One year of Trump 2.0: How America’s higher education system was rewired in 2025
President Donald Trump’s second term opened with a burst of executive action that unsettled universities and school districts across the United States. By the end of 2025, the scale of intervention was clear. What remains less settled is whether these changes were a temporary shock or the groundwork for a longer realignment of how higher education is governed, funded and constrained.In a single year, the administration issued a large set of education-related executive orders, expanded civil rights investigations into colleges and schools, froze or threatened billions of dollars in federal research funding and began the administrative dismantling of the US Department of Education. Much of this was done without new legislation, relying instead on executive authority, agency guidance and funding leverage. The result was not one reform, but a series of overlapping pressures that altered how institutions plan, hire, admit students and conduct research.Public confidence reflected the unease. A widely cited October survey by the Pew Research Center found that seven in ten Americans believed higher education was headed in the wrong direction. That judgment formed the backdrop for a year in which universities were forced to respond not only to policy change, but to uncertainty about what might come next.
Executive power as education policy
Rather than pursuing large education bills through Congress, the administration leaned on executive orders, agency letters and investigations. This approach allowed speed and reach, but also created instability. Rules were announced, challenged, partially blocked and revised, often within months.The Education Department played a central role early in the year. In January, an executive order directed the elimination of diversity, equity and inclusion programs to the maximum extent permitted by law, including at institutions receiving federal funds. In February, the department sent a letter to colleges warning that considering race in admissions could lead to the loss of federal funding. A federal judge later blocked the letter’s proposed policies on procedural grounds, but the signal had already been sent. Compliance risk became a daily concern for administrators.Investigations followed. Dozens of universities were scrutinized for admissions practices, campus programming and internal offices linked to diversity initiatives. Leadership turnover increased at several institutions, including at the University of Virginia, where the president resigned amid pressure linked to the federal stance on DEI.
Funding as leverage
If executive orders set the tone, funding decisions delivered the force. Throughout 2025, the administration attempted to terminate or freeze thousands of federal grants at more than 600 colleges and universities. The stated justifications ranged from concerns about campus antisemitism to claims that certain research areas reflected ideological bias.Research universities were among the most exposed. Projects tied to climate change, social policy and the humanities and social sciences faced heightened scrutiny. Institutions such as Princeton, Harvard, Brown and Columbia saw major funding disruptions. Several universities cancelled or scaled back doctoral programs for the 2026 to 2027 academic year, particularly in non-STEM fields.Cuts also hit the federal agencies that underpin US research capacity. Reductions at the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation raised concerns about long-term effects on scientific output and talent pipelines. While court rulings blocked some funding freezes, the uncertainty itself altered hiring, grant planning and collaboration.Public universities absorbed a disproportionate share of the impact. These institutions educate most low-income and first-generation students and rely more heavily on federal support. The uneven distribution of cuts widened existing gaps between well-resourced private universities and state-funded systems already under fiscal strain.
Targeted pressure on institutions
The administration’s use of funding was not evenly applied. Certain universities became focal points. Columbia University faced a $400 million funding cut in March, followed by a July agreement under which it paid more than $220 million to restore previously cancelled research funds. Harvard University challenged a proposed $2.2 billion grant freeze, which a federal judge blocked in September. The administration appealed the decision later in the year.These cases reinforced a broader pattern. Federal oversight was no longer experienced as a background compliance requirement, but as a direct negotiating force. Universities were pushed to weigh legal resistance against financial risk, often in public view.
The Compact and conditional compliance
In October, the White House released the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. Initially sent to nine universities and later opened to all institutions, the compact linked preferential access to federal funding with agreement to a set of 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 seen 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. Still, the initiative marked a shift. Federal funding was framed not only as support, but as an incentive for alignment with White House priorities.
International students and campus climate
International students faced a separate set of pressures. In 2025, the State Department revoked more than 8,000 student visas. The administration said the actions were linked to national security and antisemitism concerns, particularly around pro-Palestinian campus protests. At the same time, increased Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity created anxiety among students, faculty and staff.These developments affected enrollment decisions and campus climate. For many institutions, international students are a key academic and financial constituency. Visa uncertainty disrupted research teams, teaching plans and student support systems.
Accreditation, loans and the longer horizon
Beyond headline actions, quieter shifts also took place. The administration moved to strip professional status from certain degrees, including nursing, social work and architecture, limiting student borrowing. It escalated challenges to the participation of transgender athletes in women’s sports. It also signaled interest in reshaping the higher education accreditation process, arguing that accreditors enforce ideological conformity.Together, these moves pointed toward a broader aim: to ensure that policy changes outlast 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 feel
Students are unlikely to experience 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. Cancelled programs narrow academic options. Visa uncertainty alters who applies and who stays. Public universities facing funding gaps reduce support services first.Over time, the distance between federal promises and on-campus reality can widen. The institutions most affected are those serving low-income, first-generation and international students, where small losses compound quickly.
Signals to watch
The next phase will be defined less by announcements than by follow-through. Key indicators include whether student loan policy, civil rights enforcement or special education oversight is shifted further from the Education Department; how consistently agencies implement new rules; and how courts and Congress respond to executive-driven governance.Equally telling will be local outcomes that attract little 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 at which a year of policy becomes a structural change.By the end of 2025, higher education had not collapsed. But it had been rewired. Whether that wiring becomes permanent will shape American universities long after the executive orders fade from view.
