The Trump administration is attempting to enact changes outlined in Project 2025 such as rolling back civil rights protections for LGBTQ+ students and Title IX against sex-based discriminations, eliminating current income-driven repayment plans, and removing protections from predatory colleges. They are also seeking to eliminate the Department of Education through extreme reductions in force among other measures.
Actions that stop applications for income-driven student loan repayment plans, cut funding to public schools, eliminate Head Start and universal access to quality early childhood education, and limit knowledge of the broad spectrum of the human experience, will be catastrophic for higher education.
Download the white paper.
Americans support the Department of Education and oppose Presidential overreach
Higher education learners past, present, and future are under attack from the current administration. But public perception is clear:
The law aligns with prevailing public perception
Our courts—tasked with determining the legality of this administration’s actions—are thus far agreeing with these prevailing sentiments.
- A preliminary injunction was granted in the National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education (NADOHE)-led lawsuit (Case No. 1:25-cv-00333-ABA) against the January 20 (J20) and January 21 (J21) executive orders (EOs). This means that the administration is not allowed to take their desired actions outlined in the orders (terminating equity-related grants, federal contractors or grant recipients certifying compliance with anti-discrimination laws, and authorizing the Attorney General to investigate institutions for DEI programs or principles) while the case progresses due to the judge determining “irreparable harm” would be suffered if they did.
- A temporary restraining order (TRO) was granted in multiple cases regarding National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding cuts (Cases 1:25-cv-10338 and 1:25-cv-10340-AK). This means the administration is not allowed to move forward with funding cuts while the case progresses as the judge determined “immediate and irreparable injury” would be sustained if they did.
- An order was entered in the case of the Columbia University student arrested by Immigrations and Customs Enforcement (ICE), noting the student may not be deported from the U.S. unless and until the judge orders otherwise (Case 1:15-cv-01935-JMF). This order was entered to preserve the court’s ability to decide the case and allow time for briefing from the parties.
Legal experts—required to uphold the law and adhere to ethics codes—are also largely in agreement with these prevailing sentiments.
- 22 law professors shared a detailed memo explaining why common DEI initiatives remain legally defensible on campuses, noting: “We urge university leaders to respond confidently, with both law and moral principle on your side, and not to sacrifice essential and legally defensible DEI initiatives that help universities fulfill their most basic mission to pursue truth and knowledge for the common good.”
The Administration walks back overreach
The administration itself—beholden to follow our Constitution and laws—while implementing a strategy of “shock and awe,” is walking back some of their actions and talking points, such as the recent Dear Colleague Letter.
February 14
The Department of Education’s (ED) Office of Civil Rights (OCR) issued a Dear Colleague Letter. Dear Colleague letters are not legally enforceable, but they offer “insight to employers and the legal community on how the current Administration views the law and intends to enforce it.”
The Dear Colleague Letter is attempting to share how ED OCR interprets Title VI and the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling in Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v. Harvard. Liam Knox of Inside Higher Ed writes, “while the [SFFA] decision applied specifically to admissions, the Trump administration believes it extends to all race-conscious spending, activities and programming at colleges.”
February 25
The American Federation of Teachers led a lawsuit asking a federal court to ban enforcement of the Dear Colleague Letter, “accusing the Trump administration of trying to radically rewrite well-established civil rights law when it issued a sweeping directive barring colleges and K-12 schools from considering race in any way.” (Case No. 1:25-cv-00628-SAG)
March 1
ED OCR distributed a FAQ to accompany its February 14 Dear Colleague Letter, clarifying their position, using language that’s more focused and, as attorney Ray Li describes, “follows well-established [legal] precedent” wherein a “lot of the most unsupported claims made have been walked back.”
Democracy means agency
Higher education leaders have a choice.
You can comply in advance with blustering statements and broad threats from the administration out of fear, or with orders that may or may not have legal authority and which will result in the destruction of higher education as we know it—whether that’s in five years or 10 years. Stanford Associate Professor Subini Ancy Annamma and University of Illinois Chicago Professor Dr. David Stovall write in Inside Higher Ed:
“Even as we have been heartened to see some higher education groups sue the administration over its DEIA orders—earning a preliminary injunction on Friday—we are horrified at some universities’ willingness to erase targeted communities in response to these dehumanizing actions by the executive branch. We believe this rush to comply is a sign that universities are willing to become an institutional wing of the new segregationists. To be clear, the opposite of welcoming diversity is supporting segregation. The opposite of moving toward equity is hoarding resources. The opposite of being more inclusive is exclusion. Universities need to decide if they will capitulate to demands for segregation by excluding targeted communities from opportunities in order to hoard resources by those using anti-DEIA rhetoric.”
Or you can resist.
94% of surveyed university presidents agree that the Trump administration is at war with higher education, despite Americans—students, families, and employers—deeply valuing the outcomes of higher education. Higher education is needed and uniquely positioned to meet existing demand for building an expansive, life-long network, preparing the workforce of the future, unlocking new ways to contribute to society, and hands-on learning. Education is also a cornerstone of democracy—it should come as no surprise that as education is being attacked, so too are the conditions required for a democracy to thrive. Author Robert Alan Dahl writes in On Democracy (New Haven Yale Univ. Press, 1998) that democracy requires:
- Control of the military and police by the office of elected officials. In contrast, the top U.S. military officer and the top lawyers for military services were recently replaced, moves which journalist Paul Rosenzwieg writes are largely understood to make it harder for military attorneys to “provide advice to military leadership that might run counter to the will of civilian command,” and beholden military leaders to individuals rather than the office of elected officials.
- Sustained democratic beliefs and culture. In contrast, the limits of the rule of law and the Constitution are being tested and disrespected.
- No strong foreign control hostile to democracy. In contrast, administrative decisions are weakening efforts to combat foreign influence in politics and rapidly shifting long-standing international allies.
As you choose between complicity and resistance, only one offers the hope to preserve our democracy as well as our world-class education system, and continue educating the next generations of learners and members of society—the people who will reap the rich benefits of being scholars and contribute to our shared body of knowledge and continued growth and evolution of society.
We must stand up and continue to resist
Author Natasha Marsh calls us to remember that this battle is not a new one, but that we may be new to the fight. We are here to continue the advancement and defense of accessible, equitable, and effective education that rests on top of the work of many organizations and individuals past and present. In 2025, this resistance is even more existential than ever before.
Whether you are continuing to resist or just starting, there are a number of actions you can take.
First and foremost
Do not comply out of fear early or in advance with threats from authority figures posted outside of official channels, or with orders or requests not required by law, authorized through proper channels and/or procedures, or defy well-established regulatory or legal precedent.
If you do so, as Penn State’s Director of the Center for Social Change and Belonging, Associate Teaching Professor of African Studies, and Professor of Philosophy Marcelius Braxton states, the anti-DEI push at the federal level has simply provided you with a reason “to concede and eliminate programs and initiatives [you] didn’t truly want to support in the first place.”
Resist as a member of society
- Internalize that the actions of the administration are meant to provoke fear and anticipatory compliance from the many by making an example of the few—but understand that now is the moment to take action and stand up with confidence to intimidation, since the tools we have now may be less effective later.
- Call your state Senators and Representatives to register your support or opposition on key education topics. Call after hours and leave a voicemail if you don’t want to talk to anyone (just make sure to leave your name and address so your comment can be tallied). This is by far the best way to get your voice heard by your elected representatives (compared to emails or online petitions). If in person is your preference, that’s even better—show up at their local offices and have a chat.
- Set up recurring donations to organizations that resist on behalf of the policies and actions you support, if that is your preferred method of taking action.
- Learn about organizing, mutual aid, and agitation—such as How Change Happens, the Verso Book of Dissent, Mutual Aid, Futures of Black Radicalism, Beautiful Trouble, or the Rhetoric of Agitation and Control.
- Write to your university or college leadership. Dr. Subini Annamma and Dr. David Stovall created a letter template that you can quickly use for yourself.
Resist as a system, board, or campus leader
- Use your campus mission, vision, and values as your north star in decision making. As you interpret legal risk and impact, stay true to that north star and let it guide you to a decision that lets you stay true to your values.
- Build and enhance your institution’s path to financial resilience and know that according to past campus President Jennifer Ramey, “achieving institutional resilience is not driven by any singular change but by building a well-balanced range of initiatives that can be integrated into multi-year budget planning.”
- Inform college system and campus decisions knowing that, federally, common DEI initiatives are highly likely to be legally defensible, despite whatever pressure is exerted.
- Monitor what’s happening in your state and follow political news closely. Don’t panic as you read headlines—both politicians and news organizations often try to capitalize on fear and uncertainty. Stop and apply your knowledge of state politics. Before you make a decision, consider what’s likely to happen in your state’s political landscape to inform your next move.
- Look past the headlines and use your knowledge of who controls your state legislature—if one party controls both the House and the Senate, bills are more likely to be rejected or enacted, depending on the party line.
- If you expect laws to change, think deeply about the amount of actual versus perceived risk, defensibility of your position, and likelihood and feasibility of enforcement.
- Be in touch with your accrediting bodies and ensure you have clarity on their approach and policies. Accreditors are watching the legal landscape and determining how to approach compliance, especially about DEI standards. If there are federal or state laws that conflict with accreditation requirements, signs point to accreditors offering leeway.
- Monitor federal lawsuits related to higher education.
- Track and assess state-level bills related to DEI and education using The Chronicle’s tracker.
- Join existing movements to strengthen higher ed’s value proposition such as #HigherEdBuildsAmerica from American Council on Education (ACE), Education for All, or as a sponsor to Why College Matters.
- Ensure you have an open and regular line of communication with your legal counsel to interpret and anticipate the likelihood of new legislation and your success at defending your institutional decisions.
Be cognizant, as legal editor and journalist Chris Geidner writes, that it’s important to be litigious and force “the administration to defend its actions, on the record and in public…force them to work for it.” He notes that:
“The mere fact of litigating can change implementation of policy to improve its application to those affected. Even a loss can advance awareness about oppressive steps being taken by the administration. And, multiple strategies might be taken to challenge certain actions, some of which will be more successful than others.
From a litigation perspective, in other words, not suing is sometimes 'obeying in advance.' Actions need to be challenged… Failing to challenge illegal and unconstitutional actions means that Trump and his team will go forward and do more.”
Resist as an industry leader
Don’t be persuaded to move toward a campus neutrality policy—unprecedented times call for unprecedented messaging. Fewer than a third of college presidents said their institution has one and over two-thirds are not considering adopting one.
Amherst College professor Austin Sarat highlights historical precedent for industry leadership, “the University of Notre Dame’s Theodore Hesburgh…a leading voice in the Black civil rights struggle. Amherst College president John William Ward spoke out publicly against the Vietnam War; he even undertook an act of civil disobedience to protest it.”
Many college and university leaders are already highlighting their support of education and the existential threat to the American university system.
- Antioch University’s Chancellor Groves writes We Must Defend Education from Project 2025.
- Wesleyan University’s President Roth urges leaders to “not put on a demure face and stay silent while civil society is undermined by the diktat of executive orders” in the Slate article Say Something.
- Saint Paul College’s President Peaslee reaffirms their mission, vision, and values, emphasizing “SPC Will Continue to be a Place Where Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Are Valued and Activated.”
- Mount Holyoke’s President Holley calls higher education to action to say “‘No! Here's what we stand for. We will continue to stand for this. And if you believe that you can legally challenge our mission or our values, that's up to you to try to do.”
- University of Wisconsin–Madison’s Chancellor Mnookin and Provost Isbell Jr write Amid uncertainty, a commitment to our mission.
- Georgetown says its “curriculum and classroom teaching…is protected by the First Amendment. Restricting or suppressing legally protected speech would contradict the First Amendment, contravene the University’s mission, and undermine the educational experience that prepares students to navigate an increasingly complex world. The university complies with federal and local regulations, that it was founded on the principle that discourse among diverse peoples 'promotes intellectual, ethical and spiritual understanding,' and that its law school is open to all students.
Colleges and universities are value and mission-driven institutions. As you personally consider what actions to take, I offer this message from a former university president:
“My basic principle is that you don't make decisions because they are easy; you don't make them because they are cheap; you don't make them because they're popular; you make them because they're right."
— Notre Dame President (1952–1987) Father Theodore Hesburgh.
Campus Sonar listens so you can be heard, and this moment demands all our voices. Please use this summary of what we’ve heard so far to help you find your voice. Subscribe to our newsletter to receive all our insights.