President Donald Trump's second term is marked by aggressive policy changes affecting higher education, signaling significant shifts within federal protocols and enforcement mechanisms. Just days after his inauguration, Trump signed over three dozen executive orders, many of which aim to fulfill promises made during his campaign.
Notably, these orders are driving federal scrutiny of issues such as antisemitism on campuses, stricter immigration policy enforcement, and challenges to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs at colleges. These developments create turmoil within educational institutions, leaving many grappling with abrupt changes and uncertainties.
Among the significant executive actions is Trump's executive order targeting antisemitism at colleges and universities, which mandates federal agencies to identify methods to combat antisemitic actions. The order was catalyzed by reports citing increased antisemitism and vandalism on campuses. Trump declared, “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will deport you,” as part of his administration's commitment to expelling sympathizers associated with antisemitism.
This declaration has incited concerns from free speech advocates and civil rights groups who warn of the order's potential to confuse criticism of Israel with antisemitism, which they argue could lead to infringements on political expression and constitutional rights. Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, remarked, “Nobody wants to hear this, but if a federal agency... your campus... you do not have a special right to refuse.” This policy leaves many educational institutions contemplating their obligations under this sweeping directive.
Another significant thrust of Trump’s early actions involves tighter immigration regulations. His administration's directive opens the doors to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to access sensitive locations such as colleges and K-12 schools, reversing Biden-era practices. This encompasses community colleges, which have become vulnerable to heightened federal scrutiny. On January 29, just days after taking office, Trump also signed the Laken Riley Act, obliging federal enforcers to detain undocumented migrants suspected of minor crimes. Critics assert this move impairs the due process rights of those its governs.
Higher education institutions face dilemmas as they navigate compliance with federal directives. Campeas, according to Fansmith, “have to comply with federal and state laws, and the repercussions for your campus if you do not are significant.” Conversely, colleges are under no obligation to openly provide information on undocumented students. This presents contradictions as institutions weigh potential cooperation with federal entities against their missions and values.
Confrontations over DEI programs have also escalated under Trump’s administration. Early on, he mandated federal agencies to take action against programs perceived as favoring illegal preferences promulgated through diversity initiatives. Jeremy Young, director of state and higher education policy at PEN America, articulated the chilling effect such directives might have on educational efforts: “It launches a series of investigations... merely having a DEI office or promoting DEI.” The retraction of various federal DEI programs could leave colleges vulnerable to legal challenges, as many institutions have engrained these initiatives as part of their framework.
The uncertainty extends to definitions surrounding Title IX legislation. Trump’s first formal act was the imposition of his own narrow definition of sex for Title IX enforcement—restricting it strictly to male and female based on biological characteristics. This policy marks forceful divergence from the prior administration’s inclusivity approach, which sought to encompass protections for LGBTQI+ students. Cathryn Oakley from the Human Rights Campaign described concerns about this narrow definition, indicating, “They believe there is one correct way to be a man, and there is one correct way to be a woman.”
This conflict poses potential complications for educational institutions previously directed by progressive standards, as they wrestle to remain compliant yet uphold their commitment to inclusivity. Jennifer Smith from Franczek P.C. indicated these orders might conflict with established local laws protecting gender identities, creating landscapes fraught with uncertainty and potential legal conflict.
The rapid succession of executive actions has established both immediacy and unpredictability for education institutions across the country. Whether addressing dismissive attitudes toward DEI, grappling with immigration enforcement, or the recontextualization of Title IX, colleges are encountering substantial challenges. Reports indicate faculty and administrations anticipate confusion stemming from the ambiguous directives and have prepared for mandates without concrete guidelines.
The ultimate impact of Trump's early policy actions on higher education remains to be seen, as institutions face new realities of compliance and potential legal undertones surrounding their operations. The question remains: how will colleges strategize to uphold their educational missions amid such formidable political headwinds?