about the suspects’ race, Trump’s language taps into long-standing racialized fears about crime in urban areas, implicitly suggesting a connection to Black youth despite the fact the only two arrested were suburban Maryland teenagers. At the same time, the post functioned as a diversion. Amid ongoing media attention on the Epstein case, Trump amplified a violent story in D.C., steering coverage toward crime and juvenile offenders and away from scrutiny of his and his allies’ networks.

Media Reinforcement

Coverage by major outlets, while reporting the facts, often amplified Trump’s framing. Headlines repeatedly used charged language like “brutal attack” and “teenage thugs,” with images emphasizing the victim’s injuries. This coverage, combined with Trump’s own posts, reinforced a narrative that criminalized unnamed youths and fed into racialized assumptions about crime in D.C., even though the only teens in custody were a boy and girl from a nearby Maryland suburb.

The Maryland Connection

The Hyattsville connection complicates Trump’s framing of the assault as a “local D.C.” problem. Hyattsville is roughly five to seven miles from Logan Circle, easily reached in under 20 minutes by car or about 30–40 minutes by public transit. Suburban teens, not city residents, were in custody, yet the political messaging treated the incident as emblematic of the District’s crime problem.

The Bigger Picture

Trump’s commentary follows a familiar pattern: amplifying violent incidents to stoke racialized fears and push law-and-order narratives, often while deflecting attention from scandals that directly involve him or his associates. The juvenile offenders’ race and identity remain officially unreported, highlighting the speculative and racially coded nature of Trump’s claims. Meanwhile, the other suspects remain at large, and the actual circumstances of the assault are far more complex than his posts suggest.

Framing Big Balls as a Victim 

The “Big Balls” assault illustrates how political figures can manipulate crime narratives. Trump’s rapid weaponization of the incident demonstrates a clear playbook: racialized language, selective emphasis, and distraction from politically sensitive scandals. As the Epstein fallout continues, such diversions may become more frequent—using high-profile assaults, real or perceived, as fodder for political theater.

Sources:

WiredFox 5 DC

The Daily Beast

CBS News

Washington Examiner

Trump's Jobs Plan: Soldiers, ICE Agents, and Detention Camp Guards

Former President Donald Trump has long marketed himself as a job creator, promising economic revival and prosperity for working Americans. Yet, his latest “Jobs Plan” reveals a far narrower and more troubling vision of employment growth — one rooted not in manufacturing, infrastructure, or green energy, but in expanding militarized enforcement and immigration control. The new jobs Trump champions are overwhelmingly those of soldiers, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents, and detention camp guards.

Militarizing the Workforce

At the core of Trump’s employment proposal is a dramatic expansion of the armed forces. This includes increased recruitment and funding to build a larger, more heavily equipped military. While proponents argue this enhances national security and deterrence, the plan’s emphasis on military jobs underscores a troubling prioritization of conflict readiness over social investment.

The creation of more soldier positions aligns with Trump’s broader geopolitical posture, which has often leaned toward aggressive military stances and expanded overseas engagement. These jobs are often physically demanding and high risk, and critics note they primarily serve the interests of defense contractors and political ambitions rather than domestic economic health.

Expanding ICE and Border Enforcement

Equally central to the plan is a push to enlarge Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s workforce. Trump calls for more ICE agents tasked with enforcing immigration laws through raids, deportations, and border patrols. This expansion comes at a time when ICE is already deeply controversial for its role in separating families, conducting workplace raids, and detaining undocumented immigrants under often harsh conditions.

The jobs Trump promotes in this sector are part of a broader immigration enforcement regime that critics have labeled as cruel and counterproductive. By hiring more agents, the plan essentially aims to intensify policing of immigrant communities, heightening fear and insecurity for millions of people living in the United States.

Guarding Detention Facilities

The plan also supports the growth of detention facilities to house increasing numbers of immigrants and asylum seekers. This includes hiring more detention camp guards to staff these centers. These roles involve overseeing often overcrowded and under-resourced facilities, where detainees have reported inadequate medical care, poor sanitation, and in some cases, abuse.

The expansion of detention capacity—and its associated workforce—raises ethical and human rights concerns. Advocates emphasize that these are not “jobs” in the conventional sense that foster healthy communities; rather, they sustain a system of incarceration that many compare to modern-day internment camps. Such employment ties economic opportunity to the perpetuation of incarceration and marginalization.

What This Means for Economic Justice

By focusing job creation on soldiers, ICE agents, and detention camp guards, Trump’s plan sidesteps opportunities for broad-based economic recovery. Sectors like education, healthcare, renewable energy, and infrastructure — which could generate millions of jobs with long-term benefits — receive little to no attention.

This approach reinforces a vision of the economy that values security and control over social well-being and equity. It also disproportionately impacts communities of color and immigrants, entangling economic policy with racialized enforcement practices.

The consequences are clear: job growth tied to expanding enforcement agencies may deliver short-term employment but risks deepening social divisions, eroding civil rights, and perpetuating systemic injustice.

Alternatives and the Path Forward

Critics urge policymakers and the public to demand investment in sectors that build human capital, address climate change, and support vulnerable populations. Sustainable job creation should focus on rebuilding schools, hospitals, public transportation, and clean energy infrastructure — sectors proven to stimulate the economy while enhancing quality of life.

At a time when economic inequality is widening and the climate crisis intensifies, the Trump Jobs Plan offers a stark choice: continue down a path where employment grows through militarization and enforcement, or pursue a future centered on justice, opportunity, and sustainable development.

Sources:

• The Intercept: "The Human Cost of ICE’s Expanding Enforcement"

• Reuters: "U.S. Military Recruitment and Funding Under Trump"

• The Guardian: "Conditions Inside U.S. Immigration Detention Centers"

• National Public Radio (NPR): "ICE Staffing Increases Amid Immigration Crackdown"

• Center for Immigration Studies: "Employment Trends in Immigration Enforcement"

Trump DOJ Intensifies “Revenge Tour” Amid Epstein Fallout

The Department of Justice, under the renewed influence of former President Donald Trump’s network, appears to be escalating a politically charged “revenge tour.” Critics argue this wave of federal legal actions is increasingly aimed at discrediting prominent critics—most notably New York Attorney General Letitia James—as a distraction from the persistent and troubling Epstein scandal and its unsettling connections to elite institutions.

HEI’s Ongoing Epstein Reporting

HEI has consistently sounded the alarm on how universities and higher education institutions are complicit in the Epstein network—whether through silence, financial entanglements, or willful ignorance. As highlighted in recent pieces like "Are the Epstein Files the Watergate of Our Time?", HEI stressed how the scandal’s true weight lies not only in its crimes but in the cover‑ups and institutional complicity that enabled it Higher Education Inquirer.

An editorial titled "Elite Higher Education and the Epstein Files" went further, warning that restoring any moral authority in academe demands radical transparency—disclosing donor histories, instituting independent oversight, and dismantling the secrecy that protects powerful actors Higher Education Inquirer.

HEI also described how Epstein’s infiltration of higher ed wasn’t incidental—it was symptomatic of neoliberal corruption: where ethical standards bow to big money, and university allegiance lies with donors, not truth or justice Higher Education Inquirer+1.

The DOJ’s Target: Letitia James

Now, against this backdrop, the Justice Department has launched aggressive scrutiny of Letitia James’s record:

• Subpoenas issued today by the DOJ and an Albany grand jury seek documents related to her successful $454–$500 million civil fraud lawsuit against Trump and her NRA fraud case PoliticoReutersThe GuardianThe Washington PostNew York Post. Authorities are probing whether her actions violated Trump’s civil rights—a highly unusual inquiry into a sitting attorney general ReutersThe Washington Post.

• Parallel to that, there's a separate investigation into mortgage fraud based on allegations she manipulated property records to get favorable loan terms—a referral reportedly emanating from the Federal Housing Finance Agency New York PostPolitico.

James rejects the charges as politically motivated retaliation—labeling them part of Trump’s “revenge tour” designed to punish opponents for doing their jobs PoliticoThe Washington Post.

Former FBI Official James E. Dennehy Forced Out Amid DOJ Clashes

Compounding the turmoil, former FBI assistant director James E. Dennehy, who led the FBI’s New York Field Office, was forced to resign in early 2025. Dennehy reportedly clashed with the DOJ over demands to identify agents involved in January 6 investigations and expressed concern that federal law enforcement officials were being removed for simply doing their jobs.

His departure underscores ongoing instability and politicization within key federal law enforcement agencies during this period of intensified DOJ retaliation.

Why This Matters for Higher Education

HEI’s mission is to expose how power, money, and politics distort institutions meant to serve the public good. The Trump DOJ’s apparent weaponization of federal power to target legal critics—under the guise of legitimacy—poses a broader risk: it could eclipse critical investigations into elite networks like Epstein’s. Distracting from those deeper, systemic stories benefits entrenched power structures and lets accountability fade.

Sources:

• HEI articles on Trump’s DOJ politicization and Letitia James investigations

• FBI leadership changes, 2025 (James E. Dennehy’s resignation)

• Investigative reports on the Epstein case and its fallout

Stanford's student newspaper sues President Trump

The Stanford Daily has filed a federal lawsuit against former President Donald Trump, marking a bold legal move from one of the country’s most prominent student newspapers. Editors at the Daily argue that Trump-era immigration policies targeting international students for political speech violated constitutional protections and created a climate of fear on campus.

This legal action arrives during a moment of institutional turmoil at Stanford. Just days before the lawsuit was filed, university officials announced layoffs of more than 360 staff members, following $140 million in budget cuts. Administrators cited federal funding reductions and a steep endowment tax—legacies of Trump’s policies—as major factors behind the financial strain.

Student journalists now find themselves confronting the same administration that reshaped higher education financing, gutted transparency, and targeted dissent. Their lawsuit challenges the chilling effect of visa threats against noncitizen students, particularly those who criticize U.S. or Israeli policy. Two international students joined the case anonymously, citing fear of deportation for expressing political views.

Stanford holds one of the largest university endowments in the world, valued between $37 and $40 billion. Despite this immense wealth, hundreds of staff—including research support, technical workers, and student service roles—face termination. The disconnect between administrative austerity and executive influence speaks to a larger crisis in higher education governance.

The Daily’s lawsuit cuts to the core of that crisis. Student reporters are asking not only for legal accountability, but also for transparency around how universities respond to political pressure—and who gets silenced in the process.

HEI’s Commitment to Student-Led Accountability

The Higher Education Inquirer is elevating this story as part of an ongoing effort to highlight courageous journalism from student-run newsrooms. Editorial boards like The Stanford Daily’s are producing investigative work that professional media often overlook. These journalists aren’t waiting for permission. They’re filing FOIA requests, confronting billion-dollar institutions, and—when necessary—taking their cases to court.

HEI will continue amplifying these efforts. Student reporters are already reshaping the media conversation around academic freedom, labor justice, and the political economy of higher education. Their work deserves broader attention and support.

Sources:

• Stanford Daily: “Stanford to lay off over 360 staff following $140 million budget cuts”

• TIME: “Stanford Daily Sues Trump Over Threats to Free Speech for International Students”

• SF Chronicle: “Stanford’s Student Paper Sues Trump Amid Budget Crisis”

Col. Larry Wilkerson: Defeated Once, Israel Faces a Collapse It May Not Survive (Dialogue Works)

Dedicated to dialogue and peace, "Dialogue Works" is hosted by Nima Rostami Alkhorshid.

At Dialogue works, we believe there’s nothing more unstoppable than when people come together. This group’s mission is to create a global community of diverse individuals who will support, challenge, and inspire one another by providing a platform for Dialogue. We encourage you to share your knowledge, ask questions, participate in discussions, and become an integral part of this little community. Together we can become a better community and provide our members with a much better experience.

 

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters

Fighting for my students’ right to read, I lost my teacher’s license. I’d risk it all again.

Summer Boismier, Chalkbeat

Jul 24, 2025 at 2:22pm EDT

“The Hate U Give.” “Aristotle and Dante Discover the Secrets of the Universe.” “Challenger Deep.” “The Poet X.” These are just some of the titles my students researched and recommended as part of a 2018 project-based learning unit I had assigned. The goal: to diversify our high school’s required reading lists. “Why don’t we have these books?” the superintendent of the district where I was teaching English at the time asked me.

The following school year, these books were integrated into the English I curriculum as choice reads for our literature circles. I find it hard to fathom such a thing happening today.

Four years later, I was teaching in another school district, this one in Norman, Oklahoma. Just days before we were set to return for the 2022-23 academic year, teachers were advised during a faculty meeting to restrict or remove student access to classroom libraries.

Such a sprint toward soft censorship was a response to the Oklahoma State Board of Education’s enforcement of House Bill 1775 of 2021, which restricts conversations around race and sex in academic spaces. Concerned about a potential accreditation downgrade for violating this law, a school site administrator suggested I cover the 500-plus books in my classroom library with butcher paper, which I did. But that was far from the end of the story.

Without the classroom library that I had spent my career curating, some of my students walked into class that first day to find stories that reflected their lives had been reclassified as contraband. So I wrote on the butcher paper covering my shelves, “Books the state doesn’t want you to read.” A protest in pixels, I also added a QR code for students to scan for information about Books Unbanned, a nationwide initiative from Brooklyn Public Library, offering students ages 13-21 free eCard access to the library’s more than 500,000 digital items.

I’ve never taught a math class, but I knew that 500,000 books > 500 books. I also knew that this act of resistance could cost me my job or even my teacher’s license. But if state leadership was going to censor classrooms, I was going to make sure my students still had ample opportunities to read, think, and decide for themselves.

Oklahoma’s HB 1775, which is facing a challenge in federal court, and similar laws from Texas to Florida to Iowa, followed the first Trump administration’s 2020 Executive Order on Combating Race and Sex Stereotyping. These state mandates are often referred to as “divisive concepts” laws. But really, they are censorship by another name. And they don’t just silence ideas; they silence people. They resist the inclusion of historically marginalized voices, such as BIPOC and LGBTQ+ perspectives, because those voices challenge the comfort of the dominant narrative.

“Most characters/authors are straight white guys, and that kind of reflects how we treat literature,” one of my students reflected back in 2018, as they were working on the reading list project.

That student said they wanted to see more diversity in the assigned reading. Unfortunately, the progress made to integrate inclusive, relevant texts into curriculums and libraries is now at risk.

Friday, August 19, 2022, was my first day of year nine as a certified English teacher in Oklahoma public schools and my second year in the Norman district. By day’s end, however, I was placed on leave and told to report to district offices first thing Monday morning. Although the district expressed hope I would return to the classroom, I chose instead to resign so that I could continue to speak out for intellectual freedom and against HB 1775. Soon, my story was making headlines.

And while in 2023 an assistant state attorney general recommended against revoking my teaching license, the Oklahoma State Board of Education still took it away the next year. That has put my livelihood and my life on hold for the foreseeable future and taken an irrevocable toll on my mental health.

Recently, at my eldest nibling’s kindergarten graduation, I was ambushed somewhere around the second chorus of Imagine Dragons’ “Believer” by a panic attack. To an outside observer, I was there in that small-town auditorium, listening to a stage full of big little voices as they belted out “Pain! You made me a believer, believer.”

However, at that moment, I could not have been further from row G, seat 1.

Suddenly and without consent, I was lost amid the voices in my head that for almost three years have relentlessly labeled me a loser, letdown, failure, and fraud — my entire being seized by a feeling akin to what I can only describe as white-knuckling an electric fence.

Until recently, I associated post-traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD, with literal soldiers scarred by the hell of war. Yet I’ve spent most of the past decade not on the battlefield, but in the classroom. I’ve learned, however, that the majority of PTSD diagnoses do not in fact stem from past military service. Apparently, standing up for students’ right to read can leave its own scars.

Despite the deep personal and professional costs, it’s impossible to convey just how little remorse I have. None at all, really. Because not every battle worth fighting is winnable. Because sometimes “Paycheck or principle?” isn’t a rhetorical question.

We are living through a near-constant deluge of crises that are designed to make meaningful teaching and learning unsustainable and undesirable — from efforts to dismantle the Department of Education to the wholesale retraction of diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, from book bans in PK-12 schools to ideological litmus tests imposed on American universities.

In this era of renewed threats to civil liberties coming out of the White House, the statehouse, and the courthouse, I’d challenge all teachers in the schoolhouse to ask themselves: What’s your QR code?

To teach is to take a stand. And just like teaching, taking a stand can look a lot of different ways, including:

• Recommending a story to a student that speaks to them as they are.
• Incorporating diverse voices and perspectives intentionally in lesson plans.
• Affirming students’ identities through intentional language and identity-sustaining classroom culture.
• Facilitating workshops for teachers on responding to educational gag orders and preserving access to diverse texts.
• Bringing together educators, librarians, and community members for public events defending inclusive curriculums.
• Documenting and reporting instances of censorship and/or policy overreach.

Sometimes, it can even look like resting, a radical act of resilience for the fight ahead.

As the youth scholar and artist Jasmine Lewis shared with me in a recent email exchange, “[The world today] reminds me how important it is that we continue reading, writing, and harnessing care in any/every space that we are able to.”

Against the torrent of extreme partisan interference in our public schools, it is your persistence, teachers, that forms the foundation for meaningful resistance to censorship efforts. Despite everything you’re up against, we need you for what comes next: the 2025-26 school year. There’s a lot riding on the integrity of those spines beyond books.

Summer Boismier (she/her) is an English language arts educator and doctoral student at the University of Oklahoma whose work focuses on free expression issues, culturally sustaining pedagogies, and educational equity in public schools. A nationally recognized youth free expression advocate, she is also a recipient of the Oklahoma State Department of Education’s 2019 Rising Star Award and Piedmont Public Schools’ 2018-2019 District Teacher of the Year honor. In 2024, the Oklahoma State Board of Education unanimously revoked her teaching certificate for telling her students about a public library card.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Fox News Taps Charlie Kirk Amid Epstein Fallout and Murdoch Tensions

Fox News has selected Charlie Kirk, founder of Turning Point USA (TPUSA), to guest host Fox & Friends Weekend for the first time. A Fox spokesperson confirmed the decision, originally reported by Axios, noting that Kirk will appear alongside co-hosts Rachel Campos-Duffy and Charlie Hurt on July 27–28, 2025.

The move comes as the network faces growing pressure from Trump-aligned media personalities over its coverage of the Jeffrey Epstein files and its relationship with the Wall Street Journal, another Rupert Murdoch-owned outlet. Kirk, who has hosted The Charlie Kirk Show, a podcast and syndicated radio program, is also a close ally of former President Donald Trump and a vocal critic of legacy media organizations, including the Journal.

A Decade of Coverage: TPUSA’s Rise

Kirk founded Turning Point USA in 2012 at age 18 with financial backing from donors such as the late Foster Friess and Home Depot co-founder Bernie Marcus. The group is registered as a 501(c)(3) nonprofit and reported over $55 million in revenue in 2022, according to public IRS filings.

TPUSA’s stated mission is to "identify, educate, train, and organize students to promote freedom." However, its campus organizing efforts have drawn criticism from academics and student groups for compiling watchlists of left-leaning faculty and amplifying misinformation. The Higher Education Inquirer has documented TPUSA’s partnerships with conservative student chapters, appearances by controversial figures, and consistent alignment with Trump administration policies.

In recent years, TPUSA has expanded its media and political operations through spinoffs like TPUSA Faith, TPUSA Live, and the AmericaFest conference series. These initiatives have featured speakers including Donald Trump Jr., Candace Owens, Tucker Carlson, and Marjorie Taylor Greene.

Epstein Files and the Trump Lawsuit

In early July 2025, The Wall Street Journal published an investigative piece detailing Donald Trump’s past relationship with Jeffrey Epstein. The story cited sources claiming Trump once sent Epstein a birthday card with a hand-drawn image of a naked woman. Trump denied the report and sued the Journal and Rupert Murdoch for $10 billion, calling the article defamatory.

The report was based on internal communications, FBI notes, and interviews with individuals familiar with Epstein’s social network. While the Journal stands by its reporting, coverage of the lawsuit has been limited on Fox News, which has mentioned it only a few times on air, according to media monitoring data from Media Matters.

Kirk responded aggressively to the story, calling it “fake” and “a hit job” on his podcast and social media. He praised Trump’s lawsuit and claimed the article was an attempt to connect the Epstein investigation to the former president without evidence. “Now I quickly, and we quickly, came to the president’s defense,” he said on The Charlie Kirk Show.

Strategic Silence and MAGA Realignment

Fox News, typically quick to echo Trump’s media attacks, has not publicly defended the Journal. The network also reduced its coverage of the Epstein documents released this summer, in contrast to CNN, MSNBC, and other right-leaning outlets like Newsmax and Real America’s Voice, which have continued to highlight the Epstein files.

Trump has reportedly instructed close allies and supporters to downplay the Epstein revelations. According to Rolling Stone and Puck News, Trump personally called Kirk and other surrogates, asking them to redirect attention away from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who had faced MAGA criticism for a DOJ memo stating there was no actionable Epstein “client list.”

Kirk initially supported criticism of Bondi but later reversed course, stating on his podcast that he would “trust [his] friends in the government.” After announcing he would stop discussing Epstein, he backtracked the following day, claiming his comments were taken out of context.

TPUSA's Institutional Influence

Turning Point USA has expanded into high schools (via Turning Point Academy), churches (TPUSA Faith), and electoral politics (Turning Point Action). According to the group's 2023 annual report, it has reached over 2,500 schools and trained more than 12,000 student activists. TPUSA Action spent at least $7 million on political activities in the 2022 midterms, per FEC data.

Kirk’s access to Fox News’s audience, especially during a prime weekend slot, signals further normalization of TPUSA within conservative media infrastructure. It also reflects the ongoing merger between youth-oriented political branding and legacy cable television, especially at a time when Fox News is balancing its MAGA base against legal and reputational risks tied to its parent company.

Sources

• Axios (July 2025): "Charlie Kirk to co-host Fox & Friends Weekend"

• Wall Street Journal (July 2025): “Trump’s Epstein Birthday Card”

• IRS Form 990 filings (TPUSA 2021–2023)

• Media Matters: “Fox News Epstein Coverage Analysis”

• FEC.gov: Turning Point Action Political Expenditures

• Rolling Stone, Puck News (July 2025): Trump’s calls to allies over Epstein story

• TPUSA 2023 Annual Report

• Higher Education Inquirer Archive (2016–2025): Reports on TPUSA campus activity

---

This article is part of the Higher Education Inquirer's long-term investigation into political influence in the credential economy, campus organizing, and the intersection of media, youth movements, and power.

Are the Epstein Files the Watergate of Our Time?

In 1972, what began as a bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters in Washington’s Watergate complex evolved into the most consequential political scandal in American history. It wasn’t the break-in itself that brought down President Richard Nixon—it was the coverup. Lies, payoffs, destroyed evidence, abuse of executive power, and a relentless pursuit of secrecy sealed Nixon’s fate.

Half a century later, the Jeffrey Epstein files are on a similar trajectory. What began as a tabloid sideshow—one man’s grotesque crimes against underage girls—has expanded into a sprawling network of implications: elite universities, billionaire financiers, royalty, technocrats, and intelligence agencies. And just like Watergate, the defining features of the Epstein scandal aren’t only the initial crimes—they’re the coverups, the deflections, and the institutional complicity.

A Scandal that Unfolds in Chapters

The Epstein story didn’t start with his death in 2019, and it certainly didn’t end there. He was investigated as early as the 2000s yet shielded by a sweetheart plea deal in 2008 that allowed him to serve minimal time for crimes that should have resulted in a much longer sentence. That deal—engineered by powerful lawyers and signed off by then-U.S. Attorney Alexander Acosta—was kept secret from his victims. It was only years later that investigative journalists, lawsuits, and survivors' voices pried open the narrative.

Now, like Watergate, the scandal is metastasizing. Documents are being unsealed. Names are being named. Flight logs, visitor lists, photographs, financial records—each leak peels back another layer of the rot.

Institutional Rot, From the Top Down

Watergate wasn’t just a story of Nixon. It implicated the Republican National Committee, the CIA, the FBI, the “Plumbers” unit, and a pliant media and political class that initially hesitated to challenge the president. In a similar fashion, the Epstein Files have exposed systemic failures: from elite prep schools and Ivy League universities to global charities, private equity firms, and even U.S. intelligence operatives.

Epstein and his accomplice Ghislaine Maxwell didn’t operate alone. They thrived within a network of institutional silence. Epstein was welcomed at Harvard, funded by billionaires like Leslie Wexner, and given extraordinary leniency by prosecutors. The failure of universities to sever ties or meaningfully investigate their own connections to Epstein even after his 2008 conviction raises profound questions about the moral and financial capture of higher education.

Who wrote the letters of recommendation for Epstein? Who invited him to donor events, to academic conferences, to think tanks? What projects did he fund, and what strings came attached?

The Coverup Is the Crime

Much like Nixon’s use of hush money and illegal surveillance, the most damning revelations around Epstein involve the lengths powerful people have gone to erase their ties to him. Redacted documents. Sealed depositions. Delayed FOIA requests. Lost visitor logs. Sudden retirements and vague institutional statements.

Corporate media, until recently, treated the Epstein case as either too salacious or too risky. ABC News famously shelved a major investigation in 2015. Several news outlets still soft-pedal the extent of his connections to tech giants, universities, and political figures across both parties. The deafening silence has often been more telling than what is reported.

Yet the momentum is building—slowly, relentlessly. Like the drip-drip-drip of Watergate, what seemed like isolated facts are cohering into a more damning pattern. Epstein wasn’t just a lone predator. He was a central node in a larger architecture of exploitation, enabled by elite respectability, money, and the hunger for power.

Higher Education’s Reckoning

The Higher Education Inquirer has been tracking how elite institutions have served not only as places of learning but also as sanctuaries of elite impunity. In the case of Epstein, this includes:

• Harvard University, which accepted millions from Epstein even after his conviction and granted him office space.

• MIT’s Media Lab, whose director Joi Ito resigned after revelations he solicited Epstein’s donations.

• The Rockefeller University, where Epstein sat on the board and mingled with researchers.

• Multiple academic scientists and economists, some of whom continued to associate with Epstein, take his money, or attend events at his private island.

These universities are not just incidental characters in this drama. They are complicit actors—providing legitimacy, laundering reputations, and perpetuating a culture of silence in exchange for funding and access.

Will There Be Accountability?

Watergate ultimately led to resignations, prosecutions, and a moment of institutional introspection. It also helped usher in reforms—some lasting, some temporary.

Will the Epstein saga yield the same? That remains to be seen.

Powerful institutions are betting on public fatigue. They’re hoping the files will dribble out slowly enough, redacted enough, buried behind other headlines. But history suggests that scandals like these don’t simply vanish. They fester. They resurface. And they eventually break through.

For the public, the Epstein Files are not just about one predator or even his elite network. They’re about a system that protects predators, buries truths, and sells out its integrity for money and access.

Watergate didn’t end with a break-in; it ended with the fall of a president.

The Epstein scandal may yet claim its own giants—if the truth is allowed to breathe.

---

The Higher Education Inquirer will continue its investigation into the role of universities in the Epstein network. If you have information to share, reach out to us securely.

Trump Administration Freezes Education Funds to 23 States, Legal Challenges Follow

In a move that has sparked legal action from nearly half the country, the Trump administration has frozen more than $6 billion in education funds to 23 states and the District of Columbia. The decision, issued by the U.S. Department of Education in late June 2025, follows a broader pattern of halted federal support for state and local programs, many of which were previously protected by court rulings.

The funding pause is linked to the Trump administration's January 2025 memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget (OMB Memo M-25-13), which directed federal agencies to withhold disbursements from thousands of grant and aid programs. The stated purpose was to align spending with the administration’s priorities, though the policy has been challenged as lacking legal authority. The memo was later rescinded, but its effects have continued through new administrative directives.

In this latest instance, the Department of Education cited a need to review Title II and Title IV programs under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), including programs for teacher development, after-school enrichment, and English language learners. 

The decision disproportionately affected Democratic-led states, with California alone facing the loss of $939 million. 

States impacted include Arizona, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, Wisconsin, and the District of Columbia.

On June 30, attorneys general from those jurisdictions filed suit in Rhode Island, arguing that the Education Department lacks the authority to unilaterally withhold funds that Congress has already appropriated. They assert that the freeze violates both statutory obligations and constitutional principles, including the separation of powers. The lawsuit follows earlier court rulings from January and February in which judges issued temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions to stop the administration from freezing other categories of grants. Those cases were largely brought by Democracy Forward, a legal advocacy organization that has played a leading role in contesting the OMB memo.

Although the administration has defended the funding freeze as a necessary review of federal spending, courts have questioned the legality of such actions. In March, a federal court criticized the lack of statutory basis for the freezes, and Democracy Forward issued a detailed brief outlining the harm to nonprofit programs, environmental projects, and public services. That brief emphasized the breadth of affected programs and the legal overreach involved.

The broader legal battle continues. While some funding has been restored through court action, the Education Department’s freeze represents a new front in ongoing disputes between the Trump administration and state governments. Plaintiffs argue that withholding these funds sets a precedent that undermines established appropriations and legislative intent. More lawsuits are expected.

The Trump administration’s freeze on education funding to 23 states opens several legal and political paths, each with different implications depending on how courts and federal agencies proceed. Below are the most likely possibilities based on current legal precedent, federal authority, and political conditions:

Courts Overturn the Freeze, Funding Restored

The most immediate and probable outcome is that courts will order the Education Department to restore the frozen funds, as they did earlier this year with other parts of the federal grant freeze. Courts have already found that the administration lacked statutory authority to suspend programs that Congress explicitly funded. If this logic holds, the education freeze will likely be ruled unlawful and states will receive the funds—possibly with retroactive reimbursement for missed payments.

Partial Restoration, Continued Legal Conflict

The administration may attempt to restore only some of the funding—especially those programs that have garnered the most public or bipartisan support—while continuing to block others. In this scenario, the courts could issue narrow rulings or temporary injunctions that apply to specific funding streams. This would prolong litigation and administrative uncertainty, potentially pushing the issue into 2026 or the next presidential term.

Supreme Court Intervention

If the lower courts issue conflicting rulings or the Trump administration loses significant cases, the Justice Department may seek Supreme Court review. The Court could use this as an opportunity to clarify executive authority over grant disbursement. Depending on the composition of the Court and its interpretation of separation of powers, this could either curtail future executive control over federal spending—or affirm broader authority to “review” or condition funding.

Legislative Response

Congress, particularly if Democrats control at least one chamber in 2025-2026, could pass legislation to prohibit similar funding freezes in the future or require automatic disbursement of appropriated funds. However, any such legislation would likely face veto threats or require a veto-proof majority, making this a longer-term fix rather than a short-term remedy.

Further Administrative Retaliation or Expansion

If courts delay action or issue narrow rulings, the Trump administration could expand the use of funding freezes to other agencies or sectors, testing the limits of executive control. The precedent set by OMB Memo M-25-13 could be repurposed in other contexts—such as public health, housing, or infrastructure—creating broader instability in federal-state relations.

Political Mobilization and Fallout

States may respond by increasing pressure on Congress and federal courts while using the issue as a rallying point in the 2026 midterm elections. Public schools, educators, and parents may amplify the issue if it leads to job losses, school closures, or reduced services. The freeze could become a political liability for the Trump administration, especially in battleground states that rely heavily on federal education support.

In sum, the most likely near-term result is court-mandated restoration of the withheld funds. But depending on how aggressively the administration continues to test the boundaries of federal authority, the dispute could escalate into a broader constitutional and political conflict over the power to allocate and control federal funds.

Sources
Democracy Forward, “Initial Policy Memo on Federal Grant Freezes,” March 12, 2025.
CBS News, “Democratic states sue Trump administration over halted education funds,” July 1, 2025.
Reuters, “Trump asks US court to end judicial overreach, allow funding freezes,” February 11, 2025.
Wikipedia, “2025 United States federal government grant pause.”
The Daily Beast, “GOP Lawmakers Blast Trump Chief Russell Vought for Freezing Education Money,” July 2025.
The Guardian, “Nothing like this in American history: the crisis of Trump's assault on the rule of law,” March 9, 2025.

How Immigration Has Fueled the Rise of Trumpism—and Changed Higher Education

In the United States, immigration has long been framed as a symbol of national pride—a beacon for the “huddled masses yearning to breathe free.” But in recent decades, as demographic, economic, and cultural shifts have accelerated, immigration has also become a flashpoint for political backlash. That backlash has taken on a powerful form in Trumpism: a nationalist-populist movement steeped in nativist fear, economic resentment, and white grievance politics. What’s often missing in mainstream analysis is how higher education—both as a driver and a symbol of immigration—has become entangled in this struggle.

At the center of this complexity is a contradictory truth: while much of Trumpism is fueled by anti-immigrant rhetoric and fear of demographic change, some of its most visible leaders and financial backers are themselves immigrants or children of immigrants, particularly from India. In the elite zones of tech, business, and politics, conservative Indian Americans are shaping immigration policy, university priorities, and even culture war narratives in ways that reinforce the very Trumpist ideology they supposedly should oppose.

American higher education has undergone a transformation over the past four decades—from a public good to a privatized, competitive marketplace. As state funding dried up, institutions turned to other sources of revenue: tuition, corporate partnerships, real estate development, and international students. Colleges and universities—particularly large public research institutions and elite private schools—ramped up recruitment of foreign students who could pay full price, especially from China, South Korea, Saudi Arabia, and increasingly, India.

Today, Indian nationals are the second-largest group of international students in the U.S., particularly in STEM fields and graduate programs. Their tuition dollars help subsidize faculty salaries, administrative bloat, and research labs. H-1B visa holders, many of them Indian engineers and tech workers, have become a cornerstone of the U.S. tech workforce—and a key component of university-sponsored visa pipelines. In many graduate programs, foreign students are the programs.

At the same time, working-class Americans—especially in rural areas and former manufacturing hubs—have watched colleges become unrecognizable. For many, the university has become a symbol not of opportunity but of exclusion: a place that speaks a foreign language (literally and culturally), employs foreign-born TAs, and caters to elite global interests while raising tuition and reducing services.

One of the most paradoxical developments in the Trumpist era is the rise of conservative Indian Americans as major players in business, politics, and education policy. Figures like Vivek Ramaswamy, a biotech entrepreneur and 2024 GOP presidential candidate, have become darlings of the MAGA movement, espousing anti-DEI rhetoric, rejecting multiculturalism, and calling for the dismantling of the administrative state—including large swaths of the Department of Education. Kash Patel, Ajit Pai, and others have served in prominent Trump administration roles, often pushing deregulation, aggressive nationalism, and the rollback of civil rights protections.

Many of these individuals are highly educated products of elite U.S. universities—Princeton, Harvard, Yale—who advocate for a vision of America rooted in "meritocracy," free markets, and Christian-coded traditional values. Their rise is no accident. They often come from upper-caste, upper-class families in India and align ideologically with India’s ruling Hindu nationalist party, the BJP. That ideology—Hindutva—is increasingly aligned with global authoritarian movements, including Trumpism, Putinism, and Zionist ethnonationalism.

In higher education, this conservative cohort supports crackdowns on campus protest, restrictions on Critical Race Theory, and the dismantling of diversity programs. Some even promote a two-tier immigration system: open pathways for high-skilled workers and university graduates like themselves, and closed doors for asylum seekers, refugees, and undocumented immigrants.

Trumpist Republicans—often with support from conservative immigrants—have increasingly turned higher education into a battleground in the culture wars. In red states, new legislation and executive orders have targeted DEI offices, faculty unions, and ethnic studies departments. They have moved to restrict international student programs, especially for students from China and the Middle East, while simultaneously undermining tenure protections and academic freedom. Crackdowns on campus protests, often under the guise of "free speech," have been used to suppress progressive voices and student organizing.

As faculty ranks have become more diverse—and more contingent—conservatives have fought to reassert traditional hierarchies, often by using foreign-born faculty and graduate students as a wedge. Critics of tenure and academic “liberalism” claim that universities are out of touch with American values and serve foreign interests. Meanwhile, the same institutions continue to capitalize on the global student market, building campuses in Dubai and Singapore while closing rural extension centers at home.

Trumpism is not just a reaction to immigration itself, but to who benefits from it. At the top are elite immigrants—often from privileged caste backgrounds in India or affluent families in China—who attend top-tier universities and enter high-income fields. Below them are millions of working-class Americans saddled with student loan debt, gig jobs, and eroded social status. And beneath them still are the invisible laborers of higher education: the adjuncts, food service workers, janitors, and maintenance crews—many of them immigrants without documentation or legal protections.

This stratification of labor is mirrored in the classroom. International students often receive better advising, housing, and visa support than low-income domestic students, particularly Black, Latino, and Native students. Colleges may invest in ESL services and global partnerships while cutting mental health counseling, rural outreach, and Pell-eligible student aid.

Immigration is not the cause of Trumpism—but it is the mirror in which many Americans see their own social decline. And higher education has played a central role in projecting that mirror. When universities prioritize international growth over local development, or when elite immigrants champion policies that punish the poor and undocumented, they unwittingly feed the very movement that seeks to close the gates behind them.

Trumpism, for all its contradictions, thrives on this resentment. It exploits the divisions between “model minorities” and “undeserving poor,” between elite institutions and everyday people. It turns the American university—from Berkeley to Ohio State—into a symbol of what has been lost, even as it pretends to offer a way forward.

Immigration and higher education are deeply interwoven in the American story. But as higher ed becomes increasingly globalized, privatized, and stratified, it risks alienating the very people it claims to serve. The rise of Trumpism is not just a rejection of immigrants—it is a rejection of an education system that many see as rigged, elitist, and complicit in their decline.

The challenge for those of us in higher education—and especially for immigrants who have benefitted from it—is to confront these contradictions honestly. We must rethink who higher education serves. We must recognize how caste, class, and color operate not only across borders but within them.

For the Higher Education Inquirer, this is not a call for scapegoating immigrants, but for deeper analysis. How did we arrive at a system where elite global mobility coexists with mass domestic precarity? And what would it look like to build a higher education system rooted in justice—not just for the few who arrive, but for the many who are left behind?