A Year of Upheaval in American Higher Education
The second term of President Donald Trump began with a rapid series of executive actions that sent shockwaves through universities and school districts across the United States. By the close of 2025, the full extent of this federal intervention became unmistakably clear. What remains uncertain, however, is whether these dramatic changes represent a temporary disruption or the foundation for a lasting transformation in how higher education is governed, funded, and regulated.
Executive Power Takes Center Stage
Rather than seeking major education legislation from Congress, the administration aggressively utilized executive orders, agency directives, and civil rights investigations. This strategy enabled swift and far-reaching action but also generated significant instability. New rules were frequently announced, legally challenged, partially blocked, and then revised, often within a matter of months.
The US Department of Education was a key player from the start. In January, an executive order mandated the elimination of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs to the fullest extent allowed by law, affecting institutions that receive federal funds. February brought a departmental letter to colleges warning that considering race in admissions could jeopardize their federal funding. Although a federal judge later blocked these proposed policies on procedural grounds, the message had already been delivered. For university administrators, managing compliance risk became an everyday concern.
Investigations soon followed. Dozens of universities faced scrutiny over their admissions practices, campus programming, and internal offices associated with diversity initiatives. This pressure contributed to increased leadership turnover at several institutions, including the University of Virginia, where the president resigned amid tensions linked to the federal stance on DEI.
Funding Leverage Exerts Real Force
If executive orders set the political tone, funding decisions delivered the tangible impact. Throughout 2025, the administration moved to terminate or freeze thousands of federal grants at more than six hundred colleges and universities. The stated reasons varied from concerns about campus antisemitism to allegations that certain research areas promoted ideological bias.
Research universities found themselves particularly vulnerable. Projects related to climate change, social policy, and the humanities faced intensified scrutiny. Prestigious institutions like Princeton, Harvard, Brown, and Columbia experienced major funding disruptions. Several universities canceled or reduced doctoral programs for the 2026-2027 academic year, especially in non-STEM fields.
The cuts also affected federal agencies that support US research capacity. Reductions at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation raised alarms about long-term consequences for scientific output and talent development. Even when court rulings blocked some funding freezes, the pervasive uncertainty altered hiring practices, grant planning, and collaborative efforts.
Public universities bore a disproportionate share of the burden. These institutions educate the majority of low-income and first-generation students and depend more heavily on federal support. The uneven distribution of cuts exacerbated existing disparities between well-funded private universities and state-funded systems already facing financial strain.
Targeted Pressure on Specific Institutions
The administration's use of funding was not applied uniformly. Certain universities became specific focal points. Columbia University confronted a $400 million funding cut in March, followed by a July agreement where it paid over $220 million to restore previously canceled research funds. Harvard University challenged a proposed $2.2 billion grant freeze, which a federal judge blocked in September. The administration appealed this decision later in the year.
These high-profile cases illustrated a broader trend. Federal oversight was no longer perceived as a routine compliance matter but as a direct negotiating tool. Universities were forced to balance legal resistance against severe financial risks, often under intense public scrutiny.
The Compact and Conditional Compliance
In October, the White House introduced the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. Initially sent to nine universities and later offered to all institutions, the compact tied preferential access to federal funding with agreement to specific policy commitments. These included restrictions on considering race, gender, sexuality, or nationality in admissions and hiring, limits on international student enrollment, and the removal of campus units perceived as penalizing conservative viewpoints.
Major institutions such as the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the University of Southern California rejected the compact. By the October deadline, seven of the original nine universities had declined to sign. Nevertheless, the initiative signaled a significant shift. Federal funding was now framed not merely as support but as an incentive for alignment with White House priorities.
International Students and Campus Climate
International students encountered a distinct set of pressures. In 2025, the State Department revoked more than eight thousand student visas. The administration linked these actions to national security and antisemitism concerns, particularly surrounding pro-Palestinian campus protests. Simultaneously, increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity generated anxiety among students, faculty, and staff.
These developments influenced enrollment decisions and campus atmospheres. For many institutions, international students constitute a vital academic and financial constituency. Visa uncertainty disrupted research teams, teaching plans, and student support systems.
Accreditation, Loans, and the Longer Horizon
Beyond the headline-grabbing actions, quieter shifts also occurred. The administration moved to strip professional status from certain degrees, including nursing, social work, and architecture, thereby limiting student borrowing options. It escalated challenges to the participation of transgender athletes in women's sports. It also indicated interest in reshaping the higher education accreditation process, arguing that accreditors enforce ideological conformity.
Collectively, these moves pointed toward a broader objective: ensuring that policy changes endure beyond a single presidential term. By embedding new expectations into funding rules, accreditation standards, and institutional behavior, the administration sought durability even where courts intervened.
What Students Are Likely to Experience
Students are unlikely to feel these changes all at once. Degrees remain valid, loan systems continue to function, and campuses still operate. The effects are more gradual. Delayed grants lead to fewer research assistantships. Canceled programs narrow academic options. Visa uncertainty alters who applies and who stays. Public universities facing funding gaps often reduce support services first.
Over time, the gap between federal promises and on-campus reality can widen. The institutions most affected are those serving low-income, first-generation, and international students, where even small losses compound rapidly.
Signals to Watch Moving Forward
The next phase will be defined less by announcements and more by implementation. Key indicators include whether student loan policy, civil rights enforcement, or special education oversight shifts further from the Education Department; how consistently agencies apply new rules; and how courts and Congress respond to executive-driven governance.
Equally telling will be local outcomes that attract little national attention. A research lab that does not reopen. A doctoral cohort that never forms. An international student who chooses another country. These are the points where a year of policy transforms into structural change.
By the end of 2025, higher education had not collapsed. But it had been fundamentally rewired. Whether that wiring becomes permanent will shape American universities long after the executive orders fade from public view.
