The Trump administration's campaign against higher education has been anything but subtle—freezing billions in research funding, shuttering diversity programs, revoking student visas, and slashing the Education Department. But beneath these headline-grabbing moves, a more insidious strategy is taking shape: a web of regulatory and compliance measures that could fundamentally alter how universities operate, all without a single vote in Congress.
These mechanisms, often overlooked by the public, are designed to give the executive branch unprecedented control over everything from admissions and hiring to curriculum and research priorities. As the administration pushes forward, critics warn that the cumulative effect could be devastating for academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
New Grant Rules Prioritize Politics Over Science
This week, the Office of Management and Budget proposed sweeping changes to federal financial assistance guidelines. The new rules would require political appointees to review all grants to ensure they “demonstrably advance the president’s policy priorities.” Research that challenges the administration's stance on gender—such as denying “the sex binary in humans”—or promotes “anti-American values” would be ineligible for funding. Grants supporting illegal immigration, voter registration, or diversity initiatives could also be cut.
As the head of the American Public Health Association noted, this policy could “devastate innovation, science and research” across the country. The move is part of a broader pattern: the administration is using funding eligibility to enforce ideological conformity, bypassing traditional peer review and scientific merit.
Compliance Certification as a Political Weapon
In January, the General Services Administration proposed requiring all colleges receiving federal funds to certify compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws—but with a twist. The certification would align with the administration's own interpretation of those laws, which goes beyond what Congress or the courts have endorsed. This interpretation would bar common race-neutral practices, such as recruiting in majority-minority areas or guaranteeing admission to top high school graduates.
Failure to comply could mean losing federal funding—and even facing civil or criminal penalties for the officials who sign off. More than two dozen higher education organizations have urged the GSA to rescind the proposal, and 23 Democratic state attorneys general have argued it exceeds executive authority. The administration is also targeting accreditation, the traditional peer-review system that ensures educational quality. New draft regulations would force accreditors to police ideological diversity, free speech, and civil rights policies, while making it easier for institutions to switch to new accreditors—a move critics say could trigger a race to the bottom and increase political interference.
Earnings-Based Accountability Threatens Liberal Arts
A separate Education Department proposal, set to take effect July 1, would tie federal funding eligibility to graduates' earnings. Colleges must show that four years after graduation, their students earn more than workers with only a high school diploma. Programs that fail two out of three consecutive years could lose access to federal student loans. While accountability for outcomes is reasonable, critics argue that using early-career earnings as the primary metric ignores the broader benefits of education—and could force universities to cut programs in philosophy, social work, teacher preparation, and the arts.
Religious studies programs face the highest risk: about 9% of undergraduate and 89% of master’s programs would fail. Humanities, music, and theater programs at even top-tier institutions like Juilliard would also be vulnerable. As one observer put it, this amounts to “educational malpractice,” prioritizing short-term financial metrics over long-term societal value.
The administration's assault on higher education is relentless, pulling every bureaucratic lever available. From slow-walking research grants to imposing sweeping non-disclosure agreements on federal employees—as seen in recent moves that threaten government transparency—the strategy is clear: reshape academia through administrative fiat, not public debate. The question is whether courts, Congress, or the public will push back before the damage becomes irreversible.
