Current policies are designed not merely to reduce costs or promote efficiency but to reshape the ideological, cultural, and economic underpinnings of the academic landscape.

The Future of Higher Education under Trump’s Policies — A Critical Analysis

by ChatGPT-4o

The essay “What Will Be Left of Higher Ed in Four Years?” by Brendan Cantwell presents a stark diagnosis of the structural challenges confronting U.S. higher education under the Trump administration’s second term. While some may view it as alarmist, Cantwell’s core argument — that Trump’s administration is deliberately dismantling key pillars of higher education — is largely supported by emerging evidence and credible trends. This essay evaluates Cantwell’s claims, compares them with external analyses, and offers critical reflections on whether his concerns are justified.

I. Agreeing with the Central Argument: Engineered Crisis in Higher Education

Cantwell argues that the Trump administration has taken active steps to weaken American higher education, particularly through funding cuts, regulatory shifts, and culture-war tactics. These moves, he contends, are not circumstantial but strategic. I agree with this central thesis. There is ample evidence to suggest that current policies are designed not merely to reduce costs or promote efficiency but to reshape the ideological, cultural, and economic underpinnings of the academic landscape.

For example, the article outlines cuts to federal research funding, the targeting of DEI programs, and threats to international student enrollment. These actions mirror similar developments under the first Trump administration. According to a 2020 report by the American Council on Education, the Trump administration previously attempted to curb funding for the Fulbright Program, threatened student visa programs, and sought to punish universities perceived as too liberal or critical of U.S. policy.

Moreover, as Emily DiVito of the Roosevelt Institute noted in 2025, the administration’s policies favor deregulated, for-profit education providers — a trend that not only channels public funds into private hands but also erodes quality and oversight in education.

II. Financial Vulnerability of Research Universities

Cantwell rightly emphasizes that large research universities are disproportionately impacted by federal funding cuts. Michigan State University’s projected $82 million shortfall and Johns Hopkins University’s $800 million loss from USAID contracts illustrate the magnitude of the damage. These examples align with broader trends. According to the National Science Foundation’s HERD (Higher Education Research and Development) Survey, federal funds account for roughly 55% of all research expenditures in U.S. universities. Reductions in this area thus have cascading effects — impacting graduate education, faculty retention, and innovation.

This is not merely about budget balancing; it reflects an ideological shift in the role of universities. As former NSF Director Subra Suresh once remarked, “[Basic research] is not a cost — it’s an investment in national competitiveness.” Weakening these institutions undercuts long-term U.S. innovation.

III. Agreeing in Part: The Fate of Liberal Arts Colleges and Regional Institutions

Cantwell is cautiously optimistic about elite liberal arts colleges surviving the onslaught, albeit bruised by endowment taxes. While he highlights the fragility of smaller, less-selective colleges, his analysis could go further. These colleges are not only vulnerable due to enrollment cliffs or diminished prestige — they are crucial in serving first-generation, rural, and underserved students.

A 2024 report from the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) notes that many regional public universities and community colleges serve as “mobility engines” for their communities. Yet, they are often under-resourced and over-regulated. Policies such as tying Pell Grant eligibility to full-time enrollment — as proposed in the House “Big, Beautiful” reconciliation bill — risk excluding the very students these institutions aim to uplift.

Moreover, proposals for “risk-sharing” in student loan defaults could devastate institutions with high proportions of nontraditional and low-income students, disproportionately affecting Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) and Hispanic-Serving Institutions (HSIs). The Center for American Progress has repeatedly cautioned that such policies may reinforce systemic inequities in higher education.

IV. On For-Profits: A Calculated Deregulatory Windfall

Cantwell’s concern about the administration’s favoritism toward for-profit colleges is entirely valid. Trump’s past ownership of “Trump University,” its subsequent legal collapse, and the Department of Education’s rollback of gainful employment rules under Betsy DeVos in 2019, all reflect a consistent pro-for-profit bias. Market data supports this: education stock prices surged following the 2024 election. These institutions often have poor graduation rates, high default rates, and questionable job-placement outcomes, yet they benefit from federal subsidies.

Critics like Robert Shireman of the Century Foundation have warned that without oversight, for-profit colleges exploit vulnerable students, drawing federal aid without delivering commensurate educational value. Reversing Obama-era consumer protections is not accidental — it is policy engineered to favor a particular education market ideology.

V. Historical Resilience of Higher Ed — Misleading Comparisons?

Cantwell references the resilience of higher education during the Great Recession and COVID-19. But as he astutely notes, in both cases the sector was ultimately shielded by large federal stimulus packages. The current crisis is different: the hardship is manufactured, not incidental. There is no relief on the horizon — only austerity. Thus, historical comparisons, while comforting, may be dangerously misleading.

Even Harvard — often caricatured as untouchable — suffered reputational and staffing losses during COVID. Smaller colleges that depend on regional enrollment or tuition are unlikely to weather this storm without structural damage.

VI. Points of Disagreement: The Role of the Sector Itself

While I agree with most of Cantwell’s observations, one area that warrants critique is his relatively soft stance on higher education’s own complicity in its predicament. He suggests that the crisis is externally imposed, but institutions have also failed to build public trust. Rising tuition, administrative bloat, and limited transparency have created skepticism among voters — especially in red states. Public disillusionment was already high before Trump’s latest reforms.

As scholar Benjamin Ginsberg documented in The Fall of the Faculty, administrative expansion has eroded both governance and efficiency in universities. Furthermore, universities often lobbied for federal research dollars but resisted accountability in areas like sexual misconduct or financial ethics. The erosion of public goodwill created fertile ground for political attacks.

VII. Recommendations and Reflections

Cantwell concludes that university leaders must balance immediate survival with long-term strategies to rebuild their public compact. I strongly agree. To that end, several actions are necessary:

1. Forge new alliances — with state legislatures, civic organizations, and labor unions — to demonstrate value beyond elite circles.

2. Simplify tuition and aid structures to enhance transparency and public trust.

3. Invest in workforce-aligned programs (e.g., AI, climate resilience, cybersecurity) without sacrificing liberal education’s core values.

4. Embrace digital transformation responsibly, leveraging tools like AI for personalized learning, but ensuring they don’t displace pedagogy or accountability.

5. Advocate collaboratively — universities must form bipartisan coalitions to defend research, autonomy, and inclusion from political interference.

Conclusion

Brendan Cantwell’s article provides a sobering, well-argued account of higher education’s current vulnerabilities. His framing of the crisis as “intentionally engineered” is provocative but, on balance, persuasive given the Trump administration’s pattern of intervention and ideological retrenchment. The survival of American higher education will not depend solely on resistance or resilience. It will depend on reinvention — driven by strategic, transparent, and publicly engaged leadership that can outlast political volatility and restore the academy’s societal legitimacy.