Higher Ed Is Trapped in Trump’s Chaos

Here’s how the sector can find its footing
The Review | Essay
By Brendan Cantwell February 4, 2025

The first weeks of the second Trump administration brought disruption and uncertainty to higher ed through a torrent of executive orders. Federal funding was frozen and then unfrozen. The National Science Foundation payment system went off and then — after a judge’s order — back on. Executive orders raised the prospect of Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids on campus and threatened to muzzle international students’ speech by penalty of deportation. Dozens of Education Department employees were placed on leave and The Wall Street Journal reports that the administration is considering unwinding the entire department. President Trump’s directives to purge diversity, equity, and inclusion policies, programs, and personnel from the federal government have signaled that the mission to broaden participation in higher ed is now illicit. The specifics, logistics, and legality of Trump’s actions against higher ed’s values are changing by the day, but the sense of chaos in — and federal hostility toward — our sector seems to be here to stay.

Colleges must adjust and will be forced to do things they don’t want to do. I don’t envy the position that campus presidents and other decision makers find themselves in. Most are operating with good council and in good faith. But given the climate of fear and uncertainty in the face of real threats, campus leadership and boards may be experiencing something like the fog of war. The risk of misjudging their adversary’s intentions and capabilities is real.

The fire hose of information, misinformation, and ever-changing directives is dizzying. Over the days during which this essay was written and edited, the situation changed several times — and more proposals, reversals, threats, and confusion seem likely in the days ahead. The result is that the entirety of American higher ed is in a stupor, uncertain of where it stands and what will come next. While no one can know for sure how this is going to play out, we do have a clear vision of the Trump administration’s intent and the means it will use to pursue that intent.

The administration wants to subordinate colleges to its will. It wants to impose upon us the cultural preferences of the far right. This includes the denigration of independent science and scholarship; the supplanting of expertise with partisan priorities; and the imposition of “segregationist” politics, as the columnist Jamelle Bouie put it, aimed at dismantling all remaining tools for integration. The Trump administration’s executive authority and the coercive power of federal funding will be the primary mechanisms for achieving these goals. Funding for scientific research and federal financial aid is unlikely to disappear altogether, but Congress may be willing to make cuts, and the administration will certainly seek to eliminate the grants and programs it views as contrary to the president’s agenda.

I expect the administration to define all programs, policies, and practices it defines as “DEI” to be a form of illegal discrimination. The administration could view any college with a DEI presence as ineligible to be a federal contractor, which would cut institutions off from research funding as well as student financial aid. The administration will investigate and sue prominent universities to make examples of them and cower the rest into full compliance.

The broad strokes are clear, but much remains uncertain. How deep into campus operations will they try to go? Will they encroach on the curriculum and further into students’ lives? How much support will Congress give the administration? Where will courts draw the line?

Finally, we don’t know what limited shelter blue-state governments and existing institutional resources will provide. State law cannot supersede federal laws, and states are unlikely to replace federal dollars. Private wealth is no guarantee of independence either — Congress and the administration are eager to tax endowments.

Higher-ed leaders should be clear-eyed about Trump’s morally wrong and likely illegal intentions, and resist conceding anything they don’t have to. Four lessons for presidents stand out.

Do not confuse acquiescing to a far-right agenda with building public trust. Calls for eliminating diversity and inclusion programs are not consistent with the need to respond to legitimate public concerns. Trust in higher education has declined, most noticeably on the right. State leaders have cited public distrust as justification for installing a state-sponsored curriculum in Florida. But that overreach violates basic tenets of academic freedom and is out of step with the public. Concern about whether higher ed is affordable and relevant is real; it also has little to do with the current assault led by far-right elites like Elon Musk and Christopher Rufo.

Communicate honestly and avoid appeals to false hope. Messages from institutional leaders have adopted the measured tenor of communications professionals. Campuswide emails with phrases like “we are monitoring the situation closely” are meant to convey a sense of calm, as if to say: “Don’t worry. We are on it, and eventually everything will be OK.” There is a good reason for taking this tone: Panic is unhelpful and could draw unwanted attention. Yet leaders asking for trust by urging calm know that new federal policies may harm members of their community. Pretending otherwise makes it hard to build and maintain the bonds that are necessary to collaboratively work through difficult decisions. The Trump administration’s tactics are designed to pit some people on campus against others. Acknowledging that upfront will not guarantee tranquility, but may prepare the community to manage internal conflict when it arises.

Higher ed may be forced to make concessions to survive — but we’re not there yet. Now is the time to go on the offensive.
Don’t conflate realism with helpless doomerism. The first Trump administration was met with alarm. It was chaotic and disruptive, but the worst outcomes for higher ed were averted. As a result, leaders might be tempted to view current concerns as an overreaction. That’s a bad idea. A realistic assessment of the current situation, which is extremely serious, is indispensable for decision-making and planning. Leaders should assess their decision-making teams and determine if the voices in the room apprehend the gravity and scope of the crisis. If not, new perspectives, especially from targeted communities, should be brought into the fold.

Revise risk-management frameworks to limit preemptive compliance. “Don’t comply in advance” is perhaps the most common advice proffered in the face of an authoritarian regime. I expect that many college leaders are determined to avoid premature obedience. But higher ed’s customary risk management and fiduciary decision-making frameworks lend themselves to compliance. Donors, government relations, and communications staff might all press for immediate changes. The general counsel may, for example, urge scrubbing websites for references to DEI and adjacent language, renaming offices and job titles, and severing international partnerships to pacify the mercurial Trump administration. If you cut these things now, they may never come back. Such attempts to appease have failed to work in the past and are very unlikely to work now. It’s also possible that attempts to align with what the administration says it wants today will encourage further and more disruptive encroachment tomorrow.

We are now in a defensive posture. The sector is nonpartisan and has rightly sought to remain so. This neutrality might make open opposition to the Trump administration seem unwise, but resisting an authoritarian takeover of higher ed is not a partisan issue. Being realistic means understanding the stakes. Protecting higher ed is about serving individual institutions, the sector as a whole, and the civic infrastructure that supports a democratic society. Higher ed may be forced to make concessions to survive — but we’re not there yet. Now is the time to go on the offensive. To do so, the sector must adopt a multipronged strategy.

The New York Times reports that certain well-to-do universities are upping their investments in government relations, with an emphasis on representation by Republican lobbying firms. Working to put even a little daylight between congressional Republicans and Trump is a good start. Solidarity is necessary, and universities with means should lobby on behalf of the sector, not just their own narrow interests. Organizations like the American Council on Education that have the capacity to speak for the entire sector are more important than ever and can help by coordinating efforts to find political and legal remedies. Partnership with state governments and business leaders will help if it doesn’t mean compromising on essential academic values.

Direct communication with the public is equally important. We are educators and it’s time to educate about the crisis on and off campus, focusing on the consequences for students, communities, states, and the public. Faculty, especially those of us with tenure and relevant expertise, should prioritize public scholarship. University leaders also need to speak plainly and clearly, even when it feels uncomfortable. Public college leaders still have some cachet in their states — we need them to use it.

This summer I was anxious that the conflicts over campus protests of the war in Gaza would give way to more generalized unrest during a tense election season. That didn’t happen. We also now know that first-year enrollment is up nationwide. Graduation rates are also up, and the cost of tuition in real terms is edging down. It does not feel like it, but higher ed is in a stronger-than-expected position even as it finds itself under siege. These snippets of good news can help make up a platform from which to launch an unapologetically pro-higher education message. Let’s get to work.

Read other items in this What Will Trump’s Presidency Mean for Higher Ed? package.
We welcome your thoughts and questions about this article. Please email the editors or submit a letter for publication.
Tags
Leadership & Governance
Opinion
Political Influence & Activism
Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion
Academic Freedom
Law & Policy
Share
Twitter
LinkedIn
Facebook
Email
About the Author
Brendan Cantwell
Brendan Cantwell is a professor of higher, adult, and lifelong education at Michigan State University.
Top Jobsfrom The Chronicle
ATSU – President – Missouri Campus
A.T. Still University
Tenure-stream Assistant Professor in Reconfigurable Computing and FPGAs for mission-critical apps
University of Pittsburgh
Provost/Vice President Academic Affairs
Black Hills State University
Director of IPT – Institute for Private Training (Director of Continuing Education Programs)
American International University
PRESIDENTIAL YOUNG SCHOLARS SCHEME
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Global Search for Chair Prof. /Professors/Associate Prof. /Assistant Prof. /Research Assistant Prof.
The Hong Kong Polytechnic University
Dean – School of Engineering
American International University, Kuwait
Instructor – Construction Science
Tarleton State University
CLINICAL ASSISTANT/ASSOCIATE PROFESSOR, SPORTS MANAGEMENT (Sports Consumer Insights)
New York University School of Professional Studies
Assistant or Associate Teaching Professor
Seattle University – Department of Computer Science
Search All Jobs
Newsletters
Teaching
Join a community of instructors and improve your teaching and learning outcomes with our free weekly newsletter.

Sign Up