For years, the U.S. has been known for its pioneering position in multiple fields, particularly in education. With multiple institutions establishing rigorous and profound academic resources, the country has long attracted students from all across the world for years. Yet recently, several leading universities were addressed in bills for political purposes, and it seems like new changes will be enacted.
The campaign started on April 3, 2025, when the Trump administration demanded that Harvard University make governance reforms, including the closure of diversity departments and changes in admission policies. After Harvard refused the government's demands, the administration announced the freezing of $2.26 billion in federal funds ($2.2 billion in grants + $60 million in contracts). On April 21, the university sued the Trump government, arguing the freeze was unconstitutional and threatened academic independence.
On April 23, 2025, the Trump administration issued an executive order requiring public disclosure of information about all educational institutions. It was claimed that this action was intended to protect national security; therefore, foreign affairs soon became a particularly intense point of campaign in later events.
Later in May, the Department of Homeland Security suspended Harvard’s license to enroll international students. However, a judge issued a temporary order to block this policy the next day. In September, a federal judge ruled that the Trump administration’s freeze of over $26 billion in funds was illegal, stating it violated due process and free speech rights. The White House announced it will appeal the ruling, marking a temporary end to the conflict between the nation’s top university and the newly elected president.
On October 3, nine universities, including three Ivy League schools, were addressed in a new bill proposed by the president. This bill would limit international students to no more than 15 percent of the entire undergraduate classes; abolish departments that purposefully punish, belittle, and even spark violence against conservative ideas; freeze tuition fees for five years; reduce administrative costs; and publicly share graduate earnings by program to receive federal funding.
Among the nine schools, Dartmouth College President Sian Leah Beilock responded: “I am deeply committed to Dartmouth’s academic mission and values and will always defend our fierce independence... we will never compromise our academic freedom and our ability to govern ourselves.” Although the school receives the least amount of donations among all Ivy Leagues, it still stood firm despite the threat of funding cuts.
In contrast, the University of Pennsylvania, which was also addressed in the bill proposed in October, complied partially with the requirements to reach a deal with the Department of Education. The school decided to follow new announcements made by the NCAA under the reinforcements of the federal government, limiting competition in women’s sports to student-athletes assigned female at birth only. This affected multiple recruited athletes enrolled at the university by denying them future commitments in sports.
The conflict between educational institutions and the government continues, forcing current and prospective students, especially those who wish to study abroad, to consider another problem that is encroaching. And it also brings a dilemma to the table: to what extent should we allow institutions to self-govern? This void in a systematic definition of what is just to act awaits amendments.