Trump Versus Academia Update (Bryan Alexander)

Academic closures, mergers, cuts: a summer 2025 update (Bryan Alexander)

Greetings from early July. I’m back home in northern Virginia where the heat is blazing and the humidity sopping.  Weather.com thinks it “feels like 102° F” and I agree.  The cats also agree, because they retreated elegantly inside to air conditioning after a brief outside stroll.

I wrote “back home” because my wife and I spent last week celebrating our 32nd anniversary in Canada (here’s one snapshot).  Afterwards I was hoping to get back into the swing of things, blogging, Substacking, vlogging various topics already under way, but things have been advancing at such a manic pace that I have to leap in in a hurry.

Case in point: after blogging about campus closures, cuts, and mergers last month more closures and cuts (albeit no mergers) have appeared in just the past few weeks.  In this post you’ll see a list of these, with links to supporting news stories and official documents.  Alas, this has become a tradition on this site.  (From last year: March 1, March 20, March 28, April, May, June, July, September, November. From this year: February, June.) My book on peak higher education is now in the editing process; hopefully by the time it appears the topic won’t be simply historical.

Today we’ll touch on one closure, then focus on cuts, with a few reflections at the end.

1. Closing colleges and universities

In Michigan Siena Heights University (Catholic) will close after the upcoming academic year.  The reasons: “the financial situation, operational challenges, and long-term sustainability,” according to the official statement.  A local account concurs, “citing rising costs and stiffer competition for new students.”

The official website doesn’t reflect this on its front page.

2. Program and staffing cuts

Also in Michigan, Concordia University (Lutheran) is shutting down most of its Ann Arbor campus programs. A much smaller set of offerings is what’s next:

Starting June 2025, the private Lutheran institution will offer just nine programs — all in medical-related fields — on its physical campus. That’s down from 53 campus programs the university currently lists on its website. It will offer another seven online programs, mostly in education fields, which is down from more than 60 currently.

Also nearby, Michigan State University (public, research) announced its intention to cut faculty and staff positions this year.  The drivers: inflation boosting costs, especially in health care; Trump administration research funding cuts; possible state support cuts; potential international student reduction.

Brown University (research; Rhode Island) is planning to cut an unspecified number of staff this summer.  Furthermore, “[a]dditional measures include scaling back capital spending and adjusting graduate admissions levels after limiting budget growth for doctoral programs earlier this year.”  The reasons here are financial, but based on the Trump administration’s cuts to federal research funding, not enrollment problems.

The Indiana Commission for Higher Education announced shutting down a huge sweep of academic programs across that state’s public universities.  More than 400 degrees will end, with 75 ended outright and 333 “merged or consolidated” with other programs.  The whole list is staggering.  There’s a lot of detail in that Indiana plan, from defining student minima to establishing various options for campuses, appealing closures to timelines for revving up new degrees.  It’s unclear how many faculty and/or staff cuts will follow.

Columbia College Chicago (private, arts focused) laid off twenty full-time professors.  The school is facing enrollment declines and financial problems. Nearly all of these faculty member are – were – tenure track, which makes this another example of the queen sacrifice.

University of California-Santa Cruz (public, research) is terminating its German and Persian language programs, laying off their instructors.  This sounds part of a broader effort to cut costs against a deficit, a deficit caused by “rising labor costs and constrained student enrollment growth,” according to officials.

Boston University (private, research) announced it would lay off 120 staff members as part of a budget-cutting strategy. BU will also close 120 open staff positions and “around 20 positions will undergo a change in schedule” (I’m not sure what that means – shift from full time to part?).    The reasons: Trump administration cuts and uncertainty, plus the longstanding issues of “rising inflation, changing demographics, declining graduate enrollment, and the need to adapt to new technologies.”

The president of Temple University (public, research, Pennsylvania) discussed job cuts as part of a 5% budget cut.  Reasons include lower enrollment which led to “a structural deficit [for which] university reserves were used to cover expenses.”

Champlain College (Vermont) is closing some low-enrolling majors. The avowed goal is to
“design a new ‘career-focused’ curriculum for the fall of 2026 ‘that is focused on and driven by employer needs and student interests.'”

The accounting program, for instance, saw its enrollment decline from 60 students in 2015 to 20 in February 2024, according to documents from the school’s Academic Affairs Committee. The law program, similarly, had little student interest, Hernandez said, and had only three students apply in the fall of 2023, while the data analytics program had only two applications.

At the same time the school is facing serious challenges.  Enrollment has sunk from 4,778 students in 2016 to 3,200 last year.  The college ran deficits in some reason years and a federal audit criticized the amount of debt it carries.  This year “the college’s bond rating was lowered, and its outlook downgraded to ‘negative’ by S&P Global Ratings.”

Looking across the lake from Burlington, near Champlain’s campus back in 2017: a cheery image to balance sad stories.

A small but symbolic cut is under way at Albright College (private, liberal arts, Pennsylvania), whose president decided to sell their art college at auction.  “It includes pieces by Karel Appel, Romare Bearden, Robert Colescott, Bridget Riley, Leon Golub, Jasper Johns, Jacob Lawrence, Marisol, Gordon Parks, Jesús Rafael Soto and Frederick Eversley, among others.”

Why do this?  according to the administration, it was a question of relative value:

“We needed to stop the bleeding,” says James Gaddy, vice-president for administration at Albright, noting that over the past two years the college has experienced shortfalls of $20m. Calling himself and the college’s president Debra Townsley, both of whom were hired last year, “turn-around specialists”, Gaddy claimed that Albright’s 2,300-object art collection was “not core to our mission” as an educational institution and was costing the college more than the art is worth.

“The value of the artworks is not extraordinary,” he says, estimating the total value of the pieces consigned to Pook & Pook at $200,000, but claimed that the cost of maintaining the collection was high and that the cost of staffing the art gallery where the objects were displayed and (mostly) stored was “more than half a million dollars” a year.

A screenshot of some of the auction lots.

3 Budget crises, programs cut, not laying off people yet

Cornell University is preparing staff cuts in the wake of Trump administration research funding reductions.

The University of Minnesota’s administration agreed to a 7.5% cut across its units, along with a tuition increase.  The president cited frozen state support and rising costs.

New York University (NYU) announced a 3% budget cut.  So far this is about “emphasizing cuts to such functions as travel, events, meals, and additional other-than-personal-service (OTPS) items.” NYU will keep on not hiring new administrators and is encouraging some administrators and tenured professors to retire.

Yale University paused ten ongoing construction projects because of concerns about cuts to federal monies.

Reflections

Many of these stories reflect trends I’ve been observing for a while.  Declining enrollment is a major problem for most institutions. The strategy of cutting jobs to balance a budget remains one at least some leaders find useful. The humanities tend to suffer more cuts than others (scroll down the Indiana pdf for a sample). Depending on the state, state governments can increase budget problems or alter academic program offerings.

The second Trump administration’s campaign against higher education is drawing blood, as we can see from universities citing the federal research cuts in their budgets and personnel decisions. Note that this is before the One Big Beautiful Bill Act’s provisions take hold, from capping student aid to increasing endowment taxes. And this is also before whatever decrease will appear with international student enrollment this fall. (Here’s my video series on Trump vs higher ed; new episode is in the pipeline.)

Note the number of elite institutions in today’s post.  In the past I’ve been told that the closures, mergers, and cuts primarily hit low-ranked and marginal institutions, which was sometimes true. But now we’re seeing top tier universities enacting budget cuts, thanks to the Trump administration.

Let me close by reminding everyone that these are human stories. Program cuts hurt students’ course of student. Budget cuts impact instructors and staff of all kinds. When we see the statistics pile up we can lose sight of the personal reality.  My heart goes out to everyone injured by these institutional moves.

Finally, I’d like to invite anyone with information on a college or university’s plans to close, merge, or cut to share them with me, either as comments on this post, as notes on social media, or by contacting me privately here.  I write these posts based largely on public, open intelligence (news reports, investigations, roundups) but also through tips, since higher education sometimes has issues with transparency.  We need better information on these events.

(thanks to Will Emerson, Karl Hakkarainen, Kristen Nyht, Cristián Opazo, Peter Shea, Jason Siko, George Station, Nancy Smyth, Ed Webb, and Andrew Zubiri for supplying links and feedback)

This article first appeared at bryanalexander.org

Higher Education Inquirer's Long History, Sudden Rise

Since its founding in 2016, the Higher Education Inquirer has steadily established itself as a reliable, independent source for reporting on the less visible dimensions of American higher education. With a focus on institutional decline, labor conditions, and the growing influence of private interests, the publication has grown from a modest blog into a respected outlet for analysis and first-hand accounts. In June 2025, it surpassed 150,000 views, a milestone that reflects both the persistence of its contributors and the relevance of its subject matter.

HEI's development can be traced through its evolving approach to research and storytelling. In its early years, it introduced the phrase college meltdown to describe the financial and enrollment stress afflicting many institutions, particularly small colleges and for-profits. It later popularized the term edugrift, referring to the role of consultants, investors, and online program managers whose involvement in the sector often escapes scrutiny. These terms were not intended for provocation, but as practical shorthand—frameworks for understanding trends that might otherwise be overlooked or mischaracterized.

Throughout its reporting, the Inquirer has placed a premium on documentation and primary sources. Public records, government datasets, and legal filings form the basis of many investigations. Contributions from whistleblowers have added firsthand depth, while independent experts have offered context and critique. Collectively, these elements have allowed the publication to trace patterns not always visible from press releases or institutional communications.

The work has been shaped by a small group of persistent writers and researchers. In addition to its founding contributors, the platform has featured the voices of David Halperin, Henry Giroux, Bryan Alexander, Michael Hainline, Gary Roth, and Annelise Orleck. Each brings a different lens—legal, sociological, historical—but shares a commitment to rigor and accessibility.

Rather than emphasizing single events, the Higher Education Inquirer has tended to focus on slow-moving structural change: the decline in enrollment at non-selective institutions, the tightening of state budgets, the casualization of academic labor, and the steady rise of administrative cost centers. It has also monitored the effects of algorithmic tools and automation in admissions, advising, and teaching, raising questions about accountability and oversight.

Over time, its readership has broadened to include students, faculty, policy analysts, and reporters seeking an alternative to promotional narratives. The site's growth has been slow but consistent, its audience largely built by word of mouth and citation.

The Inquirer has not positioned itself as a substitute for mainstream coverage, but rather as a complement—an archival and analytical space that focuses on enduring issues rather than fleeting controversies. In doing so, it has provided a place where difficult questions about the purpose and direction of higher education can be raised without distraction.

Does higher ed still make sense for students, financially? (Bryan Alexander)

[Editor's note: This article first appeared at BryanAlexander.org.]

Is a college degree still worth it?

The radio program/podcast Marketplace hosted me as a guest last week to speak to the question.  You can listen to it* or read my notes below, or both.  I have one reflection at the end of this post building on one interview question.

One caveat or clarification before I get hate mail: the focus of the show was entirely on higher education’s economics.  We didn’t discuss the non-financial functions of post-secondary schooling because that’s not what the show (called “Marketplace”) is about, nor did we talk about justifying academic study for reasons of personal development, family formation, the public good, etc.  The conversation was devoted strictly to the economic proposition.

The hosts, Kimberly Adams and Reema Khrais, began by asking if higher ed still made financial sense.  Yes, I answered, for a good number of people – but not everyone.  Much depends on your degree and your institution’s reputation.  And I hammered home the problem of some college but no degree.  The hosts asked if that value proposition was declining.  My response: the perception of that value is dropping.  Here I emphasized the reality, and the specter, of student debt, along with anxieties about AI and politics.  Then I added my hypothesis that the “college for all” consensus is breaking up.

Next the hosts asked me what changing (declining) attitudes about higher education mean for campuses.  I responded by outlining the many problems, centered around the financial pressures many schools are under.  I noted Trump’s damages then cited my peak higher education model.  Marketplace asked me to explain the appeal of alternatives to college (the skilled trades, certificates, boot camps, etc), which I did, and then we turned to automation, which I broke up into AI vs robotics, before noting gender differences.

Back to college for all: which narrative succeeds it?  I didn’t have a good, single answer right away.  We touched on a resurgence of vocational technology, then I sang the praises of liberal education.  We also talked about the changing value of different degrees – is the BA the new high school diploma? Is a master’s degree still a good idea?  I cited the move to reduce degree demands from certain fields, as well as the decline of the humanities, the crisis of computer science, and the growing importance of allied health.

After my part ended, Adams and Khrais pondered the role of higher education as a culture war battlefield.  Different populations might respond in varied ways – perhaps adults are more into the culture war issues, and maybe women (already the majority of students) are at greater risk of automation.

So what follows the end of college for all?

If the American consensus that K-12 should prepare every student for college breaks down, if we no longer have a rough agreement that the more post-secondary experience people get, the better, the next phase seems to be… mixed.  Perhaps we’re entering an intermediary phase before a new settlement becomes clear.

One component seems to be a resurgence in the skilled trades, requiring either apprenticeship, a short community college course of study, or on the job training.  Demand is still solid, at least until robotics become reliable and cost-effective in these fields, which doesn’t seem to be happening in at least the short term.  This needs preparation in K-12, and we’re already seeing the most prominent voices calling for a return to secondary school trades training.  There’s a retro dimension to this which might appeal to older folks. (I’ve experienced this in conversations with Boomers and my fellow Gen Xers, as people reminisce about shop class and home ec.)

A second piece of the puzzle would be businesses and the public sector expanding their education functions.  There is already an ecosystem of corporate campuses, online training, chief learning officers, and more; that could simply grow as employers seek to wean employees away from college.

A third might be a greater focus on skills across the board. Employers demand certain skills to a higher degree of clarity, perhaps including measurements for soft skills.  K-12 schools better articulate student skill achievement, possibly through microcredentials and/or expanded (portfolio) certification. Higher education expands its use of prior learning assessment for adult learners and transfer students, while also following or paralleling K-12 in more clearly identifying skills within the curriculum and through outcomes.

A fourth would be greater politicization of higher education.  If America pulls back from college for all, college for some arrives and the question of who gets to go to campus becomes a culture war battlefield.  Already a solid majority of students are women, so we might expect gender politics to intensify, with Republicans and men’s rights activists increasingly calling on male teenagers to skip college while young women view university as an even more appropriate stage of their lives.  Academics might buck 2025’s trends and more clearly proclaim the progressive aims they see postsecondary education fulfilling, joined by progressive politicians and cultural figures.  Popular culture might echo this, with movies/TV shows/songs/bestsellers depicting the academy as either a grim ideological factory turning students into fiery liberals or as a safe place for the flowering of justice and identity.

Connecting these elements makes me recall and imagine stories.  I can envision two teenagers, male and female, talking through their expectations of college. One sees it as mandatory “pink collar” preparation while the other dreads it for that reason.  The former was tracked into academic classes while the latter appreciated maker space time and field trips to work sites. Or we might follow a young man as he enters woodworking and succeeds in that field for years, feeling himself supported in his masculinity and also avoiding student debt, until he decides to return to school after health problems limit his professional abilities.  Perhaps one business sets up a campus and an apprenticeship system which it codes politically, such as claiming a focus on merit and not DEI, on manly virtues and traditional culture. In contrast another firm does the same but without any political coding, instead carefully anchoring everything in measured and certified skill development.

Over all of these options looms the specter of AI, and here the picture is more muddy.  Do “pink collar” jobs persist as alternatives to the experience of chatbots, or do we automate those functions?  Does post-secondary education become mandatory for jobs handling AIs, which I’ve been calling “AI wranglers”?  If automation depresses the labor force, do we come to see college as a gamble on scoring a rare, well paying job?

I’ll stop here.  My thanks to Marketplace for the kind interview on a vital topic.

*My audio quality isn’t the best because I fumbled the recording. Sigh.

The Higher Education Inquirer’s Dramatic Rise in Viewership

The Higher Education Inquirer has experienced a dramatic surge in readership in recent months, defying the odds in a media ecosystem dominated by corporate influence, algorithmic manipulation, and declining public trust. Without the benefit of advertising dollars, search engine optimization tactics, or institutional backing, the Inquirer has built an expanding audience on the strength of its investigative rigor, academic credibility, and fearless confrontation of power in higher education.

The Inquirer’s success lies in its refusal to chase headlines or appease stakeholders. Instead, it examines the underlying systems that have shaped the American higher education crisis—escalating student debt, the exploitation of adjunct faculty, administrative overreach, the encroachment of private equity, and the weakening of regulatory oversight. Its reporting draws directly from primary source documents: internal university records, SEC filings, FOIA requests, and government data from the U.S. Department of Education, Department of Veterans Affairs, and other public institutions. Readers trust the Higher Education Inquirer not simply because it is independent, but because it is evidence-based and relentlessly honest.

This journalistic integrity has attracted a diverse and influential group of contributors whose work amplifies the publication’s reach and credibility. Among them is David Halperin, an attorney, journalist, and watchdog who has long held the for-profit college industry accountable. Halperin’s sharp investigative writing has helped shape federal policy, inform regulatory action, and expose the inner workings of a powerful, often unregulated sector of higher education.

Other essential contributors include Henry Giroux, whose writing connects neoliberalism, authoritarianism, and education policy; Bryan Alexander, who offers foresight into technological and demographic changes shaping the future of academia; and Michael Hainline, who combines investigative rigor with grassroots activism. Together, these voices reflect a commitment to intellectual diversity grounded in a shared mission: to make sense of a higher education system in crisis, and to imagine alternatives.

HEI's timing could not be more significant. As student loan debt hits historic levels, public confidence in higher education erodes, and international students reassess their futures in the United States, people are seeking answers—and not from the usual pundits or PR firms. They’re turning to sources like the Inquirer that offer clarity, accountability, and a refusal to look away from injustice.

With more than 700 articles and videos in its growing archive, the Inquirer has become a vital resource for researchers, journalists, educators, and activists alike. And unlike many mainstream outlets, it remains open-access, free of paywalls and advertising clutter. It encourages participation from readers through anonymous tips, public commentary, and shared research, building a collaborative community that extends beyond the screen.

Last week, more than 30,000 readers visited the site—a significant number for an independent, ad-free platform. But more than numbers, this growth signals a shift in how people consume and value journalism. It shows that there is a real appetite for media that holds power accountable, that prioritizes substance over spectacle, and that dares to tell the truth even when it’s inconvenient.

The Higher Education Inquirer is not chasing influence—it’s earning it. Through fearless reporting, scholarly insight, and a commitment to justice, it has become a trusted voice in the fight to reclaim higher education as a public good. And with its core group of contributors continuing to inform and inspire, the Inquirer is poised to grow even further, serving as a beacon for those who believe that education—and journalism—should serve the people, not the powerful.

Higher Education Inquirer Continues to Grow

The Higher Education Inquirer's viewership continues to grow. In the last week, we have had more than 30,000 views, and that's without SEO help.  Some of the content in HEI may be found elsewhere, but our in-depth historical and sociological analysis is rare for a blog or any other news source. HEI also relies on scholars and activists for our outstanding content.  Thank you, Henry Giroux, Gary Roth, and Bryan Alexander for allowing us to post your work.  And thanks to LACCD Whistleblower and Michael S. Hainline for your investigative exposes.  If you missed any of their articles, please click on their links. FYI: The Higher Education Inquirer archive also includes more than 700 articles and videos. Please check them out and let us know what you think. We want to hear from all sides of the College Meltdown.   

This Thursday on the Future Trends Forum: an international enrollment scenario (Bryan Alexander)

 

How might international student enrollment changes impact colleges and universities? This Thursday, on June 5th, from 2-3 pm ET, the Future Trends Forum is holding an interactive exercise to work through an evidence-based scenario wherein fall 2025 numbers crash. Everyone will participate by representing themselves in the roles they currently have or would like to take up, and in those positions explore the scenario. We will develop responses to the situation in real time, which may help us think ahead for whatever form the crisis eventually takes. In this exercise, everyone gets to collaboratively explore how they might respond.

As with our first election simulation, not to mention our solarpunk, generative AI, black swan, and digital twin workshops, this one will involve participants as cocreators and investigators, exploring and determining what might come next.  Consider it a trial run for a potential future. To RSVP ahead of time, or to jump straight in at 2 pm ET this Thursday, click here: https://georgetown.zoom.us/meeting/register/iHJBlk7_QAGzfC2JEfEbZQ To find more information about the Future Trends Forum, including notes and recordings of all previous sessions, click here: http://forum.futureofeducation.us/. (chart from Statista)

Trump vs academia as of May 14 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

 

Trump Versus Academia, April 25, 2025 (Bryan Alexander)

Here's my latest Trump and academia vlog report. If you’re new to this series, these videos are where I summarize what the Trump administration has been doing to higher education, and how colleges and universities have responded. Here are the latest developments since the last video, as of today, April 25, 2025. 

Previous episodes here:

  • Trump and higher education: report fr... 1 The Federal level 

Executive orders: 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidenti...
https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheet...
https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-r...

EEOC texts: 

https://theintercept.com/2025/04/23/t...

National Science Foundation canceled grants: 

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/04/22/sc...

NSF’s director resigned: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

National Institutes of Health canceled The Women’s Health Initiative: https://www.science.org/content/artic...

Deportations and visa revocations of international students: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/g...

XKCD comic: https://xkcd.com/3081/

Democratic members of Congress visiting Mahmoud Khalil and Rümeysa Öztürk: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/04/2...

Legal challenges: 

https://apnews.com/article/internatio...
https://abc7chicago.com/post/us-stude...
https://katu.com/news/local/federal-j...
https://wgme.com/news/local/aclu-file...

In previous videos I’ve paused to read the names of academics seized or threatened with deportation by these offices, the names of people like Rasha Alawieh. Yunseo Chung. Alireza Doroudi. Doğukan Günaydın. Mahmoud Khalil. Leqaa Kordia. Rumeysa Ozturk. Kseniia Petrova. Ranjani Srinivasan. Badar Khan Suri. Momodou Taal. 2 Academic reactions Trump on Harvard and one lawyer on Truth Social: https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTr...

Boycotting: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1L...

Research Council of Norway: https://www.theguardian.com/education...

I hope this video summary has been of use to you. Please share your thoughts, additions, and other reactions in the comment box below. If you don’t feel you can comment publicly, please reach out to me directly through the contact link at the end of today’s show notes. Given the pace of events, I’ll try to post these videos more frequently. This is a rough, dark time for those of us in higher education. It seems likely to get worse. I hope we can help each other out - and fight. Please take care, everyone. https://bryanalexander.org/contact-br...

Intro and outro sound: https://freesound.org/people/envirOma...

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.]