Trump’s Higher Education Crackdown: Culture War in a Cap and Gown

In a recent flurry of executive orders, former President Donald Trump has escalated his administration’s long-running war on American higher education, targeting college accreditation processes, foreign donations to universities, and elite institutions like Harvard and Columbia. Framed as a campaign for accountability and meritocracy, these actions are in reality part of a broader effort to weaponize public distrust, reinforce ideological purity tests, and strong-arm colleges into political obedience.

But even if Trump's crusade were rooted in good faith—which it clearly is not—his chosen mechanism for “fixing” higher education, the accreditation system, is already deeply flawed. It’s not just that Trump is using a broken tool for political ends—it's that the tool itself has long been part of the problem.

Accreditation: Already a Low Bar

Accreditation in U.S. higher education is often mistaken by the public as a sign of quality. In reality, it’s often a rubber stamp—granted by private agencies funded by the very schools they evaluate. “Yet in practice,” write economists David Deming and David Figlio, “accreditors—who are paid by the institutions themselves—appear to be ineffectual at best, much like the role of credit rating agencies during the recent financial crisis.”

As a watchdog of America’s subprime colleges and a monitor of the ongoing College Meltdown, the Higher Education Inquirer has long reported that institutional accreditation is no sign of academic quality. Worse, it is frequently used by subprime colleges as a veneer of legitimacy to mask predatory practices, inflated tuition, and low academic standards.

The Higher Learning Commission (HLC), the nation’s largest accreditor, monitors nearly a thousand institutions—ranging from prestigious schools like the University of Chicago and University of Michigan to for-profit, scandal-plagued operations such as Colorado Technical University, DeVry University, University of Phoenix, and Walden University. These subprime colleges receive billions annually in federal student aid—money that flows through an accreditation pipeline that’s barely regulated and heavily compromised.

On the three pillars of accreditation—compliance, quality assurance, and quality improvement—the Higher Learning Commission often fails spectacularly when it comes to subprime institutions. That’s not just a bug in the system; it’s the system working as designed.

Who Watches the Watchers?

Accreditors like the HLC receive dues from member institutions, giving them a vested interest in keeping their customers viable, no matter how exploitative their practices may be. Despite objections from the American Association of University Professors, the HLC has accredited for-profit colleges since 1977 and ethically questionable operations for nearly two decades.

As Mary A. Burgan, then General Secretary of the AAUP, put it bluntly in 2000:

"I really worry about the intrusion of the profit motive in the accreditation system. Some of them, as I have said, will accredit a ham sandwich..."

[Image: From CHEA: Higher Learning Commission dues for member colleges. Over the last 30 years, HLC has received millions of dollars from subprime schools like the University of Phoenix.]

The Council for Higher Education Accreditation (CHEA), which oversees accreditors, acts more like a trade association than a watchdog. Meanwhile, the U.S. Department of Education—the only federal entity with oversight responsibility—has done little to ensure quality or accountability. Under the Trump-DeVos regime, the Department actively dismantled what little regulatory framework existed, rolling back Obama-era protections that aimed to curb predatory schools and improve transparency.

In 2023, an internal investigation revealed that the Department of Education was failing to properly monitor accreditors—yet Trump’s solution is to hand even more power to this broken apparatus while demanding it serve political ends.

Harvard: Not a Victim, But a Gatekeeper of the Elite

While Trump's attacks on Harvard are rooted in personal and political animus, it's important not to portray the university as a defenseless bastion of the common good. Harvard is already deeply entrenched in elite power structures—economically, socially, and politically.

The university’s admissions policies have long favored legacy applicants, children of donors, and the ultra-wealthy. It has one of the largest endowments in the world—over $50 billion—yet its efforts to serve working-class and marginalized students remain modest in proportion to its vast resources.

Harvard has produced more Wall Street bankers, U.S. presidents, and Supreme Court justices than any other institution. Its graduates populate the upper echelons of the corporate, political, and media elite. In many ways, Harvard is the establishment Trump claims to rail against—even if his own policies often reinforce that very establishment.

Harvard is not leading a revolution in equity or access. Rather, it polishes the credentials of those already destined to lead, reinforcing a hierarchy that leaves most Americans—including working-class and first-generation students—on the outside looking in.

The Silence on Legacy Admissions

While Trump rails against elite universities in the name of “meritocracy,” there is a glaring omission in the conversation: the entrenched unfairness of legacy admissions. These policies—where applicants with familial ties to alumni receive preferential treatment—are among the most blatant violations of meritocratic ideals. Yet neither Trump’s executive orders nor the broader political discourse dare to address them.

Legacy admissions are a quiet but powerful engine of privilege, disproportionately benefiting white, wealthy students and preserving generational inequality. At institutions like Harvard, Yale, and Princeton, legacy applicants are admitted at significantly higher rates than the general pool, even when controlling for academic credentials. This practice rewards lineage over talent and undermines the very idea of equal opportunity that higher education claims to uphold.

Despite bipartisan rhetoric about fairness and access, few politicians—Democratic or Republican—have challenged the legitimacy of legacy preferences. It’s a testament to how deeply intertwined elite institutions are with the political and economic establishment. And it’s a reminder that the war on higher education is not about fixing inequalities—it’s about reshaping the system to serve different masters.

A Hypocritical Power Grab

Trump’s newfound concern with educational “results” is laced with hypocrisy. The former president’s own venture into higher education—Trump University—was a grift that ended in legal disgrace and financial restitution to defrauded students. Now, Trump is posing as the savior of academic merit, while promoting an ideologically-driven overhaul of the very system that allowed scams like his to thrive.

By focusing on elite universities, Trump exploits populist resentment while ignoring the real scandal: that billions in public funds are siphoned off by institutions with poor student outcomes and high loan default rates—many of them protected by the very accrediting agencies he now claims to reform.

Conclusion: Political Theater, Not Policy

Trump's latest actions are not reforms—they're retribution. His executive orders target symbolic elites, not systemic rot. They turn accreditation into a partisan tool while leaving the worst actors untouched—or even empowered.

Meanwhile, elite institutions like Harvard remain complicit in maintaining a class hierarchy that benefits the powerful, even as they protest their innocence in today’s political battles.

Real accountability in higher education would mean cracking down on predatory schools, reforming or replacing failed accreditors, and restoring rigorous federal oversight. But this administration isn't interested in cleaning up the swamp—it’s repurposing the muck for its own ends.

The Higher Education Inquirer remains committed to pulling back the curtain on these abuses—no matter where they come from or how well they are disguised.

Higher ed is under attack: What do we do? Stand up fight back (AFT Higher Education)

Higher education under attack

President Donald Trump has declared war on America’s colleges and universities, demanding they bow to his demands on what they can teach and whom they can admit or hire. Trump’s illegal and autocratic actions are tantamount to a war on knowledge intended to make schools bend the knee to his ideology and chill free speech and academic pursuit. In her latest column, AFT President Randi Weingarten debunks the lie that Trump's punitive behavior toward universities and students has anything to do with fighting antisemitism.

---

Science benefits everyone; cuts hurt us all

In early March the Trump administration froze $400 million in federal funding for scientific research at Columbia University, citing antisemitism and referencing pro-Palestinian protests on campus. The AFT has members at Columbia, but the implications are far broader as other institutions are also targeted. The AFT and the American Association of University Professors have filed a lawsuit to stop interference with academic freedom and research. This AFT Voices post features three professors who are affected by the funding cuts. “Trump’s administration has terminated and taken hostage our grants, igniting frictions around issues of free speech and discrimination,” writes one, though academic activism is giving her hope.

---

Celebrating new affiliates and contracts in higher ed

The AFT’s higher education affiliates have been generating a flurry of activity: This fast-growing sector of our union has two brand-new affiliates, at Ohio University and Nevada State University, and five affiliates that are celebrating groundbreaking contracts. In a landscape that includes relentless attacks on higher education funding and academic freedom, these gains are especially significant and show the importance and promise of union solidarity. Above, United Faculty of Illinois State University members show their strike authorization ballots, one step on their way to their new contract. Read more here.

---

Protesters say, ‘Hands Off!’ and ‘Kill the Cuts’  

On April 5, hundreds of thousands of people flooded the streets in more than 1,300 “Hands Off!” peaceful protests in cities across all 50 states. The message was clear and thunderous: Enough is enough. Protesters demanded an end to the escalating authoritarianism and attacks on everyday Americans led by President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Then on April 8, thousands more—many of them associated with colleges and universities—stood up to say “Kill the Cuts” to education and scientific research. Turnout—including AFT members from coast to coast—signaled a growing, powerful movement ready to defend democracy, civil rights, public education and academic freedom. Above, unionists march in Los Angeles. Photo: AAUP.

---

Weingarten breaks it down: New tariffs create chaos

This month, President Donald Trump announced the highest and most wide-ranging tariffs—taxes on goods that Americans buy—since President Herbert Hoover’s Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act, which made the Great Depression worse. Trump’s tariffs apply to every one of our nation’s trading partners. And the chaos has come quickly: stock markets in freefall, business confidence at the lowest level since the 2008 financial crisis, respected economists warning that a recession is likely, and higher prices for Americans. What explains this seemingly self-destructive attack on our nation’s economy? Read this AFT Voices post by AFT President Randi Weingarten and Damon Silvers for understanding and a way forward.

---

Teacher prep program axed despite shortage

Just when the teacher shortage is at its worst, university programs that prepare new teachers to fill the gap have been shuttered by the Trump administration: In February, the Department of Education abruptly axed $600 million in Teacher Quality Partnership and Supporting Effective Educator Development grants established by Congress specifically to bolster the teacher workforce. Read this AFT Voices account from faculty members who are feeling the cuts and teachers experiencing staff shortages in their North Florida schools.

The Digital Dark Ages

In this so-called Age of Information, we find ourselves plunged into a paradoxical darkness—a time when myth increasingly triumphs over truth, and justice is routinely deformed or deferred. At The Higher Education Inquirer, we call it the Digital Dark Ages.

Despite the unprecedented access to data and connectivity, we’re witnessing a decay in critical thought, a rise in disinformation, and the erosion of institutions once thought to be champions of intellectual rigor. Higher education, far from being immune, is now entangled in this digital storm—none more so than in the rise of robocolleges and the assault on public universities themselves.

The Fog of Myth

The myths of the Digital Dark Ages come packaged as innovation and access. Online education is heralded as the great equalizer—a tool to democratize knowledge and reach underserved students. But as the dust settles, a darker truth emerges: many of these online programs are not centers of enlightenment, but factories of debt and disillusionment. Myth has become a business model.

The fantasy of upward mobility through a flexible online degree masks a grim reality. The students—often working-class professionals juggling jobs and families—become robostudents, herded through algorithmic coursework with minimal human interaction. The faculty, increasingly adjunct or contract-based, become roboworkers, ghosting in and out of online discussion boards, often managing hundreds of students with little support. And behind it all stands the robocollege—a machine optimized not for education, but for profit.

The Rise of Robocolleges

The rapid growth of online-only education has introduced a new breed of institutions: for-profit, non-profit, secular, and religious, all sharing a similar DNA. Among the most prominent are Southern New Hampshire University, Grand Canyon University, Liberty University Online, University of Maryland Global Campus, Purdue University Global, Walden University, Capella University, Colorado Tech, and the rebranded former for-profits now operating under public university names, like University of Phoenix and University of Arizona Global Campus.

These robocolleges promise convenience and career readiness. In practice, they churn out thousands of credentials in fields like education, healthcare, business, and public administration—often leaving behind hundreds of billions of dollars in student loan debt.

The Robocollege Model is defined by:

• Automation Over Education

• Aggressive Marketing and Recruitment

• High Tuition with Low Return

• Shallow Curricula and Limited Academic Support

• Poor Job Placement and Overburdened Students

These institutions optimize for profit and political protection, not pedagogy. Many align themselves with right-wing agendas, blending Christian nationalism with capitalist pragmatism, while marketing themselves as the moral antidote to “woke” education.

Trump’s War on Higher Ed and DEI

Former President Donald Trump didn’t just attack political rivals—he waged an ideological war against higher education itself. Under his administration and continuing through his influence, the right has cast universities as hotbeds of liberal indoctrination, cultural decay, and bureaucratic excess. Public universities and their faculties have been relentlessly vilified as enemies of “real America.”

Central to Trump’s campaign was the targeting of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. Executive orders banned federally funded diversity training, and right-wing media amplified the narrative that DEI was a form of “reverse racism” and leftist brainwashing. That playbook has since been adopted by Republican governors and legislatures across the country, leading to:

• Defunding DEI Offices: Entire departments dedicated to equity have been dismantled in states like Florida and Texas.

• Censorship of Curriculum: Academic freedom is under siege as laws restrict the teaching of race, gender, and American history.

• Chilling Effects on Faculty: Scholars of color, queer faculty, and those doing critical theory face retaliation, termination, or self-censorship.

• Hostile Campus Environments: Students in marginalized groups are increasingly isolated, unsupported, and surveilled.

This culture war is not simply rhetorical—it’s institutional. It weakens public confidence in higher education, strips protections for vulnerable communities, and drives talent out of teaching and research. It also feeds directly into the robocollege model, which offers a sanitized, uncritical, and commodified version of education to replace the messy, vital work of civic learning and self-reflection.

The Debt Trap and Student Loan Servitude

Today, more than 45 million Americans are trapped in a cycle of student loan debt servitude, collectively owing over $1.7 trillion. Robocolleges have played a central role in inflating this debt by promising career transformation and delivering questionable outcomes.

Debt has become a silent form of social control—disabling an entire generation’s ability to invest, build, or dissent.

• Delayed Life Milestones

• Psychological Toll

• Stalled Economic Mobility

This is not just a personal burden—it is the product of decades of deregulation, privatization, and a bipartisan consensus that treats education as a private good rather than a public right.

The Dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education

Over time, and especially under Trump-aligned officials like Betsy DeVos, the U.S. Department of Education has been hollowed out, repurposed to protect predatory institutions rather than students. Key actions include:

• Rolling Back Protections for borrowers defrauded by for-profit colleges.

• Weakening Oversight of accreditation and accountability metrics.

• Empowering Loan Servicers to act with impunity.

• Undermining Public Education in favor of vouchers, charters, and online alternatives.

The result? Robocolleges and their corporate allies are given free rein to exploit. Students are caught in the machinery. And the very institution charged with protecting educational integrity has been turned into a clearinghouse for deregulated profiteering.

Reclaiming the Idea of Higher Education

This is where we are: in a Digital Dark Age where myths drive markets, and education has become a shell of its democratic promise. But all is not lost.

Resistance lives—in underfunded community colleges, independent media, academic unions, student debt collectives, and grassroots movements that refuse to accept the commodification of learning.

What’s needed now is not another tech “solution” or rebranding campaign. We need a recommitment to education as a public good. That means:

• Rebuilding and funding public universities

• Protecting academic freedom and DEI efforts

• Canceling student debt and regulating private actors

• Restoring the Department of Education as a tool for justice

• Rethinking accreditation, equity, and access through a democratic lens

Because if we do not act now—if we do not call the Digital Dark Ages by name—we may soon forget what truth, justice, and education ever meant.

---

If you value this kind of reporting, support independent voices like The Higher Education Inquirer. Share this piece with others fighting to reclaim truth, equity, and public education from the shadows.

For-Profit College Corporation Perdoceo Gave Your Tax Dollars to Trump Inaugural Committee (David Halperin)

A new report filed with the Federal Election Commission shows that the troubled for-profit college operation Perdoceo Education Corp. donated $50,000 to the 2025 Trump-Vance Inaugural Committee. Almost all of Perdoceo’s revenue comes from U.S. taxpayers.

The report filed this week by the Trump committee lists, among hundreds of other gifts from corporations and individuals, a $50,000 donation from “CEC Educational Services,” which is the name of a Perdoceo subsidiary, and gives the donor address as the Schaumberg, Illinois, location of Perdoceo’s corporate offices.

The Trump inaugural committee raised $239 million, more than doubling the record-breaking amount raised by the Trump committee for the 2017 inauguration.

As the New York Times noted, presidential inaugurations, even with all the glitzy balls and other events, “have never cost anything near roughly a quarter-billion dollars, and the amount raised by the committee will resurface questions about where any leftover funds might go.” Trump associates have suggested it could be spent on other Trump projects, including a presidential library.

The Times speculated that the high volume of gifts was “driven by corporate America’s eagerness to win the president’s favor.”

Perdoceo, whose stock is publicly traded, is one corporation that would be motivated to win the transactional Trump’s favor. It is almost entirely dependent on federal government largesse. The two mostly online colleges it operates — American Intercontinental University and Colorado Technical University — have at times received as much as 97 percent of their revenue from taxpayer dollars in the form of federal student grants and loans; in the most recent reported year 83 percent came from the U.S. Department of Education alone, plus more from the departments of defense and veterans affairs.

That means, effectively, that almost all of the gift that Perdoceo made to curry favor with Trump was paid for by American taxpayers.

The donation is also consistent with Perdoceo CEO Todd Nelson’s past support for Republican politicians. More importantly, it reflects Perdoceo’s continuing need to have the federal government keep the money flowing and look the other way while the company’s schools, which have repeatedly faced law enforcement actions, offer low-quality, high-priced programs that leave many students deep in debt and without the career advancement they sought.

As Republic Report has chronicled for over a decade, Perdoceo has been one of the worst actors in all of for-profit higher education, taking in billions of dollars from taxpayers for student grants and loans while repeatedly engaging in predatory abuses.

Like Donald Trump’s own fraudulent Trump University, Perdoceo has faced multiple law enforcement investigations for predatory conduct.

In 2019, the company entered into a $494 million settlement with 48 state attorneys general, plus the District of Columbia, over allegations that it engaged in widespread deceptive practices against students.

Later that same year, Perdoceo agreed to pay $30 million to settle charges brought by the Federal Trade Commission that its schools have recruited students through deceptive third-party lead generation operations. In each case, the company did not admit guilt.

More recently, Perdoceo employees told media outlets USA Today and Capitol Forum, as well as Republic Report, that company recruiters continued to feel pressure to make misleading sales pitches and to enroll low-income people into programs that aren’t strong enough to help them succeed. Some of those former employees also spoke with federal investigators.

USA Today reported in 2022 that the U.S. Department of Education, in December 2021, requested information from Perdoceo; the Department also asked Perdoceo to retain records regarding student recruiting, marketing, financial aid practices, and more. Perdoceo confirmed the probe, while seeming to minimize its significance, in a February 2022 SEC filing. Perdoceo also acknowledged in May 2022 that it received a request for documents and information from the U.S. Justice Department.

The Department of Education provided AIU and CTU with more than $551 million in student grants and loans in the 2022-23 school year, the most recent year that was reported. A bachelor’s degree from CTU is priced at about $66,000.

But data released by the Department in 2023 show that Perdoceo’s two schools, AIU and CTU, deliver poor results for students, with low graduation rates and graduate incomes and high levels of student debt.

Before joining Perdoceo, company CEO Todd Nelson ran two of the other biggest for-profit colleges operations: the University of Phoenix and now-demised Education Management Corp. Both of those chains, like Perdoceo, ran into major law enforcement issues because of deceptive recruiting practices and other abuses that occurred on Nelson’s watch.

The Biden Department of Education never proceeded with an enforcement action to penalize Perdoceo or take away its federal aid. But it did issue a series of regulations that would make it more difficult for that company and others to engage in predatory practices going forward. The Trump administration, whose previous incarnation coddled predatory schools, and whose current incarnation has gutted the Department of Education and its accountability efforts, is likely to do nothing while Nelson’s schools keeping enrolling students, with taxpayer dollars, in substandard education programs.

$50,000 may not be a lot of money to Perdoceo or its CEO, but it’s a lot of money to each of the thousands of students across the country who are in debt to Perdoceo for multiples of that amount. Perdoceo’s donation to Trump’s inauguration, using your money, can only reinforce the company’s entitlement and impunity.

It’s wrong when a company can take money from students and taxpayers and use it curry favor with a president whose team is shutting down higher education enforcement efforts and aggressively seeking student loan repayments, even from borrowers who were deceived and abused by that company’s schools.

The donation from a supposed “education” company also sends a bad message to America’s students, because it celebrates the return to power of a twice-impeached, four-times-indicted, convicted felon and adjudged sexual assaulter who incited a murderous Capitol riot aimed at overthrowing a democratic election. Not a good civics lesson.

Perdoceo did not respond to a request for comment.

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

More than 100 Champions of Higher Education Join PEN America in "A Pledge to Our Democracy"

 In a stirring call to action, more than 100 distinguished former college and university leaders from across the nation have joined PEN America to launch A Pledge to Our Democracy, a unified stand against the growing threats of authoritarianism. Representing every corner of American higher education—from flagship research universities to HBCUs and community colleges—these Champions of Higher Education are rising above politics to defend democratic values, academic freedom, and civic integrity. Backed by PEN America, the Pledge urges Americans to form the broadest possible coalition—students, educators, labor unions, and local leaders alike—to protect the rule of law and ensure the political independence of our institutions. At a time when core liberties are under siege, these seasoned stewards of education are sending a clear message: silence is complicity, and the time to act is now.

The following Champions, available to speak with reporters, released these statements below: 

R. Barbara Gitenstein, The College of New Jersey (NJ) 

“One of the most important foundations for a healthy democracy is a robust higher education system. That system includes all sectors—public and private, two- year and four-year, graduate and undergraduate, elite and open access. A robust system recognizes the integrity of individual institutions in realizing their own missions, overseen by their boards of trustees/directors, not directed by governmental overreach. Higher education leadership has the responsibility to speak up and speak out for these values.”

Karen Gross, Southern Vermont College (VT),

“I am proud to sign the Champions of Education pledge, along with over 100 former college and university presidents. The current administration has threatened one of the hallmarks of our Democracy: education. When a government challenges the autonomy of educational institutions, freezes or terminates grants rightfully awarded, removes visas that permit international students to study in our nation and takes steps to remove the tax exempt status of universities, leaders within the educational arena must take a stand. We owe it to current and future students, from wherever they hail and whatever their background, to ensure that educational opportunity does and will persist in America, and no government can legally dismantle access to information and knowledge, key research within and outside the sciences and free speech on campuses and within classrooms. Our commitment to education commands us, indeed demands of us, to speak up and out before there is even greater irreparable injury to educational institutions and the thousands upon thousands of students, faculty and staff within them.)

Richard Guarasci, Wagner College (NY)

“This is a very critical time for higher education leaders to stand up for American democracy in the face of belligerent attacks on the rule of law , due process and the freedom to learn. “

Freeman Hrabowski, University of Maryland, Baltimore County (MD)

“This Pledge to our Democracy represents my voice and the voices of my fellow former university presidents as we encourage all Americans to speak out about the ongoing attacks on universities, national agencies, and other critical sectors of our society. These institutions reflect and secure this democracy’s most important values, including truth, evidence, expertise, fairness, inclusion, and compassion. Our actions now will speak volumes to our children about what we believe should be most important in their lives.”

Elaine Maimon, Governors State University (IL); University of Alaska Anchorage (AK) 

“Independent universities and a free press are hallmarks of a thriving democracy—something we must unite to protect.”

Lily D. McNair, Tuskegee University (AL) 

“America’s higher education system is being dismantled by an administration that does not understand the value of education for our democracy. Our students deserve the benefits of a higher education system that is a global leader in teaching and research. As a former president of an HBCU, I am concerned by the ways in which history has been rewritten to render invisible the contributions of Black, Brown, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people to America.” 

Brian Murphy, De Anza College (CA)

“The attacks on higher education are part of a much broader assault on science, our history, and truth itself. This Pledge is a commitment to defend our democratic values.”  

Kevin P. Reilly, University of Wisconsin System 

“Our founders created a government with a balance of powers invested in three co-equal branches. They did so because they feared that absent that balance a president could run roughshod over the liberties of our citizens and the institutions of civil society in an attempt to accrue unchecked power. My fellow former college and university presidents and I have signed this Pledge because we believe that a very serious effort to undermine the legislative and judicial branches is now under way, and we all need to stand up against it if American democracy is to survive.”

Jack M. Wilson, University of Massachusetts (MA)  

"I have signed this because it has never been more important for universities and other higher education institutions to stand in solidarity and in defense of our democratic institutions that are currently under attack. We also stand in solidarity with the law firms and legal institutions that are facing similar threats. The education and research conducted by our institutions has been the core of our economic and cultural success for many generations. That leadership is now at risk."

About PEN America

PEN America stands at the intersection of literature and human rights to protect free expression in the United States and worldwide. We champion the freedom to write, recognizing the power of the word to transform the world. Our mission is to unite writers and their allies to celebrate creative expression and defend the liberties that make it possible. Learn more at pen.org.

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.

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.

Trump Youth Group Turning Point USA Continues 13-Year Effort to Incite Violence and Claim Victim Status

For almost a decade, the Higher Education Inquirer has covered Turning Point USA (TPUSA) on American campuses. Led by 31-year-old Charlie Kirk, this well-funded pro-Trump youth group has used a variety of tactics to target professors and incite violence in its attempt to gain right wing control over university campuses, while claiming to be victims of the Left. Our efforts to expose Kirk and his growing Turning Point empire have gained insufficient traction as the Trump administration continues its war on intellectuals and on social justice. And we are saddened to see well-meaning resistance groups take the bait. We implore university professors and university activists to educate students and their communities inside and outside the ivory tower walls about the many strategies of nonviolence resistance. The Right wing has already taken much of Left's playbook, which means new methods of resistance are required. And with President Trump in power again, the Right has even more power. Fighting fascism requires enormous skill, not masks and fists.   

 

Wednesday, April 9, 5-7:30pm film screening about political intimidation and UM (Community Advocates at the University of Michigan)

Journalist Jelani Cobb recommended looking at how universities responded to Senator Joseph McCarthy’s attacks on professors to better understand current strategies. The University of Michigan's caving to political intimidation isn't new. In the 1950s, then President Harlan Hatcher fired two faculty members and suspended one who refused to cooperate with Senator McCarthy’s red-baiting Committee on “Un-American Activities.”

As another federal government takes aim at universities, join us for a screening of Keeping in Mind: The McCarthy Era at the University of Michigan, a 1989 documentary featuring interviews with Hatcher and the three men he sacrificed to political expediency: Chandler Davis, Clement Markert, and Mark Nickerson. The screening will be followed by a panel discussion that includes the filmmaker, Adam Kulakow, who was a UM student in the 1980s.

WHEN: Wednesday, April 9, 5-7:30pm (Pizza available starting at 4:30p. Come early!)
WHERE: Maize and Blue Auditorium, Student Activities Building, 515 E. Jefferson Street
WHO: All students, faculty, staff, and community members

 

Resolution to Establish a Mutual Defense Compact for the Universities of the Big Ten Academic Alliance in Defense of Academic Freedom, Institutional Integrity, and the Research Enterprise

Whereas, recent and escalating politically motivated actions by governmental bodies pose a
significant threat to the foundational principles of American higher education, including the
autonomy of university governance, the integrity of scientific research, and the protection of free
speech;

Whereas, the Trump administration and aligned political actors have signaled a willingness to
target individual institutions with legal, financial, and political incursion designed to undermine
their public mission, silence dissenting voices, and/or exert improper control over academic
inquiry;
Whereas, the Big Ten Academic Alliance represents not only athletic competition but also a
longstanding tradition of academic collaboration, research excellence, and commitment to
democratic values and shared governance;
Whereas, the Big Ten Academic Alliance includes 18 universities with thousands of instructors
serving over 600,000 students;

Whereas, the preservation of one institution’s integrity is the concern of all, and an infringement
against one member university of the Big Ten shall be considered an infringement against all;
Be it resolved that, the Rutgers University Senate urges the President of Rutgers University to
formally propose and help establish a Mutual Academic Defense Compact (MADC) among all
members of the Big Ten Academic Alliance;

Be it further resolved that, under this compact, all participating institutions shall commit
meaningful funding to a shared or distributed defense fund. This fund shall be used to provide
immediate and strategic support to any member institution under direct political or legal
infringement;

Be it further resolved that, participating institutions shall make available, at the request of the
institution under direct political infringement, the services of their legal counsel, governance
experts, and public affairs offices to coordinate a unified and vigorous response, including but
not limited to: Legal representation and countersuit actions; strategic public communication;
amicus briefs and expert testimony; legislative advocacy and coalition-building; related topical
research as needed.

Be it finally resolved that, this resolution be transmitted to the leadership of all Big Ten
universities and their respective governing boards and shared governance bodies, and that the
President of Rutgers University take a leading role in convening a summit of Big Ten academic
and legal leadership to initiate the implementation of this Compact.

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.