The Trump administration is looking to excel at American universities by withholding federal financial support that has flowed to campus for decades.
President Trump and his allies have argued that some schools, particularly some elite universities, have become fortresses of anti-Semitism and ideological indoctrination. The higher education industry has acknowledged its flaws and failures, particularly since Hamas attacked Israel in October 2023, but warns that reducing federal funding for schools could backfire American society as a whole.
University leaders fear that by threatening to withhold funds or stopping them without warning, the government is trying to break the academic freedom that is the cornerstone of the American education system.
The Trump administration has given a wide range of reasons for cuts, including claims that schools tolerate anti-Semitism. But even schools and some of their demands can confuse educators and professionals. For example, Northwestern University recently released a list of steps it took to combat anti-Semitism, which the Trump administration closely tracks in its list of requests it gave to Columbia University. Anyway, the northwest was targeted a few days later.
The issue reveals the dollar and cent outcomes of tensions between campus leaders and the Trump administration. But the outcome of the fundamental debate – the purpose of higher education – could shape the country for years to come.
Which schools are being targeted?
So far, seven universities have been either chosen for punitive funding cuts or have been explicitly notified that their funds are in serious danger. they are:
Some university officials were perplexed by the cuts they learned from time to time through social media and claimed they took action to combat anti-Semitism.
Dozens of other schools have also been scrutinized, primarily by the Department of Education's Civil Rights Office, recognizing that some of their federal funds are at risk. However, the focus is on ten schools identified for particular attention by the Trump administration task force. George Washington University; Harvard; Johns Hopkins University. New York University; Northwest; University of California, Berkeley. University of California, Los Angeles. University of Minnesota; University of Southern California.
Critics of the administration have not hesitated to point out that all of these schools are in the federal district in the state that voted for a Democrat ticket in 2024, or in George Washington.
Why are schools being criticized?
The administration frequently argues that targeted schools have anti-Semitism. When protests against Israeli war in Gaza wiped out university campuses from coast to coast in 2024, some of the most precarious scenes, for example, were in Colombia.
But the regime's hostility towards major universities runs deeper roots than the chaos that led to that war. Conservatives have been asking elite echelons of higher education for decades, interrupted by positive behavioral admissions programs, high tuition fees, the views of liberal professors, diversity, equity and the spread of inclusive initiatives on campus.
Many conservatives say their views are marginalized in the auditorium and view top schools as incubators of “awakening.” They want universities to emphasize academic programs that will guide students to jobs that are essential to the economy.
How much money does it cost?
So far, the government has either yanks or threatens to yank over $12 billion. Most of that money is linked to Harvard and its affiliates, like a hospital.
The university has spoken little about which particular programs are at risk. But Penn said, for example, researchers from at least seven schools were affected.
“These contracts include research into hospital infection prevention, drug screening for deadly viruses, quantum computing, protection against chemical warfare, and student loan programs,” Penn president J. Larry Jameson said in an open letter.
How did the school respond?
Beyond statements of frustration and concern, they are not generally made public.
But there is one major exception. In March, Colombia agreed to follow the administration's demands so that the government could enter into negotiations on the $400 million future that it struck. Some of the most important concessions the university has made agreed to place the University's research departments in the Middle East, South Asia and Africa under new supervision. Strengthen security forces on campus. Strengthen disciplinary and protest policies.
Colombia's surrender surprised higher education leaders across the country.
“Academic freedom is a fundamental principle of the university. It needs to be protected,” Princeton University president Christopher L. Eislever told PBS Newshour in March. “And there are concerns about whether the university will make concessions on that. And once you make concessions, I think it's difficult to not make concessions again.”
The current and former university presidents also said it is easy to judge the school's actions from afar.
“I don't want to say I would have made another decision if I had sat in their shoes,” Mary Sue Coleman, former president of the University of Michigan and Iowa, said in a March interview. “I don't know.”
These schools are rich. Why is the government funding them in the first place?
Since the time of World War II, the US government has relied on academia to carry out research projects where their discoveries drip into the public and private sectors. Federally funded research has almost always had bipartisan support, but there have been occasional complaints about certain projects (sometimes totally ock ha ha).
In their scramble to counter the recent moves of the Trump administration, the university sought to inform elected officials and the public that it was making an important contribution to the country's health and prosperity. They also sought to assert that university-based research is essential to the country's future.
“The United States cannot afford to pause for a second in a race with China or other competitors,” the board of the Association of Industry Associations said in a recent statement:
Isn't schools just tapping on donations?
Many big schools certainly have big donations. However, all donations are different and university leaders point out that many donors limit how they use their money. Republicans, including Vice President JD Vance, are openly debating the excise tax hike on the biggest donations.
Harvard University has a much larger contribution than any other American university, with around $53 billion worth of donations. But even so, days after the Trump administration announced its review of Harvard's federal funds, the university announced plans to issue $750 million in bonds this month. Revenue gives Harvard University, several financial breathing rooms engaged in emergency planning.
