How Does Higher Education Interact with the Political Environment?   

Today, U.S. universities are still deeply intertwined with federal structures. Despite their reputation as centers of independent thought, public and private universities remain subject to significant federal influence. Federal funding mechanisms shape institutional priorities, and judicial interventions can define campus rights. Targeted actions against individuals, including students, faculty, and administrators, signal broader ideological battles. 

What Role Did the Founding Fathers Envision for Universities?

In an era of political polarization and educational distrust, the role of universities in shaping civic life has never been more contested. The founding fathers of the United States envisioned universities as institutions of learning but also incubators of democratic citizenship, which shaped the government’s relationship with education in the U.S. This belief was rooted in the liberal tradition that saw education as essential to the moral and intellectual development of free individuals capable of self-governance. In the 19th century, this vision was institutionalized through the establishment of land-grant universities under the Morrill Acts, which aimed to democratize access to higher education and align it with public service and national development. 

By the early 20th century, universities became centers of professional training but also arenas for public discourse and social critiques, increasingly shaped by progressive ideals and the expansion of civil society. This vision persisted into the 20th century; universities became environments for social activism that offered intellectual refuge and legal protection for dissent. Over time, the “value” and purpose of higher education are subject to broader interpretation based upon demographic, political and partisan alignments.  

Modern Perspectives on Higher Education in the U.S.

In recent decades, deepening polarization in the political sphere has fueled the politicization of higher education and its role. The American people’s confidence in universities has been trending steeply downwards since 2015, with the percentage of Americans expressing a great deal of trust in higher education dropping from 57 percent to 36 percent in the last decade. A 2024 survey by the Manhattan Institute found that while many Americans still value the idea of higher education, a majority believe universities are failing to prepare students for civic and professional life. This erosion of trust in the university has consequences. It creates grounds for political candidates and policymakers to capitalize on public skepticism and propose interventions into university governance. These sentiments have entered mainstream political discourse, shaping executive orders, legislative proposals, and judicial challenges that seek to redefine the boundaries of academic autonomy.  

How Has Federal Funding to Universities Changed Over Time?

The Morrill Acts marked the federal government’s first major investment in higher education. This foundational model expanded after World War II with the G.I. Bill. The G.I. Bill, formally known as the Servicemen’s Readadjustment Act of 1944, revolutionized access to higher education. The federal government covered tuition and living expenses for returning veterans, which democratized college access and injected billions of dollars into university systems. The G.I. Bill is widely credited as transforming universities into engines of middle-class mobility and national development. 

As the Cold War intensified after World War II,  federal funding shifted toward strategic research. Universities became key partners in national defense, public health, and technological innovation. This led to the rise of federal contracting, where institutions received targeted funds to conduct research on behalf of the government. These federal contracts often came with strict requirements and were  tied to specific deliverables, unlike more flexible non-government funding sources. In contrast to federal contracts, private donations and endowments from alumni, philanthropists, or corporate sponsors provide discrete, flexible funding.  

Public universities often rely on state funding to subsidize tuition, while private institutions depend more heavily on private direct payments and endowment returns. These private gifts can shape university priorities, especially at elite institutions, but they are not subject to the same regulations. The federal government does not directly regulate private donations to universities. However, the federal government has increasingly sought to influence how endowments are managed, particularly through legislative proposals and public scrutiny. According to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), recent federal efforts have included calls for mandatory reporting on how endowments are used and proposals to condition tax benefits on how institutions allocate those funds. 

How Has the Trump Administration Cut University Funding?

Diversified funding allows universities to pursue many projects and initiatives, but it also exposes them to political and economic pressure. Executive actions under the current administration condition federal funding on compliance with the administration’s priorities. These orders require federal agencies to terminate or withhold funding from projects that include flagged terms related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) and mandate stricter reporting from university researchers. As of February 2025, agencies like the National Science Foundation (NSF) have begun reviewing proposals not only for scientific merit but also for alignment with federal directives.  NSF is a $9 billion independent federal agency created by Congress in 1950 that funds approximately 25% of federal support for research conducted at American colleges and universities. 

The Trump Administration has criticized universities efforts to increase DEI programs. One example of this stance is an executive order titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” which explicitly requires the termination of “equity-related grants or contracts.” The executive order flags words like “female,” “historically,” “inequities,” “institutional,” “socioeconomic,” and “victims.” In August 2025, President Trump signed a presidential memorandum requiring higher education institutions that receive federal funding “to submit the data necessary to verify that their admissions do not involve unlawful discrimination.” In a U.S. Department of Education memo published in February 2025, factoring race in admissions processes for colleges and universities was described as racial discrimination.   

The Trump Administration’s Cuts to University Funding: Rationale and Responses

Following numerous pro-Palestine campus protests, the Trump administration cited concerns about anti-semitism and anti-Israel sentiment as a reason for revoking funding to universities. The administration cut $2.6 billion in research funding to Harvard by May 2025. Michael Velhick—a lawyer from the Department of Justice and an alumnus of Harvard College and Harvard Law School—argued that Harvard permitted antisemitism after the Hamas-led attack on October 7, 2023. According to a joint report from the Department of Justice, Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, and the U.S. General Services Administration published in February 2025, 10 universities were explicitly listed as institutes that the Federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism intended to visit. These universities are Columbia, Harvard, UCLA, UC Berkeley, Northwestern, University of Southern California, New York University, Johns Hopkins University, George Washington University, and the University of Minnesota.  

In March 2025, the Trump administration revoked $400 million in grants from Columbia University referencing “the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” Additionally, in July 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice accused UCLA of allowing anti-semitism on its campus during student pro-Palestine protests in spring 2024.  Consequently, the federal government froze $594 million in UCLA’s research grants. The UC President James B. Milliken said in a statement in August 2025 that, “These cuts do nothing to address antisemitism.”  

From altering their language to submitting more data about their admission processes, U.S. universities have changed their approach to education since President Trump’s inauguration and subsequent executive orders. For example, 16 schools at the University of Pennsylvania eliminated mentions of DEI by February 2025. Another approach universities have used to avoid explicit commitments to DEI is by renaming offices. The University of Pennsylvania’s Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion for the School of Arts and Sciences was renamed to the Office of Academic Excellence and Engagement. Cornell University relabeled its Office of Academic Diversity Initiatives to the Office of Academic Discovery and Impact in August 2025.

After the passage of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in July 2025, universities with considerable endowments are expected to pay a higher tax on their investment income. Universities such as Yale will face an increase in endowment tax from the current 1.4% to 8%. Yale President Maurie McInnis said in a statement that, “Taxing universities undermines the education and research that fuel life-saving medical breakthroughs, life-changing innovations, and economic growth in communities across the country and around the globe.” Beginning in 2026, approximately 20 universities will face an increase in their endowment tax. Universities such as Harvard, Yale, Princeton, and Stanford may have to increase payments by roughly $200 million each as a result of the increased endowment tax. 

How Do Court Decisions Shape University Policies?

The judiciary plays a pivotal role in shaping the legal and operational landscape of American higher education. While universities have historically enjoyed some degree of autonomy, the courts have increasingly intervened in matters ranging from admissions policies to free speech and due process. This judicial oversight is grounded in constitutional interpretation and federal statutory law. It has increasingly become one of the most consequential levers of federal influence over both public and private educational institutions. 

The United States Supreme Court’s decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard marked a significant shift in how universities may consider race in admissions. The case consolidated a similar admissions case involving the public University of North Carolina. Previously, universities like Harvard or UNC used race as a factor for admission with the purpose of addressing and increasing groups who were historically underrepresented at their university. The Supreme Court ruled in a 6-3 decision that the use of race as a factor in college admissions is unconstitutional.  This decision has had immediate and far-reaching consequences. The ruling prompted institutions to revaluate diversity initiatives and sparked debates across academic, legal, and political communities. 

The Chief Justice Roberts stated in the majority opinion that while diversity is a compelling interest, the methods used by Harvard and UNC failed to meet the strict constitutional scrutiny standards required for race-based policies. The Court emphasized that admissions programs must be “sufficiently measurable” and cannot rely on broad or subjective goals. The ruling effectively ended affirmative action policies at both public and private universities, citing violations of the Equal Protection Clause and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. While some praised the ruling as a return to solely merit-based admissions, others warned it could undermine decades of progress in educational equity policies.  

The Trump administration’s executive orders targeting DEI programs have already prompted lawsuits from academic organizations such as the American Association of University Professors and the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education. These groups argue that the orders violate both the First and Fifth Amendments and threaten academic freedom by conditioning federal funding on ideological compliance with the administration. 

Meanwhile, the Supreme Court has been asked to weigh in on whether the administration can terminate nearly $783 million in federal research grants linked to DEI initiatives, a move that could set a precedent for executive control over academic funding. Local governments and universities are also pushing back, filing suits to prevent the enforcement of new federal DEI restrictions that they argue undermine inclusive campus environments. These legal battles will likely define the next phase of judicial influence over universities, as courts are called upon to balance executive authority, constitutional protections, and the evolving role of diversity in American education. 

How Is the Federal Government Responding to Individual Students and Administrators?

Student Protesters

In recent years, the executive branch has leveraged agencies such as Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to apprehend students involved in protests and other political activity. One of the most publicized cases is Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University student who was arrested in March 2025. His green card was revoked for his alleged leadership in “activities aligned to Hamas”.  Khalil served as a negotiator for Columbia’s pro-Palestine encampment. Secretary of State Marco Rubio relied on a statute from the 1952 Immigration and Nationality Act for Khalil’s arrest. The act allows for the deportation of people whom the secretary believes would harm U.S. foreign policy. Khalil was released from detention on June 20, 2025, although his case is ongoing. 

Rümeysa Öztürk, an F-1 student visa holder studying at Tufts University, was arrested off the street in Somerville, Massachusetts at the end of March 2025.  Öztürk was sent to an ICE detention center in Louisiana despite having a student visa, which permitted her to be in the U.S. legally. Öztürk’s arrest followed a similar rationale to Khalil’s. Officials argued that she represented a threat to U.S. national security as someone who had allegedly engaged in “pro-Hamas” activities. She co-authored an op-ed in Tufts’ student newspaper in March 2024, criticizing the university’s response to student groups calling for divestment from Israel and labeling Israel’s treatment of Palestinian civilians as a “plausible genocide”. Öztürk was released in May after 45 days in detention following an order from a federal judge. Outside of her 2024 op-ed, there was no additional evidence presented as rationale for her detention.  

How Are Settlements and Funding Agreements Being Used to Affect Universities?

In an attempt to regain its $400 million in revoked federal funding, Columbia University took disciplinary action against 80 students involved in pro-Palestine demonstrations in May 2025. In addition to paying a settlement of $200 million to restore its federal funding, Columbia is changing its screening process for international student applicants. The university also agreed to provide information about disciplinary proceedings of student visa holders, which could potentially make it easier for federal agencies to deport students who participate in protests. After the settlement, the U.S. Department of Education released a statement that “Columbia’s reforms are a roadmap”, suggesting Columbia will be the first of many universities to adopt similar changes as the Trump Administration challenges their federal funding.

In June of 2025, the president of the University of Virginia, Jim Ryan, stepped down from his position under pressure from the Trump Administration which had threatened to cut funding to the university if he did not leave. In a statement, Ryan expressed he would have fought the pressure more aggressively had threats from the Trump Administration not been “distinctly tied to me personally.” This was the culmination of the Department of Justice investigation into UVA’s response to President Trump’s order to end all DEI programs. The DOJ demanded that Ryan resign to resolve their investigation into the university, directly targeting him. Professor Cantwell of Michigan State University hypothesized that Ryan likely decided to step down due to a lack of support among the Board of Visitors, who govern UVA and are appointed by Virginia Governor Youngkin, an ally of President Trump. 

Conclusion

Universities, both private and public, are intricately tied to the federal government. Today, the federal government exerts significant influence on higher education, from providing funding to initiating lawsuits to pressuring presidents to resign. While the landscape is still developing, with lawsuits and investigations currently pending, it is clear that the higher education landscape will continue to shift in response to government actions. 

Frequently Asked Questions