[ad_1]
Donald Trump has targeted multiple universities since taking office in January 2025, whether in form of threatening funding cuts, launching civil rights investigations based on claims of anti-Semitism and discrimination, or rhetoric about the wokeness that has overtaken college campuses.
Unions representing university workers, civil rights organisations, staff and impacted students have not remained silent in the face of these unprecedented actions. Protests have taken place and several lawsuits have been filed against the administration. Inside Higher Ed includes more than 40 such lawsuits in a searchable database on its website, and notes that the judges ruled against the administration in two-thirds of them. Other cases are still sub-judice, making their way through the court system, in some cases having been appealed by the administration.
We take a look at some of the reactions of the public and legal action that has sought to undo certain actions by the Trump administration.
Some key lawsuits
In the face of funding cuts and threats of further action, Harvard President Alan Garber said that the university “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” Harvard University has sued, pointing out among other complaints that the government did not follow the process set out by Congress for revoking funds due to alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act. It has also demanded that the funding freeze be halted, calling it unlawful and beyond the purview of the government’s power. It mobilised financial resources to support critical research activity for a transitional period, earmarking around $250 million, and also announced plans to issue bonds (worth $750 million as on May 2.)
A federal judge in early September2025, ruled the funding freeze amounted to illegal retaliation for Harvard’s rejection of the Trump administration’s demands. Following this, funds have begun to flow to researchers. However, Harvard continues to negotiate with the government for a settlement.
Other universities, the attorneys-general of States, professional associations, research organisations, and civil rights associations have also sued the administration for multiple federal cuts.
Democratic attorneys general in 16 States sued the Trump administration for summarily terminating NIH research grants beginning in March. ACLU and other organisations supporting the rights of researchers sued NIH for the cancellation of grants amounting to at least $2 billion, including $1.3 billion spent on ongoing projects and $1.1 billion which has been cancelled. In a judgement handed down on January 5, 2026, a federal court upheld a lower court injunction against the cuts to NIH funds.
Groups have found similar success challenging cuts to grants by the National Science Foundation (NSF) and the Department of Defense. On June 17, U.S. District Judge Brian Murphy in Boston temporarily blocked a Defense Department policy to cap reimbursement for indirect research costs at 15%, at the behest of 12 universities, including MIT and John Hopkins, as well as academic trade groups such as the Association of American Universities.
Similarly, on June 20, 2025, U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani in Boston halted a policy change which capped indirect expenses for future awards to universities by the NSF at 15% of the funding for direct research costs. The universities involved in the case argued that the cuts would impact research in domains such as artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, semiconductors and other technology fields, amounting to a loss of tens of millions of dollars.
The American Federation of Teachers (the largest union of higher education staff) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), sued the administration after it cut funding for public health research at Columbia. Further, University of California faculty, staff, student organizations and labor unions representing UC workers led by the AAUP and represented by Democracy Forward, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of using civil rights laws to wage a campaign against the university in an attempt to curtail academic freedom and undermine free speech. US District Judge Rita Lin in San Francisco granted a preliminary injunction in the case. (UC is in settlement talks with the administration and is not a party to the lawsuit before Judge Lin.)
In another case, Judge Lin ordered the Trump administration to restore $500 million in federal funding to University of California, Los Angeles, after noting that the government had potentially violated provisions of the Administrative Procedure Act in the manner in which it cut federal funds and informed UCLA about it. The administration had frozen $584 million in funds in August, alleging civil rights violations.
In a previous ruling, the judge had also directed the NSF to restore funds to various universities under the UC system.
The deportation of students based on their political opinions was the subject of a lawsuit by AAUP, which termed it a policy of “ideological deportation.” In September, a federal judge in Boston ruled that the threat of deportation was a violation of the right to free speech.
Along similar lines, the free speech group Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) brought a lawsuit for students of the Stanford Daily, where staff either quit or self-censored to avoid repercussions for their work. The lawsuit argued that a provision under immigration law, which allows the Secretary of State to remove a noncitizen from the country if they pose a threat to American foreign policy, cannot be applied to speech and other elements protected by the First Amendment.
Lobbying
Reports noted that both universities and associations allied with them, such as AAUP, the Association of American Medical Colleges, the Association of Independent Research Institutes and the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, have been lobbying the government and members of Congress to push for a rollback of some measures, or to look for a compromise. A statement by the American Association of Universities and Colleges called for “constructive engagement on federal education policy.”
Politico reported that a group of universities, led by Kelvin Droegemeier, a professor at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, proposed an alternative plan for reimbursing indirect research costs called The Financial Accountability in Research (FAIR) plan. It offers two options for research organisations: one, offering a detailed account of indirect project costs, or two, setting aside a fixed percentage of the project budget. The group has sought to reach out to Republican members of Congress as well as the Office of Management and Budget at the White House.
A report in The Hill in October 2025 noted that many universities had also upped their spends on lobbying in Washington compared to the previous year, engaging with federal and State lawmakers on issues ranging from federal funding for scientific research and student financial aid to immigration policy, college athletics and campus safety. Several under pressure from the federal government, such as Harvard, shelled out more than $1 million; Yale University spent more than $1.2 million. The University of Pennsylvania spent $1.4 million, while Cornell University and the University of Michigan-Ann Arbor both spent $1.1 million. The UC system spent $3.2 million. Even State Universities such as Michigan State University and Ohio State University have sent delegations to Washington and spent on professional lobbyists.
Multiple universities, such as MIT, Duke, Brown and Yale, went beyond in-house lobbyists and hired external firms, some of which are known to have links to the Trump administration or Republican leaders.
Protests and reactions
Throughout 2025, various protests incorporated the issues faced by universities as part of their agenda.
Protests were held to support Harvard and international students soon after the suspension of Harvard’s SEVP certification. The move was denounced by the Harvard South Asian Association (SAA), a student group, and the Harvard Students for Freedom, which advocates for students’ rights, called the decision “an anti-American attack on our core values of freedom and education” in a statement posted to social media.
University groupings and presidents, too, have banded to protest. 600 university presidents signed a letter denouncing the administration’s “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” with institutions of higher learning. Another letter, signed by more than 100 former university heads, called for a coalition of local leaders, students, labor unions and communities, across party affiliations, to “work against authoritarianism”.
Paul Boxer, a psychology professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, organised faculty in the “Big Ten” conference, a group of 18 large, mostly public universities, to put up a united front against the Trump administration; they were later joined by schools outside the conference. The Guardian also reported that faculty at more than 30 universities enacted a “mutual defence compact,” an informal pledge banding them against government action.
Universities are also looking to their States, industry and the private sector to bolster against potential impacts. “We are working with our research task force, which is meeting multiple times a week, to explore philanthropy, industry collaborations, and other alternative funding structures,” Claire Shipman, Acting President, wrote in a letter dated June 12 to the Columbia community.
Political responses
Democratic lawmakers and governors, such as California governor Gavin Newsom, have rallied strongly against the federal cuts and civil rights investigations into universities.
“Trump is counting on universities and other institutions to bend the knee to his lawlessness and coercion. That’s how bullies and dictators win. I stand with Harvard and all those who refuse to cave. Shame on those who do,” Senator Chris Van Hollen, Senator for Maryland, wrote in a post on X.
Some Republicans have also been wary of changes brought in over the past year. Senator Susan Collins, who hails from Maine, and Senator Katie Britt, who represents Alabama, have expressed reservations over the capping of indirect research costs, which would impact public universities in their States.
Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have also raised questions about several measures being enacted sans legislation and Congressional approval.
Public believes in universities, but also in reform
Per the “Higher Education Public Opinion Analysis: Strong Support Amid Specific Vulnerabilities” survey, published on October 15, 2025, by the University of Rochester, many Americans still believe in the value of universities. While 59% approved the role of American universities in society, 75% express some level of trust. This indicates a relatively high level of institutional trust; universities are fourth behind hospitals and doctors, the military, and scientists/researchers.
According to the survey, a high majority of Americans believe universities contribute to science and technology (90%), healthcare and economic growth (83%) and democracy (75%). Similarly, a large majority opposes cuts to federal or state funds, particularly for medical research.
However, several concerns exist. Economic concerns are high on the list, with 87% of those surveyed worried about rising tuition costs and student loans. Curbing of free speech (84%) and a liberal bias (77%) are also major concerns, as is discrimination (more than 80%). A sizeable majority (about 75%) is concerned about transgender athletes.
A Pew Research Center study released during the same time said that seven-in-ten Americans say the higher education system in the U.S is generally going in the wrong direction – up from 56% who said this in 2020.
And the impacts are slowly becoming visible. A case in point: a record number of American students are applying to UK universities, with applications up nearly 14% over last year.
While not supporting the Trump administrations’ actions, activists, students and professors have long been vocal about the need for higher education reform. For example, Class Action, a student network, has critiqued elite institutions and sought that they recommit to educating students for the greater good. Class Action’s first nationwide campaign contributed to California’s decision in 2024 to ban “legacy” admissions for the children of alumni and donors (some universities, however, continued legacy admissions, choosing to forfeit some State funding.)
In an interview with CBS News, Harvard psychology professor Steven Pinker said, “I think there should be more voices on the right at Harvard. I don’t want Donald Trump to decide who those people are gonna be or how many we should have.”
“For all the foibles of universities, and there are many, and I’ve pointed them out, universities’ research makes life better _massively so,” he added.
In an email response, Jacqueline Stevens, Professor of Political Science and Founding Director of the Deportation Research Clinic at Northwestern University, said, “DEI from the beginning was criticized, rightly, I believe, for promoting symbolic interventions to promote the view that elite institutions were addressing problems of inequality even though their underlying business model of advancing the interests of Big Pharma, tech firms, and the military industry remained unchanged.”
It is a view that resonates. “I do think higher education has failed in diversifying the perspectives on their campus, and I think this is why we find ourselves where we are today,” said Dr. Angel Pérez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, in an interview over Zoom. “But university leaders don’t disagree with that. They want to go in. They want to help,” he adds. “The way to do this is bringing university leaders together and empowering them to do this together, not to punish them. Take away their funding, punish faculty members, punish students, punish minority serving institutions. It’s very short sighted.”
He expounds further, “What I loved about my experience in higher education is that I met people who were so different from me, who grew up in different environments, who thought very differently from me. There are very few places in our society today where you get to do that. And so I would love to see that, yes, we have more conservative voices on our college campuses, and that students who are conservative or religious can feel comfortable in those spaces and can educate and teach others about their lived experience.
“However, the way it’s being done by the Trump administration, by withholding funds and threatening universities, that’s not the way to do it,” he says.
Groups warn of risk to academic freedom
In October 2025, the group Scholars at Risk, which works for academic freedom, cautioned that the Trump administration’s approach to higher education was turning the nation into a “model for how to dismantle” academic freedom. Robert Quinn, executive director of SAR, said that it was historically unprecedented situation “where a global leader of education and research is voluntarily dismantling that which gave it an advantage.”
In its Free to Think report, which including multiple countries, the Academic Freedom Monitoring Project at SAR counted at least 40 attacks against academics in the US in the first half of 2025, including revocation of research funding, attempted deportation of scholars for their views, and executive/legislative action seeking to cut down on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Last year, it counted 80 instances of pressure against universities.
But the nature of these attacks has shifted from local actors and state governments to the federal government under Mr. Trump. The Trump administration introduced more than 30 pieces of legislation pertaining to higher education in the first 75 days of his administration. Besides this, Mr. Trump issued several executive orders, including those pertaining to DEI programming.
Who is being targeted by both university administrations and the government has also changed. According to a report released by FIRE in May 2025, the shift has been from conservative groups to liberal ones. While between 2020 and 2022, conservative groups like the College Republicans, Young Americans for Freedom and Turning Point USA were criticised or disciplined, more liberal forms of expression have been restricted post 2023.
(Note: This article is current as of January 30, 2026.)
[ad_2]
The Trump vs Universities stand-off: Pushback and the public
