The siege of US universities

The US higher education system is under siege. Independent thinking in the ‘land of the free…’ has become a rude joke. What began as public criticism of universities over perceived ideological leanings has expanded into a broader effort to influence institutional policies and practices.

The Trump administration’s actions signal a shift from rhetorical opposition to universities to more structured and far-reaching measures — through legal frameworks, funding mechanisms and administrative scrutiny. One of the most high-profile developments involves , which is now facing an immediate freeze of over $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts. This action followed Harvard’s rejection of a sweeping list of demands issued by the Trump administration.

These demands are said to be part of a campaign to stop anti-semitism. However, they also involve major changes to how universities are run. They include requiring all departments to represent different political opinions; shutting down diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes; reporting students who are seen as against American values; and, letting government-approved outsiders review university departments. Harvard president Alan Garber publicly refused the Trump administration’s terms, stating that the university “will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”

Columbia University, also under federal pressure, had $400 million in federal funding pulled out before ultimately agreeing to comply with several of the administration’s demands. These include policy changes that critics argue risk undermining academic freedom and students’ rights.

appears to have set a precedent that the federal government is now seeking to extend to other institutions. The pressure on universities also extends to their financial structures. Prominent institutions have been warned of a possible freeze on federal funding unless they adhere to specific administrative expectations. Despite their large endowments—Harvard’s reportedly exceeds $53 billion—university leaders have generally been cautious in their response.

What an absolute joke: Trump officials claimed the letter sent to Harvard with a list of demands was a "mistake" and had been sent without authorization.

And because Harvard defended themselves, the White House announced they were freezing funding and Trump threatened to remove… pic.twitter.com/o5Yso2EGJt

— MeidasTouch (@MeidasTouch) April 19, 2025

They cite the long-term constraints tied to endowment funds and the necessity of financial prudence. However, this caution is being seen as a sign of institutional risk aversion and an overreliance on financial metrics in defining success.

International students are emerging as particularly vulnerable within this changing environment. For instance, an Indian PhD student at Columbia University left the US for Canada after her visa was revoked following her participation in campus protests in support of Palestine. Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian student holding a US green card, was detained by immigration officials in Vermont after attending a citizenship interview.

These actions are not isolated. Other cases echo these concerns. A Turkish doctoral student at Tufts reportedly lost her visa and was detained after co-authoring an article critical of US foreign policy. At Stony Brook University, at least 11 international students have had their visas revoked, although the university has not clarified whether being “involved” in protest was a factor.

Data from Inside Higher Ed suggests that over 600 international student visas have been cancelled by the Trump administration so far. These developments appear to have a chilling effect on free expression, particularly among non-citizen students.

Faculty members also report feeling heightened pressure to self-censor. There is evidence of curriculums being revised to avoid controversial subjects, and some DEI initiatives have been dismantled under increased scrutiny. Rather than encouraging academic inquiry, some universities are preemptively altering programs to minimise perceived risk from federal intervention.

Scientific research in areas such as climate change, reproductive health and racial justice is being subjected to closer ideological vetting. Proposals are increasingly evaluated not only on scholarly merit but also for their alignment with broader political narratives.

Congratulations to Harvard for refusing to relinquish its constitutional rights to Trump’s authoritarianism.

Other universities should follow their lead.

And instead of doing pro bono work for Trump, cowardly law firms should be defending those who believe in the rule of law.

— Bernie Sanders (@BernieSanders) April 14, 2025

There are instances where peer review processes have been bypassed or influenced, and scholars working on politically sensitive topics have reportedly been removed from projects or denied funding renewals with limited explanation. Government-affiliated institutions that historically supported global dialogue and conflict resolution have also been impacted.

The United States Institute of Peace, which Congress established to promote international conflict resolution, has faced significant staff reductions. Similarly, the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, a long-standing policy research hub, was closed through an executive order. These closures suggest a narrowing of the space available for policy scholarship and intellectual exchange.

These domestic shifts are having international consequences. The US has traditionally been a global leader in academic freedom and higher education. However, foreign governments are now cautioning students about studying in the US, and some international collaborations are being delayed or suspended.

As perceptions change, the US university system may lose some of its appeal as a destination for international scholars and students. The potential implications extend well beyond individual campuses. If the United States — long admired for its academic openness — begins imposing restrictions based on political considerations, it may set a precedent that other governments around the world could follow. For countries with weaker protections for academic freedom, such a shift could serve as a justification for increased state control over universities.

Ashok Swain is a professor of peace and conflict research at Uppsala University, Sweden. More of his writings can be