Recent headlines highlight a concerning trend regarding U.S. universities. For example, on March 10th, it was reported that 60 universities were under investigation, followed by a report on March 14th that 52 universities were under investigation for antisemitic discrimination and harassment.
Specific universities targeted include: Harvard (May 14), UPenn, Western Carolina University, Columbia University (May 8), and the University of Washington (May 6).
Further actions reported include: Trump Administration Denying International Students Entry to Harvard (May 22, 2025) and Trump Administration Looking to Cancel All Harvard Funding (May 27, 2025).
A Shakedown?
It is hard to ignore the pattern that emerges when you follow the money.
Consider the proposed Endowment Tax increase (May 6).
Nearly every school with an endowment of at least $6 Billion has seemingly been targeted by the Trump administration. Dartmouth and Texas A&M are the only universities in this category that have, so far, avoided announcements of funding removal or significant investigation.
Dartmouth has arguably signaled its alignment with the Trump administration by hiring a top Republican lawyer and refusing to side with other Ivy League schools in a pledge against the current administration’s policies.
Texas A&M presents a different scenario. While the presence of a George Bush School of Government and Public Service on its campus might suggest it wouldn’t be a prime target for Trump, its substantial $20 billion endowment (larger than the entire University of California system) is noteworthy. The university has shown a willingness to cooperate with the administration by canceling some student visas and allowing administration officials on campus.
To What End?
It appears that Republicans may want wealthy, often liberal-leaning, college systems to demonstrate compliance. But why?
Most articles on this subject focus on the potential consequences for these institutions if funding is lost, rather than exploring the underlying motivations for these actions. The stated reason of “anti-Semitism,” while a serious issue in its own right, seems to function as a convenient justification in this broader context.
Is this simply an attempt to force schools to comply and assert dominance? Do some conservatives wish to see the current higher education system diminished? Is there a plan for where any redirected funding might go?
Based on initiatives like Project 2025, it seems the strategy might be as simple as Republicans not wanting an educated populace that could broadly oppose their agenda. The approach appears twofold: make higher education prohibitively expensive, and ensure that those who do attend are taught more conservative-leaning curricula. Ultimately, the goal may be for universities to either fail or fall in line.
Conclusion
The pattern of actions against prominent universities, particularly those with substantial endowments and perceived liberal leanings, strongly suggests a politically motivated campaign. While issues like antisemitism are cited, the broader context—including selective targeting, pressure tactics related to funding, and alignment with broader conservative agendas like Project 2025—points towards a more complex strategy.
This isn’t just about isolated incidents; it appears to be a concerted effort to reshape higher education, demanding ideological conformity and potentially diminishing institutions that don’t comply. The long-term implications for academic freedom, critical inquiry, and the accessibility of higher education in America are significant and warrant close attention.
