President Donald Trump has wasted little time turning his attention to higher education in his second term, launching a campaign that has frequently blurred the line between policy and personal vendetta. Universities have become frontlines in a broader cultural and political struggle, with Trump framing campuses as bastions of what he calls “radicalism” and “woke agendas.” From admissions and diversity programs to student visas and federal funding, his administration has sought to reshape the academic landscape in ways few predecessors attempted.
Education has long been a focal point for broader culture wars, encompassing immigration, and political debates over student loan forgiveness and free speech. Trump’s approach targets what he perceives as ideological overreach, particularly through diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which he claims unfairly advantage certain students. Leveraging the federal government’s power, he has pressed universities on admissions, curriculum, hiring, and governance, while recasting civil rights laws to justify interventions that roll back protections for historically disadvantaged groups, leaving many to wonder just how far he is willing to go to reshape America’s higher education.
Influencing policy through funding and legal threats
One of the administration’s primary levers has been federal funding. Agencies from the National Institutes of Health to the Department of Defense and NASA have frozen or cut billions in grants, often tied to disputes over diversity policies, student protests, or leadership decisions. Columbia University, for instance, faced a $400 million funding cut after pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations prompted federal scrutiny of its Middle East studies department. A settlement later reinstated the majority of Columbia’s grants, although the university did not admit wrongdoing.
Harvard faced even more dramatic actions. After rejecting demands to reform admissions and end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, the administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants, initiated new civil rights investigations, threatened its tax-exempt status, and temporarily barred foreign students from attending. In a legal rebuke, a federal judge deemed the administration’s actions “ideologically motivated,” barring further interference with Harvard’s funding. Similar funding disputes affected Cornell University, Northwestern University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Princeton University.
The administration also targeted state policies on in-state tuition for undocumented students, resulting in lawsuits against Texas, Kentucky, and Minnesota, and settlements that limited access to subsidized tuition. Agreements with institutions like Brown University required changes to admissions criteria, explicitly removing race as a factor and adopting binary gender definitions, signaling a broader campaign to eliminate what Trump calls “woke” practices.
Department of Education and regulatory overhaul
Trump’s vision extends beyond individual universities to the federal apparatus itself. He signed an executive order directing the Education Secretary, Linda McMahon , to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education, aiming to return authority to states and local communities.
Accreditation, another powerful tool, has been positioned as a mechanism to enforce ideological conformity. Executive orders and guidance now push universities to switch accreditors more rapidly, while Office for Civil Rights investigations have flagged institutions like Harvard and Columbia for alleged civil rights violations, threatening their federal aid eligibility.
Restricting international students
Trump’s approach also targets foreign students, particularly those involved in protests or perceived as critical of US policies. Visa revocations, deportations, and the suspension of certification for hosting foreign students have been key strategies, though federal courts have occasionally blocked these efforts.
Targeting student loans and research funding
Student loans and research grants have emerged as additional fronts in Trump’s campaign. New policies restrict eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, resume collections on defaulted loans, and impose lifetime borrowing limits. Simultaneously, federal agencies have rescinded grants deemed to advance “woke” agendas, such as research on climate change, environmental justice, and diversity programs, redirecting funds to projects framed as ideologically neutral.
Rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion policies
From executive orders to departmental memos, the Trump administration has systematically rolled back DEI programs at universities. Institutions face potential funding loss if they continue to use race, gender, or other demographic factors in admissions, hiring, or financial aid. Investigations into universities including George Mason University and the University of Virginia illustrate the high stakes of noncompliance, with university leaders pressured to resign or alter institutional practices.
The “Compact for Academic Excellence”
Trump’s latest initiative crystallizes his vision: a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” sent to nine major universities. In exchange for substantial federal incentives, the schools would adopt the administration’s gender definitions, eliminate consideration of race or gender in admissions, enforce standardized testing, and comply with other policy mandates. Critics have called the compact a “Faustian bargain,” raising concerns about the administration’s role in dictating core aspects of university governance.
Trump’s second-term campaign on higher education is not merely about policy. It is an ambitious, systematic attempt to reshape the ideological and operational foundations of American universities. Through funding threats, legal battles, visa controls, and regulatory overhauls, his administration has sought to redefine the balance of power between federal authority and academic institutions. As the “Compact for Academic Excellence” demonstrates, the next phase of this crusade could institutionalize these interventions, further entwining politics and education. Whether universities acquiesce, resist, or find new avenues for autonomy, the landscape of American higher education is being irrevocably tested.
The question remains: Is this an evolution of the 'American dream,' or an attempt to seize it?
Education has long been a focal point for broader culture wars, encompassing immigration, and political debates over student loan forgiveness and free speech. Trump’s approach targets what he perceives as ideological overreach, particularly through diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, which he claims unfairly advantage certain students. Leveraging the federal government’s power, he has pressed universities on admissions, curriculum, hiring, and governance, while recasting civil rights laws to justify interventions that roll back protections for historically disadvantaged groups, leaving many to wonder just how far he is willing to go to reshape America’s higher education.
Influencing policy through funding and legal threats
One of the administration’s primary levers has been federal funding. Agencies from the National Institutes of Health to the Department of Defense and NASA have frozen or cut billions in grants, often tied to disputes over diversity policies, student protests, or leadership decisions. Columbia University, for instance, faced a $400 million funding cut after pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations prompted federal scrutiny of its Middle East studies department. A settlement later reinstated the majority of Columbia’s grants, although the university did not admit wrongdoing.
Harvard faced even more dramatic actions. After rejecting demands to reform admissions and end diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, the administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants, initiated new civil rights investigations, threatened its tax-exempt status, and temporarily barred foreign students from attending. In a legal rebuke, a federal judge deemed the administration’s actions “ideologically motivated,” barring further interference with Harvard’s funding. Similar funding disputes affected Cornell University, Northwestern University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Princeton University.
The administration also targeted state policies on in-state tuition for undocumented students, resulting in lawsuits against Texas, Kentucky, and Minnesota, and settlements that limited access to subsidized tuition. Agreements with institutions like Brown University required changes to admissions criteria, explicitly removing race as a factor and adopting binary gender definitions, signaling a broader campaign to eliminate what Trump calls “woke” practices.
Department of Education and regulatory overhaul
Trump’s vision extends beyond individual universities to the federal apparatus itself. He signed an executive order directing the Education Secretary, Linda McMahon , to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education, aiming to return authority to states and local communities.
Accreditation, another powerful tool, has been positioned as a mechanism to enforce ideological conformity. Executive orders and guidance now push universities to switch accreditors more rapidly, while Office for Civil Rights investigations have flagged institutions like Harvard and Columbia for alleged civil rights violations, threatening their federal aid eligibility.
Restricting international students
Trump’s approach also targets foreign students, particularly those involved in protests or perceived as critical of US policies. Visa revocations, deportations, and the suspension of certification for hosting foreign students have been key strategies, though federal courts have occasionally blocked these efforts.
Targeting student loans and research funding
Student loans and research grants have emerged as additional fronts in Trump’s campaign. New policies restrict eligibility for Public Service Loan Forgiveness, resume collections on defaulted loans, and impose lifetime borrowing limits. Simultaneously, federal agencies have rescinded grants deemed to advance “woke” agendas, such as research on climate change, environmental justice, and diversity programs, redirecting funds to projects framed as ideologically neutral.
Rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion policies
From executive orders to departmental memos, the Trump administration has systematically rolled back DEI programs at universities. Institutions face potential funding loss if they continue to use race, gender, or other demographic factors in admissions, hiring, or financial aid. Investigations into universities including George Mason University and the University of Virginia illustrate the high stakes of noncompliance, with university leaders pressured to resign or alter institutional practices.
The “Compact for Academic Excellence”
Trump’s latest initiative crystallizes his vision: a proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” sent to nine major universities. In exchange for substantial federal incentives, the schools would adopt the administration’s gender definitions, eliminate consideration of race or gender in admissions, enforce standardized testing, and comply with other policy mandates. Critics have called the compact a “Faustian bargain,” raising concerns about the administration’s role in dictating core aspects of university governance.
Trump’s second-term campaign on higher education is not merely about policy. It is an ambitious, systematic attempt to reshape the ideological and operational foundations of American universities. Through funding threats, legal battles, visa controls, and regulatory overhauls, his administration has sought to redefine the balance of power between federal authority and academic institutions. As the “Compact for Academic Excellence” demonstrates, the next phase of this crusade could institutionalize these interventions, further entwining politics and education. Whether universities acquiesce, resist, or find new avenues for autonomy, the landscape of American higher education is being irrevocably tested.
The question remains: Is this an evolution of the 'American dream,' or an attempt to seize it?
You may also like
Indore News: Name of businessman's Daughter Also Added In Case Of Shooting At Model
Kauvery Marathon in Trichy promotes cancer awareness; over 7,000 runners participate
Teachers catalysts of Cambodia's AI transformation: PM Hun Manet
Kerala CM inaugurates museum for A Ramachandran
Cough Syrup Deaths: Health Ministry To Hold Emergency Meeting At 4 PM
