All hopes turn to Congress to soften Trump’s assault on HE

Colleges and universities in the United States are experiencing a dystopian attack by the Trump administration on their autonomy and their financial futures.

It is shortsighted and driven by a combination of vindictive policy-making bent on cutting and damaging federal spending at institutions and individuals deemed opposed to Trump’s MAGA agenda, a desire to intervene and change the culture of institutions that are deemed ‘too woke’, and efforts to shrink the size of federal spending to make room for tax cuts.

Trump and his acolytes have put much of their initial effort into attacking Harvard to make an example of it, a strategy that has gained the most publicity of late.

More consequential is the administration’s attempts to pull back and impound already approved National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF) and other scientific grants at almost all research-focused universities, often on the capricious grounds that a grant mentions climate change or uses taboo words like diversity that do not align with Trump’s policies and values.

On the same vague grounds, there is the reneging of federal grants for the social sciences and humanities as well as for mostly student support services for low-income and under-represented students (all fitting under the broad umbrella of diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI).

In total, some US$8 billion and counting of funding to US colleges and universities has been impounded or cancelled, much of which is being appealed by various universities in the courts.

In some instances, the grants have already been partially spent, so the demand is to reimburse the federal government. Even if largely successfully halted in the courts via a labyrinth of appeals, this approach creates an uncertain and damaging political and economic environment for colleges and universities.

Threatening to bar, arrest or even deport international students who are on legitimate visas at Harvard, but more generally at other institutions, often based on social media scans for their ‘anti-American’ behaviours, is also part of the current first wave of the administration’s hostile policies.

It is all part of a capricious, deliberate and often illegal overreach of presidential authority under what is called the “unitary executive theory”.

The new battleground is Congress – or should be

Thus far, this unfolding story has all come out of the actions and rhetoric of Trump and his willing cabinet officials in the Department of Education, the State Department, the Department of Justice, Human Health and others in this cabal.

We can blame it on a rogue and vindictive imperial presidency and a blueprint for attacking the so-called “deep state” and universities outlined by the ultra-conservative Heritage Foundation, much of which I accurately predicted in a previous University World News article in late 2024.

But the larger financial and policy risk for American higher education, and its scientific prowess and future, will be decided by Congress as it debates a sweeping budget bill where Republicans have a narrow majority in both the House and the Senate.

If the proposed cuts to science and financial aid are put into law, then there will be no legal recourse. The stakes are huge.

A bit about the process. The president submits a budget proposal to the House, which then generates its own version of the budget bill and sends its version to the Senate to do the same. Then the two bodies confer and pass a mutually approved bill to go to the president for signing.

This process allows for debate and changes that reflect congressional priorities and their constitutional authority to outline and allocate federal funding.

In short, the House version of the budget bill endorses Trump’s proposal to drastically cut science funding, including a 37% cut in funding to the NIH (about US$18 billion) and a 50% cut to the NSF (about US$9 billion).

This would likely lower the ratio of NSF grant proposals to actual awards from around 26% to about 7%. Hence, a highly competitive peer review process for grants will become even more selective, probably disproportionately impacting younger researchers, and could largely eliminate research and data collection related to climate change and alternative energy.

Then there are proposed cuts and redefinitions of eligibility for student financial aid, including converting some grants to private sector loans, as well as increasing a first Trump administration initiative to tax largely elite and private university endowments from 1.7% to 21%.

Normally, with representatives serving two-year terms, with the number of representatives from each state based on population and constantly running for re-election, the House is more populist. When under a Republican majority, the inclination is to seek deep cuts to the federal budget.

Senators serve six-year terms, with only two coming from each state, and have traditionally been a moderating force that, for instance, largely ignored Trump’s attempts to cut science funding during each of the four years in his first administration.

Normally, the minority party in the Senate, currently Democrats with more moderate views, shapes budget bills that require a 60% approval by all Senators. But Republicans are using a parliamentarian trick called “reconciliation” that allows them to, once a fiscal year, pass a budget with only 50% of the vote.

The hypocrisy of the policy debate is challenging to summarise. One theme: conservative fiscal hawks are mostly falling in line for a Trump budget proposal that includes extending and adding huge tax cuts that will add nearly US$4 trillion to the national debt over the next 10 years – estimates vary.

Meanwhile, this tax cut-infused debt, along with attacking the “deep state”, is being used to justify cuts in discretionary funding for social services and higher education.

So, with the bill now being debated in the Senate, will there be an attempt to reduce the draconian cuts to science and research as well as student aid?

There are some cracks forming, with committees with oversight on the budget, including science funding and student aid, debating and worrying about the impact on their individual states.

But before discussing these developments, here are some thoughts on the impact of the current House bill on higher education and science funding if it became law.

Trump’s agenda and the House bill

One needs to differentiate between the higher education sectors to assess the impact of the cavalcade of often impulsive policymaking coming out of Washington.

The biggest impact will be on research universities that generate most doctoral and professional degrees, the basic or blue-sky research and cutting-edge intellectual properties – all of which have been the catalyst for creating America’s innovation economy.

For these institutions, there is a dire scenario. The current and potential impacts can be categorised as direct or indirect. The direct effects include the current effort to impound funding of existing federal research grants and drastically reduce overhead rates.

But more consequential is the budget bill, as noted. It will have a huge impact on the financial and talent-generating ecosystem of research universities. At many top research universities, federal funding is the single largest source of income.

The impact is already being felt not only because of illegal attempts to cancel and pull back funding but also because of the uncertainty generated by Trump’s policies and now the proposed cuts in the budget bill.

These range from the complete stop of federally funded research, such as medical trials, to ending or restricting the acceptance of graduate students and layoffs and halts in hiring of faculty and researchers. We see a similar phenomenon in the social sciences and humanities.

Proposed cuts in student financial aid and tangled plans to make colleges and universities responsible for unpaid student debt, along with a proposal to increase the tax on endowments whose proceeds are often used for student scholarships, will have a negative impact on the financial health of institutions as well as on students.

A significant portion of student debt is from those who enrolled in predatory for-profits, so there could be some positive impacts on the higher education market.

But proposed changes in federal student aid would also have a significant and negative impact on public community colleges and universities that enrol low-income and disadvantaged students.

Two-year community colleges, which enrol about 45% of all students in the US, have higher dropout rates than four-year institutions, and generally students that do graduate have lower rates of making sufficient post-graduation income to pay off debt.

One could imagine that some four-year institutions would become more selective and less willing to take on students from these groups because of the future financial risk. The overall impact would likely be a decline in socio-economic mobility.

Then there is also the melding of Trump’s anti-immigration and deportation plans with attacks on higher education. New and evolving visa restrictions on international students will have a financial impact.

At the undergraduate level and in public colleges and universities, international students pay out-of-state tuition rates that help subsidise domestic students. At private institutions, there is generally no fee differential, so there is less of an impact. Indirect impacts will largely fall on public institutions.

Under the proposed budget bill passed by the House, state governments will face large cuts in federal support for Medicaid, which provides health care insurance for primarily low-income families and individuals; for food aid for low-income Americans (called SNAP); and for funding for projects to cope with climate change, state initiatives to promote alternative energy, and a vast array of social service programmes, including job training.

With little political appetite to raise taxes, governors and state legislatures will face a choice of whether to cut or end these programmes and services or to find funding by cutting discretionary spending, like higher education. My guess is that it will be a combination of the two, depending on the state.

If Trump’s tariffs withstand court order stays and the US lurches towards the unforced error of a recession (mild or severe), that will also push down state revenues. In addition, the continued uncertainty and attacks on international students will depress future interest in coming to the US, which will have a generally negative impact on the economy – higher education is technically one of the US’s largest ‘exports’ when counting international student-generated spending.

Hence, it is likely that public colleges and universities will be faced with additional state budget cuts, with the added variable of enrolment declines in some states, something that is already causing financial strain.

What can colleges and universities do?

The options are few. For many, raising tuition seems probable while students will also have fewer financial aid options.

Raising more money from donors and foundations is another option, but that is mostly open to a select group of the elite privates and some publics. Cutting operating costs could include raising student-to-faculty ratios again, cutting student support services and administrative costs and reducing financial aid offers.

Already a large number of smaller private colleges are closing, as well as campuses in public systems, such as in Pennsylvania, due to enrolment declines and state budget woes.

Trump’s agenda will accelerate that trend, reducing, in some states and regions, access to higher education which is still driven significantly by regional access.

What this adds up to is a significant erosion in the financial health, viability and productivity of the nation’s colleges and universities and a decline in access for low-income students and other under-represented groups.

There is also the deleterious and dramatic impact on the pipeline of students and researchers. Already, many graduate programmes in STEM fields are reducing or taking no new students; research teams focused on, for example, cancer research and vaccines are being eviscerated through layoffs.

Attracting international talent, long a hallmark of America’s success in building world-leading universities, is becoming more difficult and precarious.

In a scenario also playing out in Russia and other authoritarian states, some academics are looking to leave for jobs in Europe and elsewhere (although the number thus far is small).

More importantly, many talented young people who worry about political litmus tests and arbitrary government interventions may no longer see a research or academic career as attractive.

And why are we seeing these attacks on the viability of American higher education?

As alluded to previously, the Trump administration, with the tentative or enthusiastic support from its followers in the House and Senate, sees colleges and universities as their political opposition, institutions in need of unprecedented intervention and micromanagement, and shows little concern about the negative impact on socio-economic mobility or the nation’s economic competitiveness.

And this approach works politically among many Americans and is a reflection of the exaggerated and often disingenuous demonisation of higher education but also of the real internal challenges and a major public perception problem that will take years to repair – assuming this is possible.

And as we have seen in Hungary and other illiberal democracies, interventions and eviscerating the university sector have been part of the autocrats’ playbook that Trump is mimicking.

What is also evident is that an extremely productive partnership between the federal government and colleges and universities that extended before World War II is coming to an end or at least to a radical and sad redefinition.

Muted debate

Trump’s sweeping so-called ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ drastically cuts social welfare programmes like Medicare for lower-income families, expands funding for his anti-immigrant campaign and for defence, and extends and expands huge tax cuts.

As noted previously, estimates are that it will add an estimated nearly US$4 trillion to the national debt, maybe more. And Trump wants Congress to pass it and have it on his desk for signing by 4 July.

That is a rush job for such an expansive budget bill, reflecting Trump’s fire hose approach to issuing a massive number of executive orders. This creates multiple policy battlefronts, bringing challenges for those in opposition to, for instance, drastic cuts in science funding.

Fear of Trump and his demands for loyalty and threats of the vindictive use of the federal government and MAGA followers against any opposition have thus far largely muted Republican debate or questioning of, for example, his degradation of the authority of Congress on everything from tariffs to funding allocations to agencies such as USAID and Congress’ war power authority.

Technically, Congress has until early September to pass a budget bill for the following federal fiscal year. And as noted, there are emerging cracks in Republican ranks, particularly in the Senate, that may elongate the debate of the final bill.

Some conservatives say the cuts to social programmes and government agencies are not enough, and, while backing the tax cuts that primarily benefit high-income Americans and corporations, they are indicating opposition to the bill as fiscally irresponsible.

Some Republican senators and, increasingly, a number in the House are worried that these cuts and new restrictions on Medicaid will have a huge impact on states that have a high percentage of low-income families as well as a dwindling number of rural hospitals dependent on federal support that, in turn, will hurt Republican chances in the midterm elections in 2026.

The handful of moderates in the party, along with some conservative compatriots, are just beginning to voice concerns about the draconian cuts to federally funded research, with an initial focus on the cuts to agricultural research that supports farmers in their respective states, as well as cuts and changes to student financial aid.

Recently, Chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee Senator Susan Collins, one of the few moderate Republicans, has voiced concern and opposition to the proposed cuts to the NIH, including the impact on biomedical research, as well as to the NSF.

In hearings, she, along with Democrats on the committee, has argued that cuts to research funding would mean the US will fall behind countries like China and other economic competitors in key technologies.

The huge cut to USAID also concerns some Republicans. Much of the aid comes in the form of agricultural products sent abroad from their states.

The debates and hand-wringing are happening in the various subcommittees that review the budget and policy implications of different parts of the sweeping bill.

Hence, there are indicators of increasing cracks in the Republican ranks on the bill that may offer a chance for some moderation on the worst-case scenario of direct and indirect effects I outlined previously.

The unfolding events following Trump’s decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear facilities at the behest of Benjamin Netanyahu, its level of success and what consequences the US may face are also distracting Congress and may further extend the process of debate and negotiations on the budget bill.

In the not-so-distant past, Republicans, particularly since the Reagan era, were largely supportive of funding academic research as a form of corporate welfare – the link between university research and economic innovation being well established and furthered by the 1980 Bayh-Dole Act.

The exception came in the form of stem cell research and, more recently, the adamant denial of climate change that appeals to the Republican base.

Normally, and as witnessed in the first Trump administration, when huge and similar cuts were proposed to science and student financial aid, enough Republicans came together to oppose such draconian efforts.

In most of Trump’s first term, Congress increased science funding and successfully blocked other radical proposals, as I analysed in a chapter in my book Neo-Nationalism and Universities.

Part of the success in opposing Trump’s first-term agenda for higher education was through the lobbying efforts of the American Council for Education, the Association of American Universities, the Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, and other higher education groups, along with government relations teams at various universities, informing and appealing to representatives in their respective states.

Influencing representatives in Washington about science funding, student financial aid and the detrimental efforts to erode college and university autonomy, as well as the flaws and strengths of America’s higher education networks, has been extremely challenging in the midst of a barrage of executive orders, targeted attacks on institutions and rhetoric that universities and professors are ‘the enemy’.

But there is a window emerging for some form of moderation that will benefit from a more elongated process to consider the ramifications of the ‘Big Beautiful Bill’ that many argue is anything but beautiful.

The Trump administration’s efforts to claw back and cancel research funding, for example, will pale in comparison to the damage and long-term threat to America’s once venerated higher education system, as well as the nation’s science capabilities and innovation economy if Congress passes a version of the House bill.

The question is whether there are enough moderate Republicans willing to stand up to Trump and MAGA extremists in Congress, buttressed by a fear of possible voter dissatisfaction in the upcoming midterm elections, to moderate the financial and other erosion of America’s higher education and research ecosystem.

More generally, can a thus-far complacent and morally weak Congress controlled by Republicans finally seek some controls over Trump’s emerging imperial presidency and its attacks on democracy and its public institutions?

John Aubrey Douglass is a senior research fellow in public policy and higher education at the Center for Studies in Higher Education at Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California Berkeley, United States. He is the author of Neo-Nationalism and Universities: Populists, Autocrats, and the Future of Higher Education (Johns Hopkins University Press). He is the founding principal investigator of the Student Experience in the Research University (SERU) consortium based at Berkeley, which recently published the report “The Multi-Engagement Model: Understanding Diverse Pathways to Student Success at Research Universities”. He will be giving one of the keynotes at the upcoming European Association for Institutional Research Forum on Trump’s higher education policies and its impact on open science.

This article is a commentary. Commentary articles are the opinion of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of University World News.