Social Reality: Is Needed Justice Reform in America Possible?

Reforming the U.S. legal profession and improving access to justice is a daunting, nearly impossible challenge. The (in)justice system is increasingly overwhelmed by massive case backlogs and a growing pattern of decisions that disproportionately disadvantage working-class individuals, raising serious concerns about equal access to justice and the erosion of public trust in legal institutions. Despite the pressing need for change, the entrenched interests and structural flaws within the system have created a legal landscape that is resistant to meaningful reform. While there are various proposals for change, they often run headfirst into the vast power of those who benefit from the current system, making true progress an uphill battle.

Reforming Unauthorized Practice of Law (UPL) Laws

The UPL laws, which are intended to protect consumers from unqualified legal advice, are often wielded as a weapon to preserve the monopoly that licensed lawyers have on legal services. While reform proposals suggest allowing non-lawyers, such as paralegals, to provide more services or revising enforcement to make it easier for people to access affordable help, these changes face steep opposition. Law firms, bar associations, and the established legal profession are unlikely to willingly give up the control they have over legal services, even if it means denying access to justice for those who cannot afford traditional legal representation. These reforms threaten their profitable business models, and as such, they are fiercely guarded by the very people who would be most affected by their implementation. Any meaningful reform would have to overcome a deeply entrenched system that profits off maintaining high barriers to entry and costly services.

Expanding Access to Affordable Legal Services

The idea of expanding legal aid or incentivizing pro bono work to improve access to legal services is a noble one, but it does little to address the core issues of systemic inefficiency. Legal aid organizations are underfunded and overburdened, often unable to meet the needs of the most vulnerable. While pro bono work is often lauded as a solution, it is not a reliable or sustainable path forward. Law firms that participate in pro bono work typically do so on their terms, taking on cases that have high visibility or public interest, while the overwhelming majority of low-income individuals continue to be left without adequate representation.

Furthermore, proposals for sliding-scale fees or flat-rate pricing models for legal services are unlikely to disrupt the deeply embedded billable-hour model. Law firms and lawyers are incentivized to keep clients in the system for as long as possible, maximizing profits rather than minimizing the cost of services. Until there is substantial reform to the way legal services are priced and delivered, accessibility will remain a distant dream for those who need it most.

Legal Technology and Innovation

Technological innovation has been touted as a potential solution to the access-to-justice crisis, with companies like LegalZoom and Rocket Lawyer offering affordable alternatives to traditional legal services. However, these platforms, while helpful for basic services, only scratch the surface of the larger problem. They focus on simple tasks like document preparation, leaving individuals with complex legal issues still in the dark. The reality is that these tools often do more to reinforce the current system than to dismantle it.

Moreover, the reliance on technology fails to account for the digital divide. Many low-income individuals, particularly in rural areas, do not have access to the necessary tools or internet connections to utilize these services effectively. In addition, these services still do not provide the level of personalized, professional legal representation that many people require. As such, legal technology remains an inadequate solution to the underlying problems of accessibility and affordability.

Reforming Legal Education

The exorbitant cost of law school remains one of the most significant barriers to diversifying the legal profession and addressing the oversupply of lawyers. While proposals to reduce tuition or offer more affordable paths to the profession, such as apprenticeships or clerkships, sound appealing, the reality is that the legal education system is unlikely to change without substantial disruption. Law schools, driven by high tuition fees, have little incentive to lower costs, and the established power structures within the profession work to preserve the current educational model.

Diversity initiatives in law schools, while important, often fail to address the broader issues of accessibility. The overwhelming cost of legal education prevents many individuals from underrepresented communities from entering the profession, despite efforts to provide scholarships and outreach programs. Until the cost of legal education is addressed on a systemic level, any attempts at increasing diversity in the profession will be little more than a Band-Aid solution to a much larger problem.

Strengthening Anti-SLAPP Legislation

Anti-SLAPP laws, which protect individuals from frivolous lawsuits aimed at stifling free speech, are essential for ensuring that individuals can criticize powerful interests without fear of retribution. However, these laws are not universally applied, and in many states, they are weak or difficult to enforce. The reality is that powerful corporations and wealthy individuals often use their resources to exploit the legal system, silencing critics with the threat of costly litigation.

The expansion of Anti-SLAPP protections nationwide is an uphill battle, especially given the powerful lobbying interests that benefit from the status quo. Even when such laws exist, they are often undermined by a system that favors the wealthy and the powerful. Stronger enforcement measures are needed to deter the use of lawsuits as a tool for silencing dissent, but the legal system remains far too vulnerable to exploitation by those with the resources to manipulate it.

Policy and Legislative Advocacy: A Stale Battle

Advocating for comprehensive legal reforms in the current political climate seems like a futile endeavor. Lawmakers are entrenched in partisan battles, with little interest in tackling the structural problems within the legal profession. While some reforms, such as revising UPL laws or increasing funding for legal aid, might garner some support, the overall political environment makes it exceedingly difficult to achieve anything substantial.

Powerful lobbying groups, including the American Bar Association, hold significant sway over the legislative process, ensuring that any efforts to reform the legal system are watered down or blocked altogether. Those who would benefit from reform—namely, low-income individuals and marginalized communities—have little political power compared to the well-funded entities that protect the status quo.

Rethinking the Role of Law Firms

The idea of encouraging law firms to adopt new business models—such as flat fees or subscription services—has gained some traction, but it faces considerable opposition. Traditional law firms, particularly large ones, rely heavily on billable hours and high fees. The financial incentives built into the legal system make it difficult for firms to move away from these models, even if it means improving access for the public. Any attempts to make legal services more affordable are met with resistance from the industry, which benefits from its highly profitable business model.

Collaborations between law firms and nonprofits to provide legal services to underserved communities are a step in the right direction, but they are often limited in scope. Nonprofit legal organizations are themselves underfunded and overburdened, and the ability of law firms to significantly alter the landscape of legal access is hindered by the systemic forces working against change.

How is Legal Reform Possible?

Reforming the legal profession in today’s political climate is a near-impossible task. The systemic issues within the profession—entrenched business models, political polarization, and the deep financial interests that benefit from the current system—make significant reform highly unlikely. Though there are some proposals for change, they often face immense resistance from the very entities that stand to lose from these changes.

While the need for reform is urgent, meaningful change will not come easily. The road to reform is littered with powerful vested interests, both within and outside the legal profession, that will fight tooth and nail to maintain the status quo. Despite the calls for a more accessible, affordable, and equitable legal system, the reality is that, without major disruption, the legal system will continue to serve the interests of the wealthy and powerful, leaving the rest to fend for themselves.

In a system that so often seems to work against the people it is meant to serve, the prospects for true reform remain distant, and the barriers to achieving it are higher than ever. Until the broader political environment shifts to support fundamental change, the legal profession will remain one of the most entrenched, self-serving industries in America.

College Meltdown 2025, Quarter 1: Here we are, at another fork in the road.

In an August 2022 interview with Gary Stocker of College Viability, I offered a chilling projection for U.S. higher education and the College Meltdown:

“The worst-case scenario is that colleges are involved on both sides of a Second US Civil War between Christian Fundamentalists and neoliberals. Working families will take the largest hit.”

It’s a stark and provocative warning, but one grounded in decades of neoliberal policy, predatory capitalism, and ideological warfare. From our perspective at the Higher Education Inquirer, the College Meltdown is not a future risk—it’s a slow-moving catastrophe already unfolding.

Two Fronts in a Cultural and Economic War

On one side of this looming conflict are Christian fundamentalists who seek to remake public education in their own image: purging curricula of critical perspectives, defunding public universities, and promoting ideological orthodoxy over inquiry.

On the other side are neoliberal technocrats, who have transformed higher education into a marketplace of credentials, debt, and precarious labor. Under their regime, colleges prioritize growth, branding, and profit over education, equity, and labor rights.

Both groups, while ideologically different, are willing to use colleges as instruments of power. In doing so, they turn institutions of higher learning into ideological battlegrounds, undermining their civic purpose.

The Educated Underclass: Evidence of Collapse

One of the most visible outcomes of this dysfunction is the rise of the educated underclass. These are people who did what they were told: they went to college, took on debt, and earned degrees. Yet instead of opportunity, they found instability.

“A large proportion of those who have attended colleges have become part of a growing educated underclass,” Shaulis noted in his interview with Stocker.

This includes:

• Adjunct instructors working multiple jobs without benefits

• Degree holders underemployed in gig work

• Students lured into expensive, low-return programs at subprime colleges

These individuals are too educated for social support but too broke for economic stability. They are the byproduct of a system that treats education as a private investment rather than a public good.

Colleges in Crisis: A Systemic Failure

At the Higher Education Inquirer, our concept of the College Meltdown describes a long-term decline marked by falling enrollment, rising costs, debt peonage, and declining academic labor conditions:

• Enrollment has been falling since 2011, with sharp declines in community colleges and regional publics.

• Student debt has exploded, with minimal returns for many graduates.

• Academic labor is being deskilled, with "robocolleges" relying on underpaid, non-tenure-track staff or automated instruction.

• State funding is shrinking, as aging populations drive up Medicaid costs and crowd out investment in public higher education.

Enter the Trump Administration (2025)

The return of Donald Trump to the presidency in 2025 has further accelerated the higher ed crisis. His administration is now actively contributing to the system’s unraveling:

Deregulation and Predatory Practices

Trump’s Department of Education is dismantling federal oversight of for-profit colleges, weakening gainful employment protections and allowing discredited institutions back into the federal aid system. This benefits subprime colleges that trap students in cycles of debt.

Political Weaponization of Higher Ed

Trump-aligned state governments and federal agencies are targeting DEI initiatives, restricting academic freedom, and enforcing ideological conformity. Public colleges are increasingly being used to wage cultural wars.

Funding Cuts and Favoritism

Funding is being diverted from public institutions toward private religious colleges and corporate-friendly training programs. Meanwhile, community colleges and regional universities are being left to die on the vine.

Undermining Debt Relief

Efforts to reform or forgive student loans have been stalled or reversed. Borrowers are left stranded in opaque systems, while private loans surge in popularity—often with worse terms and even less accountability.

A Best-Case vs. Worst-Case Future

When asked what the next few years could look like, I offered a fork in the road:

Best case: Colleges become transparent, accountable, and aligned with the public good, confronting crises like climate change, inequality, and authoritarianism.

Worst case: Colleges become entrenched ideological battlegrounds, deepening inequality and social fragmentation. The educated underclass grows, and higher education becomes an engine of despair rather than mobility.

Conclusion

The College Meltdown is not a singular event—it is a long-term systemic crisis. Under the combined forces of privatization, political polarization, and demographic stress, U.S. higher education is being hollowed out.

As colleges pick sides in a broader culture war, the public mission of higher education is being sacrificed. The working class and the educated underclass are the casualties of a system that promised prosperity but delivered precarity.

In this volatile moment, the future of American higher education may well mirror the broader American crisis: one defined by deepening divides, fraying institutions, and a desperate need for accountability, justice, and reinvention.

Neoliberal Elites Win One Against Trump — And Now, Labor Is Under Siege

In a dramatic policy shift that took just hours, the Trump administration reversed its position on reciprocal tariffs, caving to pressure from corporate America. In an unexpected retreat, President Donald Trump, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Trade Advisor Peter Navarro reversed course on their “non-negotiable” tariffs, opting for a 90-day pause after facing a chorus of condemnation from CEOs and Wall Street titans. Despite the administration’s spin on the decision as a “win,” the retreat highlighted the deep sway that neoliberal elites hold over U.S. economic policy, even when faced with populist rhetoric.

While the immediate concern was the stock market plunge—$6.5 trillion lost in just two days—the larger narrative was the growing influence of corporate America in shaping trade policy. Business leaders from Jamie Dimon of JP Morgan to Larry Fink of BlackRock spoke out against the tariffs, urging the President to change course. In an organized show of power, corporate CEOs, including those from tech giants like Tesla and Ford, sided with the broader economic establishment over the administration’s protectionist policies.

However, what is not often discussed in these corporate circles is the broader attack on workers' rights and labor organizing taking place across the country—particularly in higher education, where private universities are increasingly using the courts and political arguments to undermine labor organizing efforts.

In a striking example of this trend, the University of Southern California (USC) has launched a direct challenge to the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), an independent federal agency that has long protected workers’ rights to organize and bargain collectively. The university is attempting to block a unionization effort by its non-tenure-track faculty members, echoing the anti-union rhetoric pushed by corporations like SpaceX, Amazon, and Trader Joe’s, which have previously argued that the NLRB is unconstitutional.

In December, over 2,500 non-tenure-track faculty members at USC filed a petition to form a union with the United Faculty-United Auto Workers (UFW-UAW). This move came after a majority of faculty members expressed support for unionization. But ten days after the petition was filed, USC took the unprecedented step of arguing that the NLRB itself is unconstitutional. This argument hinges on claims that the NLRB’s structure—specifically, its independence and the protection of its members from presidential dismissal—violates constitutional principles.

This tactic mirrors the legal arguments advanced by corporations like SpaceX, which in 2020 challenged the NLRB’s constitutionality in court, claiming that the board's authority to issue decisions in labor disputes violated the separation of powers. Amazon, too, has tried to undermine the NLRB’s authority, arguing that the board’s structure infringes upon its rights as an employer.

While corporate interests have long resisted unionization—fearing the erosion of their unchecked power—USC’s stance is particularly noteworthy because it highlights how elite institutions, even those within academia, are increasingly willing to side with corporate interests to suppress workers’ rights. The university’s argument that non-tenure-track faculty cannot unionize because they are “managers” or “supervisors” is a familiar refrain in the corporate world, where businesses often claim that certain employees lack the right to unionize due to their purported managerial roles. This is despite the fact that faculty members have little to no influence over university policy.

Jennifer Abruzzo, former general counsel for the NLRB, emphasized that the university could voluntarily recognize the faculty union without needing to rely on the NLRB’s authority. She argued that USC’s challenge is a direct attempt to subvert workers' rights to organize, asserting, “Whether the NLRB is unconstitutional or not does not preclude USC from recognizing and bargaining with their workers’ chosen representative.”

The significance of USC’s challenge extends beyond the university itself. If successful, this legal strategy could have wide-reaching implications for labor rights in the U.S. In a climate where conservative forces are already pushing to dismantle federal regulatory agencies, a ruling against the NLRB’s constitutionality could decimate the labor rights of nearly 170 million American workers.

For faculty members at USC, the stakes are personal and immediate. Sanjay Madhav, an associate professor and union activist at USC, pointed out that the push for unionization is especially critical as the university faces budget cuts and hiring freezes in response to financial uncertainty. Faculty members like Madhav are advocating for greater bargaining power, particularly around merit pay and benefits—issues that have become more pressing as the economic landscape becomes increasingly volatile.

Ironically, the pushback from USC against unionization underscores the very corporate mindset that has driven much of the resistance to Trump’s trade policies. Just as CEOs have leveraged their financial and political influence to halt tariffs that threatened their profits, private universities like USC are wielding legal arguments and political influence to protect their control over faculty and suppress the possibility of meaningful labor negotiations.

This broader context of corporate resistance to workers’ rights—both in trade policy and labor organizing—raises critical questions for higher education. It signals a growing trend where powerful interests are not only challenging the rights of workers but are also attempting to reframe the debate around collective bargaining and labor rights as unconstitutional or undesirable. This echoes a deeper, neoliberal agenda that seeks to hollow out democratic mechanisms of worker representation, whether in trade, the workplace, or the classroom.

As faculty at USC and other institutions wait to hear whether they will be allowed to proceed with their union election, the broader question remains: What happens when the very institutions that are meant to foster critical thinking and social mobility also align themselves with forces that seek to dismantle workers’ rights? And what does it mean for the future of labor and democracy when both corporate America and elite universities are so aggressively working to undermine the rights of those who power their institutions?

---

US-China Trade War Escalates: What It Means for Chinese Students in America

The ongoing US-China trade war has intensified tensions between the two global superpowers, and higher education is feeling the impact. As President Donald Trump’s administration enforces harsher policies on China, international students—particularly those from China—are now caught in the crossfire of this economic and diplomatic battle. The implications for Chinese students hoping to study in the United States, as well as for American universities that have long relied on them, are becoming increasingly significant.

Visa Restrictions and Increased Scrutiny

One of the most immediate effects of the trade war has been on the student visa process. The Trump administration has imposed new restrictions on Chinese students, especially those studying in fields deemed sensitive to national security interests. This includes graduate students in areas like artificial intelligence, robotics, and quantum computing. The new visa policies make it more difficult for these students to enter the US, with extended waiting times and heightened scrutiny of visa applications.

While the US has historically been a top destination for Chinese students—who are not only drawn by world-class educational institutions but also the promise of future career opportunities—the tightening of visa regulations has caused many to reconsider. The fear of being caught in political crosswinds, combined with the uncertainty surrounding the trade war, has led to a growing number of Chinese students looking to study in countries with more stable diplomatic relations and less restrictive policies, such as Canada, Australia, or the UK.

Impact on US Universities and Research

US universities are feeling the ripple effects of this trade war, as Chinese students make up the largest group of international students in the country. According to the Institute of International Education, Chinese students contribute more than $14 billion annually to the US economy through tuition and living expenses. Universities that once welcomed these students with open arms are now grappling with declining enrollment numbers and the prospect of losing a significant revenue stream.

Research partnerships are also suffering. Chinese students, many of whom are pursuing graduate degrees in STEM fields, have been vital contributors to cutting-edge research at American universities. With restrictions tightening, universities may struggle to maintain their leadership in global innovation. Furthermore, many research projects that rely on international collaboration face delays or cancellations due to political tensions and fears of intellectual property theft.

Which Universities Will Be Hurt the Most?

Some of the most prestigious US universities stand to be disproportionately affected by the tightening of Chinese student visas and the broader trade conflict. Institutions that rely heavily on Chinese students both for their enrollment numbers and financial contributions may face significant challenges.

1. Top Ivy League Schools
   Ivy League schools, such as Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, have long been magnets for Chinese students. Harvard alone enrolled nearly 5,000 international students from China in recent years, and the closure of this recruitment pipeline could lead to steep declines in overall student numbers and financial stability for these schools. These universities also rely on international students to contribute to academic diversity and global research partnerships.

2. STEM-focused Universities
   Universities with strong STEM (Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics) programs, such as the University of California, Berkeley, MIT, and Stanford, are among those most vulnerable. Chinese students make up a significant portion of graduate students in these fields, and many of them are involved in high-level research that contributes to American leadership in technology and innovation. The loss of Chinese graduate students could hinder research capabilities and potentially delay technological advancements.

3. Public Research Universities
   Public institutions like the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign and University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) also stand to lose large numbers of Chinese students. Many of these universities have established robust partnerships with Chinese institutions, facilitating exchange programs and joint research initiatives. With stricter visa policies and increased scrutiny, these collaborations could be jeopardized, weakening their global research standing.

4. Private Universities in Major Urban Centers
   Private universities, particularly those in major metropolitan areas like New York University (NYU), Columbia University, and University of Southern California (USC), which have long attracted a significant number of international students, may face financial strain as enrollment drops. These schools have benefited from the influx of full-paying international students, and their financial health could be seriously impacted if Chinese students—who often pay full tuition—choose to study elsewhere.

The Decline of Confucius Institutes: Another Impact of US-China Tensions

Adding another layer of complexity to the current situation is the steady decline of Confucius Institutes in the United States since 2018. These centers for Chinese language and cultural education were established with the goal of promoting Chinese culture, language, and knowledge of China’s social and political history. However, under the Trump administration, a growing number of universities have shut down or severed ties with their Confucius Institutes due to concerns over academic freedom and potential Chinese government influence.

The closure of Confucius Institutes is a direct result of the broader geopolitical tensions between the two nations. Critics argue that these centers, funded by the Chinese government, acted as a soft-power tool for Beijing, with the potential to influence curricula and suppress criticism of China’s policies. In 2020, the US State Department designated several Confucius Institutes as "foreign missions," further heightening scrutiny and prompting additional closures.

For US universities, the decline of Confucius Institutes has meant the loss of a long-established funding source, along with a reduction in cultural exchange programs that could have helped to mitigate the loss of students from China. Additionally, universities that hosted these centers are now grappling with how to reshape their Chinese language and cultural studies programs, often without the same level of institutional support.  In 2025, only five Confucius Institutes remain:

• Alfred University; Alfred, New York.
• Pacific Lutheran University; Tacoma, Washington.
• San Diego Global Knowledge University; San Diego, California.
• Troy University; Troy, Alabama.
• Webster University; St. Louis, Missouri.
• Wesleyan College; Macon, Georgia.

Increasing Tensions on US Campuses

As US-China relations continue to sour, tensions are also rising on US university campuses. A report from Radio Free Asia in August 2023 highlighted growing concerns about Chinese influence on US college campuses, particularly through initiatives like Confucius Institutes and Chinese student organizations. These groups, some of which have been accused of suppressing free speech and monitoring dissent, have faced increasing scrutiny from both US authorities and university administrations. In some cases, these organizations have been linked to the Chinese government’s broader propaganda efforts.

Students and faculty who advocate for human rights or criticize Chinese policies—especially regarding issues like Hong Kong, Tibet, and Xinjiang—have reported facing pressure or surveillance from Chinese-backed student groups. This growing sense of insecurity has led to a polarized environment, where Chinese students, in particular, are caught between their loyalty to their home country and the need to navigate a politically charged academic space.

Moreover, the US government’s push to restrict Chinese students in certain fields has further stoked fears of academic suppression and retaliation. The situation has created an atmosphere of uncertainty, making it difficult for both US and Chinese students to pursue their academic goals without being caught in the middle of geopolitical tensions.

The Broader Educational Landscape

In response to these challenges, some US universities are beginning to adjust their strategies to attract a more diverse range of international students. As the US-China relationship continues to sour, universities are looking to other countries—particularly those in Asia, Europe, and Latin America—to build new partnerships and recruitment channels.

While some US institutions are already shifting their focus to regions outside of China, others are doubling down on their internationalization efforts, exploring new ways to make studying in the US more attractive to foreign students. This includes offering scholarships and financial incentives for students from non-traditional countries, as well as expanding online learning opportunities for international students who may feel uneasy about traveling to the US under the current political climate.

Trade War as a Catalyst for Change

Though the US-China trade war presents significant challenges for both Chinese students and American universities, it also serves as a catalyst for change in higher education. This ongoing trade dispute underscores the importance of diversifying international student bodies and fostering collaborations beyond traditional powerhouses like China.

However, the situation raises larger questions about the future of global education. As more students choose to study elsewhere in the wake of tightened restrictions, the US risks losing its position as the world's leading destination for higher education. This would have lasting economic and cultural consequences, not only for the universities that rely on international students but also for the broader American public, which benefits from the ideas and innovation that foreign students bring to the country.

Looking Ahead

As the US-China trade war continues to unfold, the long-term impact on the international student landscape remains uncertain. While the trade war may ultimately result in stronger policies aimed at protecting US interests, it also threatens to undermine the very foundation of higher education in America—the free exchange of ideas and the global collaboration that drives innovation.

For US universities, the challenge now is to balance national security concerns with the need to remain open to international talent. The key will be maintaining a welcoming environment for students from all over the world while navigating the complexities of global politics. After all, the future of American higher education—and its ability to lead on the world stage—depends on the continued exchange of ideas, research, and cultural experiences, regardless of geopolitical conflicts.

Hardship Ahead

As we stand on the precipice of a turbulent future, one thing has become clear: the hardships ahead will disproportionately affect the working class, and the elites — across political, corporate, media, and intellectual spheres — have shown a consistent, and often intentional, indifference to their struggles. While many of us brace for economic downturns, climate chaos, and the seismic shifts brought on by technological advancements, the reality is that the ruling class has actively shaped a system where the burdens of these challenges will fall on the backs of ordinary people, all while they remain largely insulated from the consequences. The rise of authoritarian figures like President Donald Trump may dominate the headlines, but it’s not just about him; it’s about a broader systemic issue where elites, regardless of their political affiliation, have consistently prioritized their own interests over the well-being of those beneath them.

The Political Elites: A System Built to Serve the Powerful

It’s easy to point to figures like Donald Trump as the embodiment of elite disregard for the working class, but that misses the bigger picture. Trump was not a rogue element in the American political landscape, but rather the latest manifestation of a system that has long been rigged to benefit the wealthy. His administration, while promising to fight for the forgotten American worker, ultimately enacted policies that only deepened the wealth divide. Corporate tax cuts, deregulation, and a lack of meaningful action to address the hollowing out of American industries — these were the actions of a leader who claimed to represent the working class, but ultimately sided with the elite.

But Trump’s actions were not unique. The bipartisan neglect of the working class by both Republican and Democratic elites has been a long-standing feature of U.S. politics. Under both parties, trade deals like NAFTA, the deregulation of industries, the decline of unions, and the outsourcing of jobs were all policies that catered to corporate elites while leaving millions of working-class Americans in the dust. The promises of upward mobility, economic security, and better wages have been largely replaced with a system that offers crumbs to the working class while the wealthy continue to reap record profits. Political elites — whether through tax cuts for the rich or cuts to social programs — have shown an outright disregard for the struggles of everyday people.

This indifference is only magnified as we now face a growing economic crisis. The pandemic and economic shutdowns pushed the working class further into financial instability, and the challenges ahead — from potential recessions to an increasing reliance on automation — will continue to hit hardest those already on the brink. But the elites, whether corporate giants, politicians, or financial institutions, are poised to weather these storms with little more than an inconvenience to their wealth and power. Meanwhile, workers will be forced to bear the weight of an unstable economy, with wages stagnating and job insecurity rising.

Corporate Elites: Profits Over People, Even in the Face of Crisis

The corporate elite — the billionaires and multinational corporations who control the economy — have continued their indifference to the working class, exacerbating the hardships that lie ahead. As climate change accelerates and the global economy teeters on the brink, these corporations are more concerned with profits than with providing real solutions to the problems at hand. Instead of adapting to the growing demands for fair wages, secure jobs, and environmentally sustainable practices, many corporations are doubling down on exploiting their workers.

Take the tech industry, for example. Amazon, Google, and other tech giants are facing mounting scrutiny for their poor labor practices, such as low wages, harsh working conditions, and algorithmic surveillance of employees. Yet these companies — some of the richest in the world — are not shifting their priorities to address the inequities in their business models. Instead, they continue to exploit the labor of workers without offering them the protections and benefits they deserve. Meanwhile, the CEOs of these companies enjoy unimaginable wealth, completely detached from the daily struggles of those who actually power their success.

The financial sector, too, continues to perpetuate a system of inequality. The speculative bubbles in cryptocurrency, real estate, and stocks benefit the wealthy, while the working class is left with the fallout. When the next financial crisis inevitably hits — and it will — it will be the workers who lose their jobs, homes, and savings, while the banks and hedge funds are bailed out by the government. This pattern of privatizing gains and socializing losses has become a hallmark of elite indifference to the struggles of everyday Americans.

Media Elites: Crafting Narratives that Serve the Powerful

The media, which should serve as a check on power and a platform for the voices of the marginalized, has become yet another arm of the elite establishment. Corporate-controlled media outlets are more concerned with maintaining their profit margins and advertising revenue than with accurately reflecting the struggles of the working class. The growing divide in society — along lines of race, class, gender, and age — is often presented as an isolated issue, rather than a systemic failure that stems from decades of elite indifference and exploitation.

The media elites who control these narratives continue to push the idea of a meritocracy — the belief that success is the result of hard work and determination — despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. While working-class people struggle with rising rents, stagnant wages, and a lack of job security, media outlets cater to the wealthy and powerful, maintaining a status quo that ensures the perpetuation of inequality. The media’s failure to adequately address the systemic issues that have led to this growing divide — from the dismantling of the welfare state to the erosion of workers' rights — only deepens the alienation felt by ordinary citizens.

The Intellectual Elites: Detached from Reality

Even in academia and intellectual circles, the response to the challenges facing the working class is often one of detachment or indifference. While scholars and economists may craft theories about the future of work, automation, and global economic systems, few offer tangible, actionable solutions to help the millions of Americans who are already struggling. The intellectual elites — with their focus on abstract concepts and lofty ideals — have consistently failed to address the immediate needs of the working class.

For example, the rise of automation and artificial intelligence presents an existential threat to many workers in industries like manufacturing, retail, and transportation. While experts discuss the benefits of these technologies, few have addressed the real-world consequences for workers whose jobs are being automated away. The intellectual elites have, in many cases, failed to call for policies that would ensure a just transition for these workers, leaving them at the mercy of a system that values profit over people.

The Coming Hardships: Economic, Social, and Environmental Struggles

The coming years will bring significant hardships — both in terms of economic instability and environmental catastrophe. The working class will bear the brunt of these challenges, and yet, the elites seem more interested in protecting their wealth and power than in addressing the root causes of these crises. As automation continues to displace workers, and as the climate crisis leads to extreme weather events and resource scarcity, the working class will face mass unemployment, displacement, and economic insecurity. Yet, while working people are scrambling to adapt to these changes, the elites will continue to live in their gated communities, insulated from the storms of hardship that are ravaging the rest of society.

At the same time, geopolitical tensions — fueled in part by elite disregard for diplomacy and international cooperation — are pushing the world closer to conflict. The U.S. has increasingly aligned itself with authoritarian regimes and turned a blind eye to human rights abuses around the globe. The failure to address these global injustices, combined with a domestic political landscape increasingly divided by race, class, gender, and age, creates a volatile environment in which the working class will continue to suffer, while the elites profit off of the instability they have helped create.

Resistance and Reclamation of Power

Despite the indifference of the elites, resistance is growing. In the face of climate change, economic instability, and rising inequality, workers are beginning to organize — through strikes, protests, and boycotts — to demand better conditions, fair wages, and a more just society. This nonviolent resistance is not just a response to Trump’s policies but to a broader system that has long been stacked against the working class.

The time has come to recognize that the elites — whether in politics, business, or media — have consistently prioritized their own interests over the well-being of ordinary people. As the hardships ahead loom large, the working class must begin to reclaim power, not just through resistance but through the creation of a new system that values their labor, their dignity, and their humanity.

We cannot afford to wait for elites to solve these problems; the future depends on the collective action of those who have been sidelined for far too long. Only by organizing, building solidarity, and demanding a better future can we begin to address the systemic injustices that have plagued society for decades. The time for change is now, and the working class must rise to meet the challenges ahead — not just to survive, but to reclaim their rightful place in a just and equitable society.

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

State Department Responds to Questions About Student Visa Revocations

(Higher Education Inquirer) Can you tell us more about the process that the State Department is using to decide what student visas are revoked? Should students from particular countries, like Iran and China, be concerned? Besides pro-Palestinian activists, are there any other areas of activism that may be targeted, such as those concerned about climate change?

 (US State Department) 

The United States has zero tolerance for non-citizens who violate U.S. laws. Those who break the law, including students, may face visa denial, visa revocation, and/or deportation.

All visa applicants, no matter the visa type and where they are located, are continuously vetted.  Security vetting runs from the time of each application, through adjudication of the visa, and afterwards during the validity period of every issued visa, to ensure the individual remains eligible to travel to the United States.

 

When considering revocations, the Department looks at information that arises after the visa was issued that may indicate a potential visa ineligibility under U.S. immigration laws. This can include everything from arrests, criminal convictions, and engaging in conduct that is inconsistent with the visa classification, to an overstay.

 

Given our commitment to and responsibility for national security, the Department uses all available tools to receive and review concerning information about possible ineligibilities.

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.

Joining two anti-Trump events this month (Bryan Alexander)

Over the past two weeks I carved out time to participate in two anti-Trump in-person events.  In this post I wanted to share some notes on the experiences, along with photos.

Last Thursday, after the regular Future Trends Forum session, my son Owain and I went to a local town hall led by our federal representative, Democrat Suhas Subramanyam. It took place in a community center and was very crowded, packed with people.  Before it began I didn’t hear much discussion, but did see some folks with anti-Trump and -Musk signs.  I found some seats for Owain and I and we each opened up a Google Doc on our phones to take notes.

Subramanyam took the stage and began with some brief remarks, starting with citing the dangers of DOGE. He mentioned working in the United States Digital Service during the Obama administration, the unit which DOGE took over as its institutional base. Subramanyam described why he voted against the continuing resolution to keep the government running and also spoke to the humanitarian and governmental problems of firing so many federal workers.

Then it was over to questions. Folks lined up before two (somewhat functional) microphones. They told personal stories: of being lifelong federal workers, or having family members in those positions, and now facing their work being undone or their jobs ruined. Some spoke of depending on federal programs (SNAP, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security) and fearing cuts to them.  Several had military experience, which won applause from the room. Above all was this seething sense that Trump was a brutal and extraordinary threat, that Democrats weren’t taking it seriously, and the question: what can we do to fight back? Subramanyam listened hard to each one and answered thoughtfully, respectfully, often pointing to resources or actions we could take.

Ever the extrovert, I joined the microphone line right away. I was going to ask about threats to higher education, but happily someone else beat me to it. The representative offered a positive response, praising the work of researchers and teachers, urging us to fight for educators.  So, standing in line, I came up with another question.  When my turn came I began by thanking the representative for actually doing a real town hall meeting, not a scripted thing. I compared this meeting favorably to Vermont’s town hall tradition, and mentioned Bernie Sanders as a comparable example of someone who also knows how to do a community meeting well, and the room erupted in applause.

So I asked about climate change, how we – academics and everyone – can do climate work in this situation. I noted how the crisis was worsening, and how Trump was going to make things even more difficult. I was impressed to have Subramanyam’s full attention while I spoke.  I was equally impressed that he replied by supporting my remarks and work, then called for more climate action in the face of Trump’s actions.

Nobody got a photo of me that I know of, so here’s a shot of the representative (on right) paying close attention to one resident (standing on left).

(A sign of climate in culture today: people applauded my question. After I left the mic, several folks reached out to me – literally – to thank me for raising the topic.)

Returning to that question of what can be done to oppose Trump, Subramanyam and questioners listed these actions:

• • Legal action: filing lawsuits and supporting other people’s.  Getting Democratic politicians to do the same.
  • Congressional investigations into Trump: the Congressman pointed out that these can expose administrative malfeasance and build resistance.
  • Flat out resistance to Trump actions. Subramanyam argued that when people refuse to comply, the admin sometimes backs down, saying they made a mistake.
  • Doing Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to get the feds to cough up documentation. They can slow-walk queries or outright refuse, of course, but FOIA can produce results.
  • Phone calls to people in red counties. (I think this was aimed at calling GOP officials, but am not sure.
  • People telling stories of Trump harms in whatever setting works. At one point Subramanyam said if the GOP wants to “flood the zone” with bogus content we should flood it right back with true, personal stories.

There were no calls for property damage or violence against people. Nor did anybody used the phrase “civil disobedience” or called for such actions.

The hour grew late and people started to drift out.  Owain and I had to get home and we filed out as well.

Two weeks ago I joined a different event, a rally for science in Washington, DC.  It took place at the Lincoln Memorial.  Several thousand people were there, all ages, races, genders. The mood was upbeat despite the chill and strong winds.

A podium rested on the steps and from there spoke quite the program of luminaries, including Bill Nye (I missed him), Francis Collins (just stepped down as NIH head), Atul Gawande (excellent medical writer, also surgeon), Phil Plait (astronomer, science communicator), and some other people I didn’t recognize. There was some singing, too.

Dr. Gawande

The overall theme was that Trump’s science cuts were awful.  Speakers hit on points under this header, such as that RFK was a dangerous idiot and that research reductions meant that human lives would be harmed and lost.  Diversity along race and gender lines was vital.  All kinds of science were mentioned, with medicine and public health leading the charge.

The consensus was on returning science funding to what it was under Biden, not in expanding it. There were no claims for adding scientific overviews to policy – it was a defensive, not offensive program.

There were plenty of signs.  Some had a fine satirical edge:

Off to one side – well, down along the reflecting pool – there was an Extinction Rebellion performance or group appearance, but I didn’t get to see if they staged anything besides looking awesome and grim.

During the time I was there no police appeared. There weren’t any counterprotesters.

Eventually I had to start the trip home.  As I walked along the reflecting pool towards the Metro station I heard speakers continuing and the roar of the appreciative crowd.

---

What can we take away from these two events?

There is a fierce opposition to Trump and it occurs across various sectors of society, from scientists to everyday folks (with some overlap!). Pro-Trump people didn’t appear, so I didn’t see arguments or worse between groups. I don’t know if this means that the president’s supporters are just confident or prefer to work online.

The Democratic party is not in a leadership role.  Outrage precedes and exceeds its actions so far.  The town hall liked Subramanyam, but it was clear they were bringing demands to him, and that he did not back the party leadership.

Both events had a strong positive feel, even though each was based on outrage. There was a sense of energy to be exerted, action to be had.

Many people visibly recorded each event, primarily through phones. I didn’t see anyone object to this.  (I tried to get people’s permission to photograph them, when they were clearly identifiable individuals.)

My feel is that climate interest is waning among people who oppose Trump.  They aren’t denying it and will support those who speak and act on it, but it’s no longer a leading concern.

Yet these were just two events, a very small sample size, and both in roughly the same geographic area, about 50 miles apart.  We can’t seriously generalize from this evidence, but hopefully it’s a useful snapshot and sample.

Personally, I found both to be rewarding and supportive. It was good to be with people who were similarly outraged and willing to be so in public.

American readers, are you seeing anything similar in your areas?  Non-Americans, what do you think of this glimpse?

[Editors note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

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.