The War on Education: Reclaiming Critical Thought in an Age of Fascism (Henry Giroux)

As Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt note in How Democracies Die, authoritarianism no longer announces itself with marching boots or military coups. It now emerges through culture, through the seductive rhythms of social media, viral spectacles, and the normalization of cruelty. Today, culture is not just a backdrop to politics and historical amnesia; it is politics embedded in the erasure of historical memory. It teaches us how to see, what to remember, whom to fear, and what to forget. In this age of resurgent authoritarianism, culture functions as a powerful pedagogy of domination.

We are living through a dismal age, one where anti-intellectualism is no longer masked, but paraded as a form of virtue. A fascist monoculture thrives, dull and mechanized, overrun by wooden stuntmen, empathy-hating billionaires, and artists like Kanye West who unashamedly praise Hitler. Meanwhile, podcast ventriloquists spew algorithmic bile into the void. In the ruins of the university, too many so-called leaders and their bureaucratic accountants now lend legitimacy to what Herbert Marcuse once called “scholarshit,” a travesty of thought, dressed in the empty rituals of managerial reason, budget-cutting cruelty, and unapologetic brutality. “Scholarshit'” masquerades as intellectual discourse while stripping it of genuine engagement with critical inquiry. It thrives on jargon and pretension, prioritizing form over substance, and favoring self-congratulatory cleverness over meaningful argument. In its hollow rhetoric, the complexities of society are reduced to buzzwords and superficial analyses, its practitioners more concerned with appearing intellectually sophisticated than engaging in any real critique. This approach to scholarship fosters intellectual laziness, encouraging an atmosphere where complexity is simplified, nuance is erased, and true critical thought is marginalized in favor of what passes for cleverness but lacks depth or insight. Never has the need for critical education and a shift in mass consciousness been more urgent. Never has it been more crucial to recognize education as both a force for empowerment and a powerful mode of colonization.

In an age when instrumentalism and techno-fascism dominates the culture, reducing education to mere training and suffocating pedagogy under the weight of indoctrination, it becomes more urgent than ever to reclaim the university as a space for reflection, critique, and ethical imagination. Instrumentalism erases social responsibility, dismisses matters of justice, and detaches learning from the deeper relations of power. It exchanges depth for compliance and, in the process, robs education of its emancipatory promise.

We have witnessed this logic unfold in so-called liberal movements like "teaching to the test" and in the ongoing proliferation of Teaching and Learning Centers, which often reduce education to a toolbox of technical skills. As Ariella Aïsha Azoulay warns, these practices resemble the workings of "imperial technologies", systems designed to manage learning without nurturing an awareness of injustice, to flatten thought, and to detach education from the struggle for democratic agency and pedagogical citizenship.

Consider Elon Musk, hailed by some as a visionary for creating Tesla and fueling fantasies of colonizing Mars. Beneath this gleaming myth, however, lies a far more disturbing reality. Musk has made Nazi salutes, trafficked in dangerous conspiracy theories, and, as Michelle Goldberg noted in The New York Times, exhibits a chilling disdain for empathy, paired with "breathless cruelty." This cruelty is not abstract; it manifests in the real world, where the policies Musk champions have contributed to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of children in Africa. His power is not merely technological; it is ideological, shaping a culture that confuses megalomania with genius and elevates indifference to suffering as a mark of strength. This is more than a collapse of civic literacy, it is a toxic poison, destroying any vestige of civic consciousness, solidarity, and social responsibility.

Cruelty has become the currency of power, the measure by which dominance is asserted and human worth discarded. Bill Gates, in a moment of moral clarity, acknowledged the gravity of shuttering USAID, conceding that he “bore the responsibility of risking a resurgence of diseases such as measles, HIV, and polio.” But his warning grew even more damning when, in The Financial Times, he described Elon Musk—once heralded as a symbol of techno-utopian promise—as “the world’s richest man killing the world’s poorest children.” Yet even Gates understates the larger architecture of violence at work. Trump’s so-called “beautiful budget bill” is not merely a policy document—it is a blueprint for social abandonment, a death sentence rendered in the language of austerity. It slashes funding for child nutrition programs, strips health care from millions, and eviscerates what remains of the social state. In its wake rises a machinery of disposability—a punishing state that targets the poor, the vulnerable, and people of color, turning the politics of governance into a war zone where compassion is silenced and suffering normalized. This is gangster capitalism on steroids--unleashed, utterly devoid of any social responsibility and drunk on its own greed, power, corruption, and fascist principles.

This silence speaks to a deeper void in higher education, one that raises crucial questions about the burden of conscience in education. It is no longer enough to champion STEM disciplines while starving the liberal arts and humanities. It is not enough for humanities students to dwell only in critique, disconnected from the technological world around them. What we need is a fusion of literacies, a pedagogy that teaches technical competence without sacrificing moral imagination; a pedagogy that nurtures civic literacy, historical awareness, the capacity to think beyond disciplines, and the courage to cross borders of culture, identity, and thought.

The attacks facing higher education today are more than a political or economic crisis, they also speak to a cultural catastrophe, a struggle over civic consciousness, critical literacy, and the promise of higher education as a democratic public good. Higher education has become prime target because it offers the promise to students of pedagogical citizenship—a pedagogy that enables young people to attentive, critical, knowledgeable, and able to hold power accountable. That is why higher education is viewed as dangerous to the authoritarian neanderthals attacking higher education. At the core of the crackdown on higher education is a project that successfully enables society to forget how to think, to feel, and to remember, practices that provide a fertile ground for creating fascist subjects.  Under such conditions, grotesque acts become normalized,  children are starved in Gaza, immigrant families are torn apart, and the horror of state terrorism fades into the background noise of spectacle and distraction.

And yet, culture remains a vital site of possibility. José Mujica, former president of Uruguay, reminded us that real change does not begin with laws or institutions, but with the values that shape how people see the world. You cannot build a society rooted in justice with individuals trained to prize greed, selfishness, and domination. As he put it, “You can’t construct a new kind of future with people whose hearts still belong to the old one.” The struggle for radical democracy must begin in the realm of culture, where imagination is nurtured, public conscience awakened, and the seeds of transformation take root.

Language itself has been hijacked, bent to the will of a colonizing legacy steeped in hatred, disposability, genocide, and a culture of unapologetic cruelty. Neo-Nazis march without shame, white supremacists shape the conservative cultural machinery, and racist policies are no longer whispered but codified. Nazi salutes are back in fashion. Universities are increasingly transformed into sites of indoctrination and surveillance, more attuned to the logic of police precincts than places of critical learning. Students who dare to protest the genocidal assault on Palestinians in Gaza are abducted, vilified, and silenced. The most powerful white nationalist on the planet parades corruption as a political virtue and deploys state terror as a primary tool of governance. Solidarity is reconfigured into communities of hate, while resistance to fascism is rebranded as terrorism. Beneath these crimes against humanity lies a culture hollowed out by the absence of reason, moral clarity, and the capacity to hold power accountable. The ghost of fascism has not merely returned; it has taken up residence and been made ordinary.

The age of lofty visions has been cast aside, discarded like ideological refuse. Yet without such visions, rooted in the hard labor and hopeful promise of democracy and the critical function of education, we are left adrift. In their place stand administrators who act as high-powered accountants, students shaped by a culture of commodification and conformity, and a precarious academic labor force paid less than Wall-Mart greeters and clerks. Meanwhile, racism, white nationalism, and Christian fundamentalism gather momentum, extinguishing the flickering lights that once illuminated the path toward a radical democracy. When higher education no longer serves as a vessel for ethical imagination and collective hope, it becomes complicit in its own undoing, and with it, democracy itself teeters on the edge.

As educators, we must fight for a vision of higher education as both sanctuary and catalyst, a place where democracy is not only studied but enacted, where students are not trained to be efficient machines, but cultivated into thinking, feeling, and acting human beings. We need an education in which a culture of questioning is not punished but nurtured, where talking back is a civic virtue, and where the pursuit of equity and justice is central to the very purpose of teaching and learning. Such an education must be grounded in the principles of civic literacy, historical consciousness, and a systemic understanding of power—one that connects private troubles to public issues and expands the possibilities for individual and collective agency.

This is the foundation upon which a radical democracy must be built, and it is the defining pedagogical task of our time. If we fail in this responsibility, higher education will surrender its role as a vital civic sphere—one essential to producing the narratives, knowledge, and capacities that sustain the promise of equality, justice, freedom, and compassion. In abandoning that mission, it will not merely falter; it will aid in its own unraveling. And with it, democracy will edge ever closer to collapse.

Donald Trump understands this. That is why he fears critical education. That is why he wages war on it.

MASSIVE RALLIES PLANNED IN SAN DIEGO COUNTY SUPPORTING NATIONWIDE “NO KINGS DAY” PROTESTS JUNE 14TH

San Diego, June 6, 2025 – More than 20 San Diego area organizations have come together to organize safe and peaceful marches and rallies in defense of American Democracy on “No Kings Day” June 14, 2025.

The central event will be a large march and rally between 10am and noon at Waterfront Park in downtown San Diego, building on the “Hands Off Our Rights” rally April 5th that drew more than 30-thousand participants.

This coincides with a series of events throughout the county and nationwide to draw attention away from a “Grand Military Parade” estimated to cost as much as $45 million on President Donald Trump’s birthday.

“This is the kind of vanity parade we would expect to see in Russia or North Korea, not in a democracy” said Allison Gill, award-winning podcaster, who will be speaking at the rally.

Officially the “grand parade” is said to honor the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army. However, the massive parade of tanks, helicopters and thousands of soldiers in Washington, DC, also takes place on the President’s 79th birthday.

“No matter what the parade is called, our democracy is under attack. Donald Trump and his allies are dismantling democratic institutions to consolidate power and money at the expense of the rest of us. This is not a cause for celebration,” said Wendy Gelernter, one of the event organizers.

Specifically the rally will oppose:

An end to efforts to centralize executive power as laid out in Project 2025

Protection for democratic institutions, civil rights and the rule of law

Transparency, accountability, and truth over chaos, cruelty and corruption

Elected leadership and good governance that serves the people — not personal power, personal enrichment or spectacle.

“It is unconscionable to spend this kind of money when the veterans in our area are being stripped of their benefits to reduce government spending, and budgets are being slashed for health services, food programs for hungry children, and vital medical research at San Diego area universities,” added Misty O’Healy of Indivisible49.

Multiple San Diego County events have been organized in support of the June 14 action. On June 8th, hundreds of people will form a human “No Kings” banner in Ocean Beach. On June 14th, a news conference is scheduled with local Congressional and civic leaders in Waterfront Park at 9:15 ahead of the march there. And more rallies and protests will take place in about a dozen communities throughout the county including Escondido, Chula Vista and Oceanside/Carlsbad. (A complete list can be found at NoKings.org.). “While Donald Trump may be remembered as the most divisive President in American history, he has done a unique and extraordinary job of unifying Americans across San Diego and the Nation who reject his wanna-be authoritarian approach to governance,” said Frances Yasmeen Motiwalla, of Activist San Diego.

Allison Gill concluded ”We overthrew a monarch 250 years ago. And we are not going back!”

More information and a full list of participating organizations can be found at https://takeactionsandiego.org/hub/partners.html

To coordinate media activities day-of, please contact: Mark Sauer, marksauer2@gmail.com, (619) 643-1024

Medicaid Cuts Threaten Medical and Mental Health Providers Dependent on Medicaid — and Graduates of Online “Robocolleges”

As states grapple with budget shortfalls and federal funding shifts, Medicaid—the nation’s largest public health insurance program—faces potential cuts that could severely impact medical and mental health providers who depend heavily on Medicaid reimbursements. This looming threat not only jeopardizes access to critical healthcare services but also risks destabilizing the very providers that serve some of the most vulnerable populations in the United States.

Medicaid: A Lifeline for Providers and Patients

Medicaid covers over 80 million Americans, including low-income families, people with disabilities, and seniors. For many medical and mental health providers, Medicaid reimbursements constitute a significant portion of their revenue. Clinics in underserved areas, community health centers, and behavioral health providers often rely on Medicaid funding to stay afloat.

The federal-state partnership funds Medicaid, but states have discretion in determining eligibility and reimbursement rates. When states face fiscal pressures, cutting Medicaid funding or tightening reimbursement rates is often considered a quick fix.

The Domino Effect of Medicaid Cuts

Cuts to Medicaid funding translate directly into lower payments to providers. Unlike private insurance, Medicaid rates are often already low. Further reductions can mean providers lose money on each Medicaid patient treated.

This financial strain can force clinics and mental health programs to:

• Reduce services or limit patient intake

• Cut staff, including essential behavioral health professionals

• Close locations, especially in rural or underserved areas

These outcomes create barriers for patients who already face challenges accessing care. Individuals with serious mental illness, chronic conditions, or disabilities are particularly at risk of losing consistent care.

Impact on Medical Education and Training

Medicaid cuts can also disrupt medical and mental health education programs affiliated with teaching hospitals and universities. These programs often serve Medicaid patients in their clinical training sites. Reduced funding means fewer training opportunities for students and residents, potentially exacerbating workforce shortages in critical health fields.

Mental Health Providers: A Vulnerable Sector

Mental health providers are especially vulnerable to Medicaid cuts. Behavioral health services are frequently underfunded compared to general medical care. Medicaid often serves as the primary payer for mental health treatment, including therapy, psychiatric care, and substance use disorder programs.

Cuts could reduce access to outpatient therapy, crisis intervention, and community-based services, worsening outcomes for people with mental health conditions. The COVID-19 pandemic underscored the urgent need for robust mental health infrastructure, and cuts threaten to reverse progress made.

Robocollege Graduates: An Overlooked Impact

Another group at risk from Medicaid cuts are recent graduates of online for-profit colleges, sometimes disparagingly called "robocolleges." These institutions often produce graduates with degrees in healthcare-related fields such as nursing, health administration, or medical assisting.

Many of these graduates rely on Medicaid-funded healthcare settings for employment. Clinics and community health centers that serve Medicaid patients are common entry points for these workers. Cuts in Medicaid funding could lead to reduced hiring or layoffs in these settings, disproportionately affecting graduates struggling to launch their careers.

Moreover, the limited job security and lower wages typical of such entry-level positions compound the economic challenges for these workers, many of whom already face significant student debt and limited career mobility.

Broader Social and Economic Consequences

Limiting access to healthcare and mental health services has far-reaching consequences beyond individual health. Untreated illness can lead to increased hospitalizations, emergency room visits, and interactions with the criminal justice system. These outcomes are far more costly to society than preventative or ongoing care.

Policy Recommendations

To protect the health and stability of vulnerable populations, the providers who serve them, and entry-level healthcare workers including robocollege graduates, policymakers should:

• Avoid disproportionate Medicaid cuts that undermine care quality

• Invest in community health centers and behavioral health programs

• Maintain adequate reimbursement rates to sustain provider networks and employment

• Support integrated care models that combine physical and mental health services

• Consider workforce development initiatives that support graduates entering Medicaid-funded care settings

Medicaid is a cornerstone of America’s healthcare safety net, especially for medical and mental health providers serving those in greatest need. Cuts to Medicaid funding threaten not only provider viability but the health and well-being of millions—including the newest healthcare workers striving to build careers. As budget debates continue, preserving and strengthening Medicaid funding is essential to ensuring equitable access to quality care and supporting the providers and workforce on the front lines.

Iranian Students Face Uncertainty Amid Renewed U.S. Travel Ban

On June 4, 2025, President Donald Trump issued a sweeping travel ban, restricting entry for nationals from 19 countries—completely barring people from 12 nations and partially restricting those from seven others—citing national security concerns. This move has significant implications for Iranian students seeking education in the United States.

Impact on Iranian Students

Iranian students have historically faced challenges in obtaining U.S. visas due to stringent screening processes and political tensions between the two countries. The renewed travel ban exacerbates these difficulties, effectively halting new visa issuances for most Iranian nationals. 

Many Iranian students, even those admitted to prestigious U.S. universities, are now in limbo. Visa interviews have been suspended, and the processing of existing applications has slowed considerably. Some students have reported waiting over a year for visa approvals, with no clear timeline for resolution.

Legal Challenges and Advocacy

In response to these developments, a group of fifteen Iranian students and researchers filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the indefinite suspension of visa interviews and the expansion of social media vetting for applicants. The plaintiffs argue that these measures are discriminatory and violate the Administrative Procedures Act.

Advocacy organizations have also raised concerns about the broader implications of the travel ban. The National Iranian American Council (NIAC) highlighted that federal law prohibits the issuance of student visas for Iranian students seeking to study in fields related to Iran's energy sector or nuclear sciences, further limiting educational opportunities.

Broader Implications for U.S. Higher Education

The travel ban's impact extends beyond individual students, affecting U.S. higher education institutions that benefit from the diversity and talent of international students. Universities may experience decreased enrollment from Iranian students, leading to potential financial and cultural losses. Moreover, the increased scrutiny and visa delays could deter prospective students from considering the U.S. as a viable destination for higher education.

Between Empire and Enterprise: Harvard, Trump, and the Exploitation of International Students

As the Trump administration again targets immigrants and global institutions with punitive policies, international students at Harvard University—one of the world’s most prestigious academic brands—are experiencing what one student leader called “pure panic.” At the center of the storm: a now-halted move by the White House to revoke Harvard’s certification in the Student and Exchange Visitor Program, threatening the legal status of thousands of students from nearly every country in the world.

Harvard responded with swift legal action, accusing the federal government of ideological retaliation. But while the Trump administration deserves criticism for its xenophobic and authoritarian maneuvers, it is equally important to interrogate Harvard’s own role in creating a system where international students are treated as both intellectual capital and financial assets.

Nearly 27% of Harvard’s student body—close to 7,000 individuals—comes from abroad. For decades, Harvard has positioned itself as a global institution, a magnet for the so-called "best and brightest" regardless of national origin. It has used this cosmopolitan image to bolster its prestige, attract philanthropic donations, and justify sky-high tuition rates. In reality, Harvard is not just a university—it is a flagship enterprise in the global neoliberal order.

This model—recruiting international students as both symbols of diversity and sources of income—reflects the logic of global capitalism more than the ideals of education. Harvard’s operations increasingly mirror those of a multinational corporation: high-end branding, worldwide recruitment, aggressive legal defense, and political lobbying. The foreign students it attracts are often among the global elite, or, in many cases, indebted strivers betting their futures on the supposed merits of a Harvard degree. When the political winds shift, as they have under Trump, these students are left exposed.

This is precisely what’s happening now.

Abdullah Shahid Sial, co-president of Harvard’s student body and a Pakistani national, told CNN that students are “very clearly, extremely afraid” about their legal status and whether they can return to campus. Some are stuck abroad, unsure if they’ll be allowed back. Others face suspended research projects or financial uncertainty. Sial praised Harvard officials for trying to help but also acknowledged the limitations. The window to transfer to other schools is closed for many. Aid packages, crucial to international students, don’t travel with them.

This crisis reveals the tension at the heart of elite higher education’s global ambitions. Harvard, like other elite U.S. universities, thrives on internationalism—so long as it serves its institutional goals. But when international students are treated not as community members but as liabilities or bargaining chips in political disputes, the myth of benevolent globalization unravels.

Yes, the Trump administration’s policies are driven by xenophobia and an open hostility to intellectual exchange. But they also expose the fragility and hypocrisy of the global education marketplace. International students are recruited into a system that offers opportunity but no guarantees, prestige but little protection.

Harvard cannot simply claim the moral high ground by suing the federal government. It must also reckon with its deep entanglement in the very structures that commodify students and expose them to geopolitical risk. For all its rhetoric about global citizenship, Harvard’s model remains fundamentally extractive—built to serve elite interests, not global equity.

If the United States is to remain a serious destination for global education, and if Harvard is to be more than a luxury brand in academic robes, the model must change. International students deserve more than branding and brochures. They deserve stability, legal protection, and a voice in the institutions that profit from their presence.

Until then, they remain trapped—between the nationalist paranoia of Washington and the neoliberal empire of Cambridge.

Harvard Pushes Back Against Trump's Threats to Academic Freedom

In a recent letter to the Harvard community, interim president Alan M. Garber sounded an alarm over what he described as an unprecedented threat to the independence of American higher education. The federal government, Garber revealed, has issued a sweeping list of demands—tied to ongoing funding relationships—that Harvard views as overreaching, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the mission of the university.

For more than 75 years, federal partnerships with research institutions like Harvard have fueled major advances in science, medicine, and engineering. These collaborations, Garber noted, have not only improved global health and safety but have also contributed to America’s economic strength. Now, amid heightened scrutiny over accusations of antisemitism on campuses, those partnerships are under threat.

According to Garber, the administration's demands go far beyond addressing antisemitism. They include proposals to audit viewpoints across the campus community and diminish the influence of students and faculty based on their ideological positions. Harvard has rejected the demands, asserting that they violate constitutional protections and Title VI limits, and represent an improper attempt by the federal government to regulate “intellectual conditions” at a private institution.

Garber emphasized that Harvard remains committed to combating antisemitism and fostering an inclusive, open environment for dialogue and learning. He pointed to steps already taken in the past year and reaffirmed the university’s dedication to free speech, due process, and viewpoint diversity.

“This is not just about Harvard,” Garber warned. “It’s about the role of American universities in a free society.” The university insists that teaching, research, and admissions must remain free from political interference, regardless of the party in power.

As pressure mounts, the broader academic community now faces a fundamental question: How much influence should the federal government exert over what is taught and debated in higher education? For Harvard, the answer remains clear: safeguarding academic freedom is essential to fulfilling its mission of truth-seeking—and to preserving the promise of American higher education.

MEDIA ADVISORY UPDATE: 'Hands Off!' March at San Diego Civic Center, April 5 Noon - Protesters to March Demanding Protection of Rights and Services

SAN DIEGO, CA — Community members will gather at the San Diego Civic Center Plaza for a “Hands Off!” march on April 5 to protest DOGE and the Trump administration’s attack on programs and services used by San Diego residents. The local march will coincide with a nationwide day of demonstrations expected to be attended by hundreds of thousands…

Organizers describe the event as a collective response to policies impacting our community. “San Diegans who are veterans, who are postal workers and teachers, who rely on Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare, and who are horrified at the Trump-Musk billionaire takeover of our government are coming together to protest the Trump Administration’s attacks on the rights and services they depend upon, many of them for survival” said Angela Benson, a member of the organizing coalition.

Event Details:

• What: Over 10,000 San Diegans expected to peacefully demand "HANDS OFF!" their rights and services in one of over 1,000 HANDS OFF! events scheduled nationwide on April 5

• Who: Coalition of San Diego Pro-Democracy Groups

• When: Saturday, April 5, noon, 1 mile march to leave approximately 12:15 PM

• Where: March starts at Civic Center Plaza Fountain by 1200 Third St., ends at Hall of Justice at 330 W Broadway

• Transportation: Participants are encouraged to take public transit to the event

Planning group:

• Change Begins With ME

• CBFD Indivisible

• Indivisible49

• Indivisible North San Diego County

• Democratic Club of Carlsbad and Oceanside

• Encinitas and North Coast Democratic Club

• SanDiego350

• Swing Left/Take Action San Diego

• Activist San Diego

• 50501 San Diego

Media Opportunities:

• The following representatives will be available day-of the march for interviews. If interested, please coordinate with Richard (770-653-6138) prior to the event, and plan to arrive at the location marked below by 11:30 AM Pacific

• Representatives

• Sara Jacobs - House of Representatives, CA-51 district

• Scott Peters - House of Representatives, CA-50 district

• Chris Ward - California State Assemblymember, 78 district

• Stephen Whitburn - San Diego Councilmember

• Reverend Madison Shockley II - Pilgrim United Church of Christ

• Yusef Miller - Executive Director of North County Equity & Justice Coalition

• Brigette Browning - Executive Secretary San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council and President, Unite Here!

• Crystal Irving - President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

• Andy Kopp - Veteran

• Patrick Saunders - Veteran

• Phil Petrie - SanDiego350, Climate Activist

• Recommended Schedule

• 11:30 AM - 11:40 AM: Representative introductions - Group/cause they’re representing, why they’re marching

• 11:40 AM - 12:05 PM: Representatives break off, available for interview by Press

• 12:05 PM - 12:15 PM: Representatives move to beginning of march

• 12:15 PM: March begins

• 12:15 PM - 2:00 PM: March to Hall of Justice

• 2:00 PM: March ends at Hall of Justice, participants may disperse or continue to federal plaza

Trump’s Education Department is Closing. And Also Starting A Long Rulemaking Process. (David Halperin)

Although President Donald J. Trump last month signed an executive order directing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” and although DOGE efforts and layoffs have cut the Department staff by half, the Department announced today that it will embark on an extensive round of meetings to draft new regulations governing student financial aid.

Unlike most federal agencies, the Department is generally required to engage in an elaborate process called negotiated rulemaking before it can issue or cancel regulations. This has meant — on issues from campus sexual assault to performance standards guarding against predatory college abuses — years of public hearings, formal convenings of rulemaking panels, written public comments and meetings on draft regulations, and more. It also has produced a decades-long ping pong match of final regulations made by one party and overwritten by the other, from the Obama to Trump I to Biden, followed by years of court challenges.

The first Trump administration staffed its higher education jobs with former executives of predatory for-profit colleges, and they eliminated both regulations and enforcement efforts aimed at protecting students and holding predatory schools accountable.

Today’s notice, signed by James P. Bergeron, Acting Under Secretary of Education, says the first round of Trump II negotiated rulemaking will likely include consideration of Public Service Loan Forgiveness and other loan repayment programs “or other topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance programs.”

Other language in the notice suggests the Department may go deep, perhaps working to cancel the Biden rules creating performance standards for for-profit and career college programs (the gainful employment rule) and providing debt relief for students scammed by their colleges and government recoupment of funds from dishonest schools (the borrower defense rule). The notice opines that current regulations “may be inhibiting innovation and contributing to rising college costs” and that it wants to “streamline” the rules “while maintaining or improving program integrity and institutional quality.” “Innovation,” while a great thing for education when it can really happen, has been a buzzword used by the for-profit college industry to fight against rules aimed at protecting against predatory programs. Gutting the Biden rules would increase the vulnerability of both students and taxpayers to billions in waste, fraud, and abuse from deceptive, poor quality schools — even though the stated purpose of DOGE is to halt government excess.

When pro-student Democratic members of the House of Representatives  held a press conference outside the Department headquarters yesterday after they met with McMahon to discuss such concerns, she followed them. But she quickly fled when Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) asked her when she would shut down the building.

The Department’s rulemaking process begins with public hearings on April 29 and May 1, the first in-person at Department headquarters and the second online. Advocates for students and taxpayers should register to speak and show up to make their voices heard.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]

 

"We Are Killing the Essence of What the University Is": Dr. Joanne Liu on NYU Canceling Her Talk (Democracy Now!)

 

The former international head of Doctors Without Borders is speaking out after New York University canceled her presentation, saying some of her slides could be viewed as "anti-governmental" and "antisemitic" because they mentioned the Trump administration's cuts to foreign aid and deaths of humanitarian workers in Israel's war on Gaza. Dr. Joanne Liu, a Canadian pediatric emergency medicine physician, was scheduled to speak at NYU, her alma mater, on March 19 and had been invited almost a year ago to discuss the challenges of humanitarian crises. Censoring speech is "killing the essence of what the university is about," says Liu. "I truly and strongly believe that universities are the temple of knowledge."

Trump Dismantles US Institute of Museum and Library Services (YT Daily News)

The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has put its entire staff on administrative leave following President Trump's executive order to eliminate seven federal agencies, including IMLS. 

 

Keith E. Sonderling has been appointed as the acting director during this transition. Staff were notified via email about their 90-day paid leave, which included instructions to return government property and had their email accounts disabled. 

 

IMLS is a small federal agency, with about 70 employees, that awards grant funding to museums and libraries across the United States. Last year it granted $266 million to support essential cultural institutions.

A LETTER TO HARVARD LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS (Harvard Law School Faculty)

From the Harvard Crimson:

Roughly 70 percent of Harvard Law School’s professors accused the federal government of exacting retribution on lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by President Donald Trump in a Saturday night letter to the school’s student body.

The letter, which was signed by 82 of the school’s 118 active professors as of this article’s publication, described Trump’s threats as a danger to the rule of law. It condemned the government for intimidating individuals based on their past public statements and threatening international students with deportation over “lawful speech and political activism.”

Nine emeritus professors also joined the statement.

March 29, 2025 

To our students: 
We are privileged to teach and learn the law with you. We write to you today—in our 
individual capacities—because we believe that American legal precepts and the institutions 
designed to uphold them are being severely tested, and many of you have expressed to us your 
concerns and fears about the present moment. 

Each of us brings different, sometimes irreconcilable, perspectives to what the law is and should 
be. Diverse viewpoints are a credit to our school. But we share, and take seriously, a 
commitment to the rule of law: for people to be equal before it, and for its administration to 
be impartial. That commitment is foundational to the whole legal profession, and to the special 
role that lawyers play in our society. As the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide: “A 
lawyer is … an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for 
the quality of justice.” 

The rule of law is imperiled when government leaders: 
• single out lawyers and law firms for retribution based on their lawful and ethical 
representation of clients disfavored by the government, undermining the Sixth 
Amendment; 
• threaten law firms and legal clinics for their lawyers’ pro bono work or prior 
government service; 
• relent on those arbitrary threats based on public acts of submission and outlays of funds 
for favored causes; and 
• punish people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern. 

While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are 
all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly 
condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described. 

On our own campus and at many other universities, international students have reported fear 
of imprisonment or deportation for lawful speech and political activism. Whatever we might 
each think about particular conduct under particular facts, we share a conviction that our 
Constitution, including its First Amendment, was designed to make dissent and debate 
possible without fear of government punishment. Neither a law school nor a society can 
properly function amidst such fear. 

We reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and to our roles in teaching and upholding 
the precepts of a fair and impartial legal system. 

Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

Columbia University’s interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, resigned on Friday, just days after the university made significant concessions to the Trump administration in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal research funding. Armstrong's resignation follows a tumultuous period for the institution, already reeling from the departure of her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, in August 2024.

Armstrong, who had stepped into the role of interim president during a time of political and social unrest, faced mounting pressure over the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian student activism, which sparked national controversy and calls for accountability from political leaders, including former President Donald Trump and his administration. Armstrong’s resignation marks the latest chapter in a series of leadership shifts at Columbia as it navigates the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding campus protests.

 

Effective immediately, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, has been appointed acting president. David J. Greenwald, chair of the Board of Trustees, praised Armstrong for her dedication to the university, acknowledging her hard work during a time of “great uncertainty.” Greenwald’s statement highlighted Armstrong’s contributions to the university, saying, “Katrina has always given her heart and soul to Columbia. We appreciate her service and look forward to her continued contributions to the University.” Armstrong, who will return to lead the Irving Medical Center, had taken on the interim presidency in a period marked by increasing tensions on campus over political activism and its fallout.

Political Pressure and Concessions to the Trump Administration

The resignation comes amid significant political pressure, as the Trump administration imposed a set of demands on Columbia in exchange for the release of crucial federal funding. Earlier this month, the administration presented the university with nine conditions to restore the $400 million in research grants that had been frozen over accusations of antisemitism linked to campus protests.

In an effort to regain the funding, Columbia conceded to these demands, which included a ban on students wearing masks to conceal their identities during protests, except for religious or health reasons. Additionally, Columbia agreed to hire 36 new campus security officers with the authority to arrest students involved in protests. The university also committed to increasing institutional oversight by appointing a new senior vice provost to monitor the university's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.

Perhaps most notably, Columbia pledged to adopt a stance of “greater institutional neutrality,” a policy that the university said would be implemented after working with a faculty committee. The decision was seen as an attempt to quell political tensions while navigating the contentious issues surrounding student activism.

A Leadership Crisis at Columbia University

Armstrong’s resignation follows the departure of Minouche Shafik, who faced widespread criticism for her handling of campus protests against the war in Gaza. Under Shafik’s leadership, Columbia became a focal point of national debates about free speech, activism, and the role of universities in responding to global conflicts. Shafik ultimately resigned after facing intense scrutiny for her handling of the protests and the occupation of an academic building by students, an incident that ended with NYPD officers forcibly removing the students.

In Armstrong’s case, her tenure was similarly marred by controversies surrounding the university’s response to the growing political activism on campus. The university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests, particularly those related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, led to calls for stronger action from political figures, especially within the Republican Party. Armstrong’s decision to oversee negotiations with the Trump administration over the university’s federal funding placed her at the center of a storm of political and social unrest, further intensifying the pressure on her leadership.

Columbia's Future Amidst Political Turmoil

The resignation of Armstrong is a significant moment for Columbia, as the institution grapples with the broader implications of political activism within academia and the increasing role of government in shaping university policies. As the university enters another phase of leadership instability, the question remains: how will the next president balance the competing demands of activism, free speech, and political pressures from outside forces?

Columbia’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and increase security measures reflects the complex and polarized environment that universities are navigating in today’s political climate. The growing influence of political figures like Trump and the scrutiny placed on universities over their responses to student protests signal a new era for higher education, one where the lines between campus activism and political power are increasingly blurred.

As the search for a permanent president continues, Columbia University will need to chart a course that both addresses the concerns of its diverse student body and faculty while navigating the external pressures that have shaped the university’s recent trajectory. The role of universities in fostering open dialogue, supporting activism, and protecting the rights of students will likely continue to be a central issue in higher education for years to come.

Conclusion

The resignation of Katrina Armstrong adds to a growing list of university presidents who have faced intense political pressure and scrutiny over campus activism, particularly surrounding Middle Eastern and global conflicts. Columbia’s next steps will be crucial not only for the future of the institution but also as a bellwether for how universities across the country navigate the increasingly complex landscape of political activism, academic freedom, and government intervention. The institution’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the role of higher education in a polarized society.

Yale Professor Jason Stanley Leaves for Canada in Protest of U.S. Political Climate

Yale University philosophy professor Jason Stanley, a leading academic in social and political philosophy, has made the bold decision to leave his esteemed position at the Ivy League institution and relocate to Toronto, Canada. His move comes amidst growing concerns about the state of higher education in the U.S. under the Trump administration, a time marked by increased political tension and the administration’s aggressive stance against academic institutions.

In a mid-interview conversation with CNN while walking across the Yale campus, Stanley addressed a group of concerned students who had gathered around him. When asked if he was really leaving, Stanley reassured them, saying, “I love Yale. But Marci, Tim, and I, we’re gonna go defend democracy somewhere else.”

Stanley, who has taught at Yale for 12 years, was clearly frustrated with the direction the United States is heading under the current administration. Known for his scholarly work, including his books How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them and Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future, Stanley has built a career focusing on the dangers of fascism, epistemology, and social philosophy. His decision to leave the U.S. reflects the increasing anxiety within the academic community regarding the restrictions placed on freedom of expression, especially for those not holding U.S. citizenship.

“Suddenly if you’re not a citizen of the United States, you can’t comment on politics if you’re a professor? That’s crazy,” Stanley told CNN. “That’s not a free society.”

Stanley’s departure has struck a nerve within the academic world, especially after recent events that have heightened concerns about the Trump administration’s policies toward higher education. His decision follows the controversial stance taken by Columbia University, which found itself in the midst of a funding crisis after President Trump threatened to withdraw federal support over allegations that the institution failed to adequately address antisemitic behavior on campus during the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The ongoing threats from the Trump administration against university funding and academic freedom, such as the executive order targeting antisemitism and the recent suspension of federal funds at multiple universities, have exacerbated tensions. Columbia responded by implementing policy changes, including restrictions on face coverings during protests and reviewing its curriculum in response to the administration’s demands.

The situation has also raised alarm about the broader implications for academic institutions. Yale’s academic freedom has not yet been directly challenged by the Trump administration, but the unfolding struggles at other prestigious universities have highlighted the precariousness of academia in the current political climate. The potential for funding cuts and the fear of administrative capitulation are pressing issues for educators, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.

Alongside Stanley, Yale history professors Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder are also moving to the University of Toronto. Both Shore, a specialist in modern European intellectual history, and Snyder, an expert in history and global affairs, have voiced similar concerns about the erosion of academic independence under the current U.S. administration. Snyder remarked that their decision was solidified after the 2024 presidential election, citing a growing fear that university administrations would increasingly bow to political pressure in order to secure federal funding.

“It’s not that I think everyone has put their head down and gotten in line,” Shore explained. “But I think a lot of people have, and I fear that university administrations will, because institutions naturally have an incentive to act in the interest of self-preservation.”

Keith Whittington, a Yale professor and cofounder of the Academic Freedom Alliance, expressed concern over the broader ramifications of these departures. “If you lose your best people who decide to go to other countries, that’s going to have long-term consequences,” Whittington warned, emphasizing the risks to U.S. leadership in scientific research and higher education.

Despite the challenges, Stanley remains resolute in his decision, insisting that it is not a matter of fear but of standing up for democratic values. “I’ll be in a much better position to fight bullies,” Stanley said, signaling his commitment to advocating for democracy and academic freedom from abroad.

In response to Stanley’s departure, Yale University issued a statement acknowledging that while the institution respects the decisions of its faculty members, it remains committed to supporting its academic community. “Yale is proud of its global faculty community,” the university said, “which includes faculty who may no longer work at the institution, or whose contributions to academia may continue at a different home institution.”

For Stanley and his colleagues, the move to Toronto represents not just a change of location, but a deep commitment to continuing the fight for democracy and academic freedom outside the increasingly polarized and politically charged atmosphere of the United States.

U.S. Government Targets Student Activism: Over 300 Visas Revoked Amid Escalating Deportations

In a controversial move, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Thursday that the State Department had revoked the visas of more than 300 students, a number that is expected to rise. This action is part of the White House’s growing crackdown on foreign-born students, many of whom have been involved in political activism, particularly related to pro-Palestinian protests that have been sweeping college campuses.

Rubio made it clear that the government’s focus is on what he referred to as “these lunatics” – individuals who, according to him, are using their student visas not for education but for activism. His statements, made during a visit to Guyana, came amid reports of increasing detentions and deportations of students from countries like Iran, Turkey, and Palestine.

"It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas," Rubio said, underscoring the administration’s intent to target those engaging in political activism. Some of these arrests have taken place in dramatic fashion, with students detained by masked immigration agents and sent to detention centers, often far from their homes, with limited explanation.

Among the high-profile cases is that of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national studying in the U.S. on a student visa. Ozturk was arrested earlier this week in Somerville, Massachusetts, and is currently being held in a Louisiana detention facility. Her arrest follows her involvement in a Tufts University student newspaper article that called on the institution to divest from companies with ties to Israel and to acknowledge what she referred to as the Palestinian genocide. Importantly, Ozturk’s essay did not mention Hamas, yet her arrest has raised concerns over the broader political targeting of students engaged in activism.

Many of the students caught up in this crackdown are believed to have been involved in the pro-Palestinian protests that gained momentum on campuses last year. While the administration has not provided specific reasons for targeting these students, far-right pro-Israel groups have compiled lists of individuals they accuse of promoting anti-U.S. or anti-Israel sentiments. These lists have reportedly been shared with U.S. immigration authorities, further intensifying the political climate surrounding these detentions.

The move is part of a larger agenda by the Trump administration to clamp down on the activities of legal permanent residents and student visa holders. Immigration experts warn that such actions undermine the fundamental American right to free speech and assembly, particularly in academic settings.

Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, described the current situation as "uniquely disturbing," stating that it sends a message to the brightest minds around the world who traditionally chose to study in the U.S. for its openness and intellectual freedom. The message, he argues, is now one of rejection.

The administration's actions are said to be guided by an immigration provision dating back to the Cold War, which allows the revocation of visas if a student's activities are seen as posing "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Some of the students targeted, including Ozturk, have had their visas revoked under this justification, despite no clear evidence of criminal activity.

Other notable individuals caught in the crosshairs include Alireza Doroudi, a doctoral student from Iran at the University of Alabama, and Badar Khan Suri, an Indian graduate student at Georgetown University. Both have been detained without clear charges, sparking concerns over whether their arrests are retaliatory measures for their political views. Suri, for instance, was allegedly detained for spreading Hamas propaganda, although he has denied such claims.

This wave of detentions and visa revocations also extends to other students like Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia University student who participated in protests. Despite being a legal permanent resident, Chung now faces deportation. Similarly, Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian student at Columbia, was detained by ICE after allegedly overstaying her student visa.

The increasing number of student arrests and deportations is drawing the attention of human rights advocates, who argue that these actions are a direct attack on free speech. Samah Sisay, one of the attorneys representing detained students, expressed concern that the government's actions are not only targeting specific political views but are also intended to intimidate future student activists.

This crackdown is also raising questions about the role of U.S. universities in protecting their students. In one high-profile case, Columbia University agreed to implement significant changes after President Trump threatened to withdraw $400 million in federal research funding over accusations that the university was not doing enough to address harassment of Jewish students.

As these events unfold, the future of student activism in the U.S. appears increasingly uncertain. If these trends continue, more students may face the loss of their visas, deportation, or even criminal charges related to their political beliefs and actions on campus. The implications for free speech, academic freedom, and international student exchange are profound, and advocates are calling for a reassessment of policies that allow such widespread and seemingly arbitrary actions against students.

In the face of this growing repression, one thing is clear: the United States is now sending a strong message to the world about what it will and will not tolerate in its universities. Whether that message will stifle the tradition of academic activism remains to be seen.

FACULTY UNIONS SUE TRUMP ADMIN: NO HALTING SCIENCE RESEARCH TO SUPPRESS SPEECH (American Federation of Teachers)

The faculty and national labor unions allege that the Trump administration improperly canceled Columbia University’s federal funding to compel speech restrictions on campus, damaging both vital scientific research and academic discourse

NEW YORK– The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the AFT today sued the Trump administration on behalf of their members for unlawfully cutting off $400 million in federal funding for crucial public health research to force Columbia University to surrender its academic independence. While the Trump administration has been slashing funding since its first days in office, this move represents a stunning new tactic: using cuts as a cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control over teaching and learning.

The plaintiffs, who represent members of Columbia University faculty in both the humanities and sciences, allege that this coercive tactic not only undermines academic independence, but stops vital scientific research that contributes to the health and prosperity of all Americans. The terminated grants supported research on urgent issues, including Alzheimer’s disease prevention, fetal health in pregnant women, and cancer research.

The Trump administration’s unprecedented demands, and threats of similar actions against 60 universities, have created instability and a deep chilling effect on college campuses across the country.  Although the administration claims to be acting to combat antisemitism under its authority to prevent discrimination, it has completely disregarded the requirements of Title VI, the statute that provides it with that authority–requirements that exist to prevent the government from exercising too much unfettered control over funding recipients. According to the complaint, the cancellation of federal funds also violates the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and other constitutional provisions.

“The Trump administration’s threats and coercion at Columbia are part of a clear authoritarian playbook meant to crush academic freedom and critical research in American higher education. Faculty, students, and the American public will not stand for it. The repercussions extend far beyond the walls of the academy. Our constitutional rights, and the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to live in a democracy are on the line,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP.

“President Trump has taken a hatchet to American ingenuity, imagination and invention at Columbia to attack academic freedom and force compliance with his political views,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “Let’s be clear: the administration should tackle legitimate issues of discrimination. But this modern-day McCarthyism is not just an illegal attack on our nation’s deeply held free speech and due process rights, it creates a chilling effect that hinders the pursuit of knowledge—the core purpose of our colleges and universities. Today, we reject this bullying and resolve to challenge the administration’s edicts until they are rescinded.”

“We’re seeing university leadership across the country failing to take any action to counter the Trump administration’s unlawful assault on academic freedom,” said Reinhold Martin, president of Columbia-AAUP and professor of architecture. “As faculty, we don’t have the luxury of inaction. The integrity of civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic society are under attack. We have to stand up.”

The complaint alleges that the Trump administration’s broad punitive tactics are indicative of an attempt to consolidate power over higher education broadly. According to the complaint, the administration is simultaneously threatening other universities with similar punishment in order to chill dissent on specific topics and speech with which the administration disagrees. Trump administration officials have spoken publicly about their plans to “bankrupt these universities” if they don’t “play ball.”

Universities have historically been engines of innovation in critical fields like technology, national security, and medical treatments. Cuts to that research will ultimately harm the health, prosperity and security of all Americans.

“Columbia is the testing ground for the Trump administration’s tactic to force universities to yield to its control,” said Orion Danjuma, counsel at Protect Democracy. “We are bringing this lawsuit to protect higher education from unlawful government censorship and political repression.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York and names as defendants the government agencies that cut Columbia’s funding on March 7 and signed the March 13 letter to Columbia laying out the government's demands required to restore the funding, including the Department of Justice, Department of Education, Health and Human Services and General Services Administration. The plaintiffs are represented by Protect Democracy and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

The full complaint can be read here.

Donald Trump's 9-Year War Against US Education

Since his emergence on the national political stage, Donald Trump has been a polarizing figure, bringing his brand of combative rhetoric and controversial policies to every corner of American society. One of the key arenas where his influence has been felt the most is in the realm of education. From 2016 to 2025, Trump’s war on education has manifested through a series of legislative actions, executive orders, and cultural provocations that aimed to reshape the American education system. These efforts have targeted everything from public schools to higher education institutions, and even the very curriculum taught to students.

The Deconstruction of Public Education

At the heart of Trump’s vision for education was the dismantling of traditional public schooling. During his first term as president, Trump and his allies sought to undermine the very foundation of public education by promoting privatization and school choice initiatives. His administration pushed for expanded funding for charter schools and private school vouchers, which would allow families to use public funds to pay for private education.

This movement gained momentum in 2017 when Betsy DeVos, a staunch advocate for school privatization, was appointed as Secretary of Education. Under her leadership, the Department of Education rolled back Obama-era regulations designed to protect students and promote equitable access to education. Critics argued that DeVos’s policies favored wealthy families and private institutions while leaving public schools underfunded and underserved, particularly in marginalized communities.

The Attack on College Campuses

Trump’s war on education wasn’t confined to K-12 schooling. Higher education was also a major battleground during his presidency and beyond. In his first few years in office, Trump took aim at what he saw as the liberal indoctrination of students on college campuses. His rhetoric about “political correctness” and “safe spaces” served as a rallying cry for conservative students and faculty, but also sparked fierce resistance from progressives and academics who felt that free speech and intellectual diversity were under threat.

Trump’s administration took several steps to curb what he described as “left-wing bias” in higher education. In 2019, he signed an executive order that threatened to withhold federal funding from universities that did not protect free speech, a move that critics viewed as a political stunt to rally his base. The Trump administration also rolled back protections for marginalized groups, including Title IX protections for transgender students, and shifted the Department of Education’s focus away from investigating discrimination and harassment cases in favor of addressing “free speech” concerns.

Curricular Controversies and Cultural Wars

The Trump era also saw an escalation of the culture wars, particularly with regard to the curriculum being taught in schools. Trump and his allies began to target lessons related to race, gender, and American history, framing them as divisive or unpatriotic. In 2020, following the Black Lives Matter protests, Trump launched the 1776 Commission, a response to what he viewed as a growing movement to “rewrite” American history. The commission’s purpose was to promote a more “patriotic” curriculum that would emphasize the positive aspects of American history, while downplaying the country’s legacy of slavery and racial inequality.

In the following years, many states, particularly those led by Republican governors, passed laws banning the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in public schools. These laws prohibited the teaching of concepts that might make students “uncomfortable” about America’s history of racism, and further entrenched the ideological divide over how history and social issues should be taught in the classroom. Trump’s rhetoric and policies had a direct impact on how schools and teachers navigated the increasingly charged political atmosphere.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on Education

Perhaps the most dramatic intersection of Trump’s policies and education came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump consistently downplayed the severity of the virus and pushed for schools to reopen quickly, even as the pandemic raged across the nation. His administration provided little federal guidance or support for school districts struggling with the challenges of online learning and public health concerns. Trump’s insistence that schools should be open for in-person instruction became a point of contention, with many educators and parents concerned about the safety of students and staff.

While some states followed Trump’s call to reopen schools, others, especially in blue states, opted to remain virtual or implement hybrid models. This divide further exacerbated the political polarization over education, with Trump framing the debate as a fight between “freedom” and “control,” while critics argued that his policies endangered public health and undermined the long-term well-being of students.

Legacy of Division and Reshaping Education

As Trump’s presidency drew to a close, it became clear that his approach to education had left a lasting impact on the country. His administration’s policies had deepened the divisions between public and private schooling, amplified cultural and political debates about what students should learn, and exacerbated existing inequalities in the education system.

In 2024, as Trump continued to remain a significant force in American politics, the ideological battle over education remained unresolved. His push for school choice and privatization, along with his ongoing influence on local education policy, suggested that the “war on education” was far from over. States across the country continued to grapple with issues such as curriculum control, free speech on college campuses, and the role of government in funding education.

Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education

As Trump’s influence stretched into the second half of the decade, the war on education reached a dramatic new phase. In 2025, following his return to office, Trump signed an executive order that effectively began the process of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. This move came as part of a larger effort to reduce the role of the federal government in everyday life, echoing Trump’s long-standing rhetoric of decentralization and states’ rights.

The department’s responsibilities were reassigned to various state agencies, with a strong emphasis on allowing individual states to shape their own educational policies without federal interference. This was seen by Trump as a victory for conservatives who had long criticized federal education policies for being too one-size-fits-all. Critics, however, argued that this dismantling of the department could lead to a patchwork of educational standards across the country, further entrenching inequalities in access to quality education.

Furthermore, the reduction in federal oversight had significant implications for funding, student protections, and the enforcement of civil rights in education. Many feared that without the Department of Education’s regulatory power, vulnerable students, including those from low-income backgrounds and marginalized communities, would suffer from a lack of protections and resources.

Cuts to Science and Research Funding

Trump’s policies also have had a significant impact on scientific research at major universities, with institutions like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) facing severe cuts to critical research funding. Johns Hopkins University, one of the largest recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, announced plans to eliminate over 2,000 positions in response to federal cuts, potentially losing over $100 million in research funding. This reduction in federal support, especially for scientific research, had major consequences for ongoing studies, from medical advancements to climate change research, affecting the broader academic community.

Meanwhile, the University of Pennsylvania also experienced significant financial strain due to cuts in federal contracts, which impacted their research funding and innovation. The Trump administration's cuts to science funding across the board resulted in a stifling of some of the nation’s top research institutions, creating ripple effects throughout the entire academic and scientific community. The loss of funding for groundbreaking research projects at these prestigious institutions further strained the ability of scientists to pursue critical work in fields such as public health, climate change, and cancer research.

Victory Against Columbia University

One of the most high-profile actions taken in the final phase of Trump’s war on education was his administration's attack on elite institutions, particularly Columbia University. As one of the most prestigious Ivy League schools in the U.S., Columbia had become a target for Trump’s criticisms of what he perceived as liberal bias on college campuses.

In 2025, Trump and his allies escalated their campaign against universities, particularly those with strong liberal reputations. Columbia was singled out due to its left-leaning faculty and student body, as well as its vocal support for progressive policies related to climate change, racial justice, and gender equality. The Trump administration levied significant threats of withdrawing federal funding from the university unless it adhered to a more conservative curriculum. Additionally, Trump’s education policy advisers launched investigations into the institution’s handling of free speech issues, particularly in relation to controversial speakers and protests on campus.

By March 2025, Columbia faced a stark financial crisis after losing $400 million in federal funding for its failure to address antisemitism on campus. The administration warned 60 other institutions about similar consequences unless they ensured the safety of Jewish students. In its eventual capitulation to the Trump Administration, Columbia allowed student activist Mahmoud Khalil to be arrested and sent to a detention facility in Louisiana. The decision further fueled national debates about the balance between free speech and university autonomy.

Education as the Frontline in America’s Cultural Battle

Looking back at Trump’s influence on education between 2016 and 2025, it’s clear that the battle over how America educates its children and young adults became a focal point for larger cultural, political, and ideological conflicts. Trump’s legacy in education is defined by attempts to reshape the system in his image—whether through pushing for privatization, engaging in culture wars over curriculum, or sowing division over the future of public education. The ultimate impact of his policies will continue to reverberate for years to come, shaping not just the educational landscape, but the future of American society itself.