Since taking office, the Trump administration has moved to reshape American higher education through a series of regulatory and compliance actions that collectively may affect colleges as much or more than visible decisions like freezing federal research grants or revoking international student visas.
The Office of Management and Budget this month proposed revisions to guidance for federal financial assistance that would require all federal grants to be reviewed by political appointees to ensure they "demonstrably advance the president's policy priorities." Under the proposal, agencies could not fund research that denies "the sex binary in humans," promotes "anti-American values," or supports illegal immigration, voter registration or diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Grants deemed not "in the public interest" could be terminated.
The General Services Administration separately proposed requiring all higher education recipients of federal funding to certify compliance with federal law and executive orders on racial discrimination. The certification would align with administration guidance prohibiting actions such as awarding race-based scholarships or using diversity statements in hiring. More than two dozen higher education organizations have urged GSA to rescind the proposal, and 23 Democratic state attorneys general have argued it exceeds executive branch authority.
What the Right Is Saying
Supporters of the administration's actions say they represent long-overdue accountability measures for institutions that have prioritized ideology over educational quality and taxpayer stewardship. Administration officials argue that federal funding should not support programs promoting views hostile to American values or that waste public resources.
Conservative commentators have argued that universities have become echo chambers with limited viewpoint diversity, and that using accreditation standards and grant review processes can encourage more balanced academic environments. They contend that requiring students to demonstrate earnings gains is a reasonable measure of institutional effectiveness given the substantial federal investment in student aid.
Defenders of the certification requirement note that it aligns institutions with existing anti-discrimination law, arguing that race-based scholarships and diversity statements may themselves constitute discriminatory practices. Some conservative legal scholars maintain that executive branch guidance on interpreting civil rights law does not require congressional endorsement to be enforceable.
What the Left Is Saying
Critics of the administration's approach argue these regulatory mechanisms represent an unprecedented assault on academic freedom that bypasses Congress entirely. David Wippman, emeritus president of Hamilton College, and Glenn Altschuler, professor at Cornell University, wrote in The Hill that the administration is "pulling every bureaucratic and regulatory lever it can find or invent" to reshape higher education without legislative approval. They argue this creates "a permanent machinery for partisan ideological oversight."
Progressive groups contend the earnings-outcomes proposal constitutes educational malpractice. The American Public Health Association warned the OMB grant-review policy could "devastate innovation, science and research" in the United States. Democratic attorneys general from 23 states have challenged the GSA certification requirement in court, arguing it exceeds executive authority.
Advocates for academic freedom note that accreditation has historically operated as an independent peer-review mechanism to ensure educational quality rather than ideological compliance. They argue that forcing accreditors to police institutional policies on "ideological diversity" and free speech transforms a professional standards body into an arm of political enforcement.
What the Numbers Show
The earnings-outcomes proposal would take effect July 1 if implemented as proposed. Under the measure, colleges must demonstrate that four years after graduation, their students earn more than workers with only a high school diploma or lose access to federal student loans for programs failing two of three consecutive years.
Analysis cited by critics indicates religious studies programs face the greatest risk: approximately 9 percent of undergraduate programs and 89 percent of master's programs would fail the threshold. Humanities, music, museum studies, arts and theater programs at top-ranked universities would also be vulnerable, including both undergraduate and graduate music programs at Juilliard.
The administration has frozen billions in federal research grants to institutions deemed non-compliant with executive orders. The Department of Education has been substantially reduced under the administration's restructuring plans.
The Bottom Line
These regulatory actions represent a parallel effort to more visible policy changes like visa revocations and grant freezes, operating through compliance mechanisms that tend to receive less public attention but may have equally profound effects on higher education.
The legal challenges brought by Democratic attorneys general will test whether these executive branch interpretations of civil rights law can survive judicial scrutiny. The OMB proposal remains open for public comment before implementation.
Watch for court rulings on the GSA certification requirement and any modifications to the accreditation regulations as institutions and their representatives engage with the rulemaking process. The outcome will determine how much regulatory authority the administration retains without congressional action.