A new report from Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s (D-MA) office outlines the far-reaching consequences of the Trump administration’s efforts to defund and dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.
Education at Risk: Frontline Impacts of Trump’s War on Students draws on responses from 12 national education organizations—including the American Council on Education—to paint an unsettling picture of disrupted services, rising costs for students, and weakened civil rights enforcement.
Among the report’s key findings:
Federal student aid operations are faltering. Layoffs at the Education Department’s (ED) office of Federal Student Aid have caused website outages, delayed financial aid, and left thousands of borrower complaints unanswered. ACE warned that such disruptions can prevent students from enrolling or staying in college, increasing the likelihood they’ll take on more debt to finish their degrees.
Graduate and low-income students are being squeezed. The administration’s “Big Beautiful Bill” eliminates Grad PLUS loans, caps borrowing for parents, and replaces income-driven repayment plans with costlier alternatives, which is expected to reduce access and increase hardship for first-generation and financially vulnerable students.
Civil rights enforcement is eroding. ED’s Office for Civil Rights has lost nearly half its staff and closed seven regional offices. With over 22,000 complaints filed in 2024 alone, remaining staff are overwhelmed, and students facing discrimination are left without a path to resolution. ACE and others note the long-term danger of weakened oversight, especially for students with disabilities.
Essential education data are disappearing. The National Center for Education Statistics now has just three employees. Longstanding surveys like the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) and College Scorecard are at risk, threatening everything from institutional benchmarking to accreditation.
Programs for students with disabilities are being dismantled. Key oversight and transition programs have been cut or reassigned to agencies like the departments of Health and Human Services and Labor, which lack educational expertise. Advocates warn this could roll back decades of progress toward inclusive education.
Education functions are being scattered across agencies. Proposals to move federal student loans to the Small Business Administration or Department of the Treasury and civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice raise serious concerns about cost, efficiency, and legal access. As ACE noted, scattering the department’s core responsibilities could reintroduce the very fragmentation ED was created to fix.
The report concludes that the cumulative effect of these actions threatens to leave millions of students without access to basic services, data, and legal protections at a time when they need them most.
Top Hat’s engineering team is gaining a valuable new voice with the addition of Alec Kretch, whose work and experience sits at the intersection of technical innovation and learning science. As the founder of OpenClass—an AI-powered platform that helps educators design meaningful, mastery-based assignments—Kretch is a strong advocate for using assessment as a tool for learning rather than simple measurement. The acquisition of OpenClass’s intellectual property, along with Kretch’s appointment to Top Hat’s engineering team, will support Top Hat’s continued investment in discipline-specific solutions and in expanding the company’s capabilities around authentic assessment. These efforts align with a growing institutional focus on career readiness and helping students build practical skills they can carry into life after graduation
“Alec has shown how technology can help educators create richer, more effective learning experiences through relevant, real-world application,” said Maggie Leen CEO of Top Hat. “His work with OpenClass aligns closely with our focus on supporting instructors with tools that encourage deeper thinking and meaningful student engagement.”
OpenClass was originally developed to help computer science instructors create authentic assignments, where students solve in-browser coding problems and receive immediate, actionable feedback. While built with programming in mind, the underlying approach is broadly applicable across disciplines. Authentic assessment encourages students to apply what they’ve learned in practical contexts, fostering critical thinking, creativity, and lasting understanding in ways traditional assignments often fall short. This kind of learning experience is especially vital as students increasingly look to higher education to build the skills they’ll need to succeed in their future careers.
Over the past few years Top Hat has expanded innovation across many disciplines. Aktiv Chemistry, for example, which the company acquired in 2022, offers interactive tools designed to meet the unique needs of chemistry educators and learners. Offering personalized, authentic assessments that reflect the real-world scenarios students will face in their careers supports Top Hat’s mission to spark better teaching and more meaningful learning.
“Top Hat is the gold standard for evidence-based learning platforms,” said Kretch. “We share a vision for the future of higher education—one that’s equitable, personalized, and focused on helping students develop real skills. I’m excited to help bring the best of OpenClass to more instructors and learners.”
Communities across the nation began the budget process for the 2025-2026 school year after Congress passed the FY25 Continuing Resolution on March 14, 2025. Historically, states receive these funds on July 1, enabling them to allocate resources to local districts at the start of the fiscal year.
Even though these funds were approved by Congress, the Administration froze the distribution on June 30. Since that time, AASA, The School Superintendents Association, has advocated for their release, including organizing hundreds of superintendents to meet with offices on the Hill to share information about its impact, the week of July 7.
To gather more information about the real-world effects on students across America, AASA conducted a survey with its members.
From July 11th to July 18th, AASA received responses from 628 superintendents in 43 states.
Eighty-five percent of respondents said they have existing contracts paid with federal funds that are currently being withheld, and now have to cover those costs with local dollars.
Respondents shared what will be cut to cover this forced cost shift:
Nearly three out of four respondents said they will have to eliminate academic services for students. The programs include targeted literacy and math coaches, before and after school programming, tutoring, credit recovery, CTE and dual enrollment opportunities.
Half of respondents reported they will have to lay off teachers and personnel. These personnel include those who work specifically with English-language learners and special education students, as well as staff who provide targeted reading and math interventions to struggling students.
Half of respondents said they will have to reduce afterschool and extracurricular offerings for students. These programs provide STEM/STEAM opportunities, performing arts and music programs, and AP coursework.
Four out of five respondents indicated they will be forced to reduce or eliminate professional development offerings for educators. These funds are used to build teachers’ expertise such as training in the science of reading, teaching math, and the use of AI in the classroom. They are also used to ensure new teachers have the mentors and coaching they need to be successful.
As federal funding is still being withheld, 23 percent of respondents have been forced to make tough choices about how to reallocate funding, and many districts are rapidly approaching similar inflection points.
Notably, 29 percent of districts indicated that they must have access to these funds by August 1 to avoid cutting critical programs and services for students. Twenty-one percent of districts will have to notify parents and educators about the loss of programs and services by August 15.
Without timely disbursement of funding, the risk of disruption to essential educational supports for children grows significantly.
As one superintendent who completed the survey said, “This isn’t a future problem; it’s happening now. Our budget was set with these funds in mind. Their sudden withholding has thrown us into chaos, forcing drastic measures that will negatively impact every student, classroom, and school in our district. We urgently need these funds released to prevent irreparable harm to our educational programs and ensure our students get the quality education they deserve.”
Latest posts by staff and wire services reports (see all)
The anticipation of a new school year brings a complex mix of emotions for both students and teachers in K-12 education. As the 2025-2026 academic year approaches, experiencing anxiety about returning to the classroom is a natural response to change that affects everyone differently.
From elementary students facing new classroom environments to high school teachers preparing for curriculum changes, these feelings manifest uniquely across age groups. Young children often worry about making new friends or adjusting to new teachers, while older students grapple with academic performance pressures and social dynamics. Teachers face their own challenges, including meeting diverse student needs, implementing new edtech tools and digital resources, and maintaining high academic standards while supporting student well-being.
Early identification of anxiety symptoms is crucial for both educator and student success. Young children might express anxiety through behavioral changes, such as becoming more clingy or irritable, while older students might demonstrate procrastination or avoidance of school-related topics. Parents and educators should remain vigilant for signs like changes in sleeping patterns and/or eating habits, unusual irritability, or physical complaints. Schools must establish clear protocols for identifying and addressing anxiety-related concerns, including regular check-ins with students and staff and creating established pathways for accessing additional support when needed.
Building strong support networks within the school community significantly reduces anxiety levels. Schools should foster an environment where students feel comfortable expressing concerns to teachers, counselors, or school psychologists. Regular check-ins, mentor programs, and peer support groups help create a supportive school environment where everyone feels valued and understood. Parent-teacher partnerships are essential for providing consistent support and understanding students’ needs, facilitated through regular communication channels, family engagement events, and resources that help parents support their children’s emotional well-being at home.
Practical preparation serves as a crucial anxiety-reduction strategy. Teachers can minimize stress by organizing classrooms early, preparing initial lesson plans, and establishing routines before students arrive. Students can ease their transition by visiting the school beforehand, meeting teachers when possible, and organizing supplies. Parents contribute by establishing consistent routines at home, including regular sleep schedules and homework times, several weeks before school starts. Schools support this preparation through orientation events, virtual tours, welcome videos, and sharing detailed information about schedules and procedures well in advance.
The importance of physical and emotional well-being cannot be overstated in managing school-related anxiety. Schools should prioritize regular physical activity through structured PE classes, recess, or movement breaks during lessons. Teaching age-appropriate stress-management techniques, such as deep breathing exercises for younger students or mindfulness practices for older ones, provides valuable tools for managing anxiety. Schools should implement comprehensive wellness programs addressing nutrition, sleep hygiene, and emotional regulation, while ensuring ready access to counselors and mental health professionals.
Creating a positive classroom environment proves essential for reducing anxiety levels. Teachers can establish predictable routines, clear expectations, and open communication channels with students and parents. Regular class meetings or discussion times allow students to express concerns and help build community within the classroom. The physical space should consider lighting, noise levels, and seating arrangements that promote comfort and focus. Implementing classroom management strategies that emphasize positive reinforcement and restorative practices rather than punitive measures helps create a safe space where mistakes are viewed as learning opportunities.
Technology integration requires careful consideration to prevent additional anxiety. Schools should provide adequate training and support for new educational technologies, introducing digital tools gradually while ensuring equitable access and understanding. Regular assessment of technology needs and challenges helps schools address barriers to effective use. Training should encompass basic operational skills, digital citizenship, online safety, and responsible social media use. Clear protocols for technology use and troubleshooting ensure that both students and teachers know where to turn for support when technical issues arise.
Professional development for teachers should focus on managing both personal and student anxiety through trauma-informed teaching practices and social-emotional learning techniques. Schools must provide regular opportunities for skill enhancement throughout the year, incorporating both formal training sessions and informal peer learning opportunities. Creating professional learning communities allows teachers to share experiences, strategies, and support, while regular supervision and mentoring provide additional support layers.
Long-term success requires commitment from all stakeholders–including administrators, teachers, support staff, students, and families–working together to create a supportive educational environment where everyone can thrive in the upcoming 2025-2026 school year.
Dr. Jason Richardson, Garden City Elementary School & the International University of the Caribbean
Dr. Jason Richardson is a Teacher Leader at the Garden City Elementary School in Savannah, Georgia and a Professor of Graduate Studies at the International University of the Caribbean (Jamaica). He holds a Diploma in Principalship from the National Leadership College of Jamaica, Bachelor of Education from the International University of the Caribbean, Master of Science in Counseling and Consulting Psychology from the International University of the Caribbean, Educational Specialist Degree and a Doctor of Education Degree in Leadership and Management from the William Howard Taft University.
Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)
On 18 July, U.S. legislators voted to rescind more than one billion dollars in funding previously allotted to the Public Broadcasting Service (PBS), a nonprofit network of television and radio stations partly funded by the U.S. government.
The cuts put at risk educational and training programs geared to young people across the country.
Student Reporting Labs (SRL) is a U.S.-based journalism training program for young people and their educators. On 23 July, Global Youth & News Media, a France-based nonprofit dedicated to encouraging and honoring news media engagement with the young, awarded SRL its Prize for Outstanding Achievement in Journalism.
“This award is in recognition of the program’s impactful history and determination to continue its unmatched work to introduce young people throughout the United States to local broadcast journalism,” said Aralynn McMane, executive director of Global Youth & News Media. “In voting to bestow this award, our board was unanimous and adamant about the need to shine a spotlight on Student Reporting Labs to remind the world of what short-sighted politics risks destroying in the wake of defunding public broadcasting.”
The importance of youth journalism
This is only the second time the Global Youth & News Media board has bestowed such an honorary award. The first was in 2018 for joint live coverage of the March For Our Lives anti-gun demonstration by The Guardian US with Eagle Eye News student reporters from Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida, which had seen the killing of 18 people at the school just three weeks prior.
Founded in 2009 by Leah Clapman, then the managing editor of education at PBS NewsHour, Student Reporting Labs has helped build broadcast and journalism programs in thousands of secondary schools across all 50 states.
The program connects them with over 40 public television stations and local news organizations to bring their story to local audiences. SRL empowers the next generation of storytellers by providing free training fellowships and workshops to students and educators across the country and around the world. In all, more than 125,000 students have participated in the program.
SRL also reaches more than 10,000 educatorsvia a free learning platform StoryMaker. StoryMaker provides teachers with instruction materials and lessons to help students think critically, explore their curiosity about the world and engage in their communities.
The SRL program was established “on the premise that some stories are best told by young people,” Clapman, now full-time executive director of SRL, wrote in a briefing last week. ”This is especially true in this moment of rapid change and disruption. In this challenging time, we’re leaning in to perseverance and service rather than despair.”
Mentoring teens to tell important stories
Clapman wrote that newsrooms can benefit from the important perspectives, experiences and insights that teens have and that these perspectives can help news organizations tell more nuanced and complete stories about issues that affect students.
One such teenager that the Student Reporting Labs trained was award-winning alumna Mary Williams, who joined the program in 2015 and interned at her local PBS station in Ohio.
“Now when I see the news, it’s personal,” she said. “The economy, education system and the Earth’s current state aren’t just my parents’ problems to worry about. They’re mine, too.”
The Global Youth & News Media Prize for journalism this year focused on youth collaborations that help local news media survive. The rest of the laureates were chosen by an international expert jury and will be announced in the coming weeks. News Decoder, which trains and encourages young people to develop global perspectives in storytelling, is a partner in the award and helped judge the entries.
News Decoder Educational News Director Marcy Burstiner said that it is more important than ever to recognize the important work young journalists are doing.
“It seems that in the United States and elsewhere there is a war on journalism and truth telling,” Burstiner said. “I used to tell my students that it was a myth that you needed a thick skin to be a journalist. But these days, you do.”
But every year, News Decoder finds more and more young people stepping up to the challenge, Burstiner said.
“They aren’t afraid to tell the important stories that need to be told,” she said. “But people need to support the organizations like PBS News Student Reporting Labs that help and encourage young people to be truth tellers.”
In a time of global climate catastrophe, endless war, and mounting social unrest, the American higher education system—ostensibly a sanctuary of ethics and enlightenment—has shown its allegiance not to peace or justice, but to power. The presidents of elite universities, their boards of trustees, and their wealthiest donors now stand exposed as key cogs in a machinery that profits from genocide, fossil fuel destruction, and war profiteering. They are not simply bystanders to global injustice; they are its enablers and its beneficiaries.
The Role of University Presidents
University presidents, many with backgrounds in business or law rather than academia, have become institutional CEOs rather than moral stewards. Their silence—or worse, their euphemistic statements—in the face of war crimes and environmental devastation reveals not neutrality but complicity. As students protest U.S.-backed wars and apartheid policies abroad, these leaders respond not with dialogue, but with surveillance, mass arrests, and the suppression of speech.
The university president today is less a defender of academic freedom and more a manager of reputational risk. In the face of genocide in Gaza or mass civilian deaths in Yemen, many presidents remain silent or offer carefully crafted non-statements that betray the moral bankruptcy at the heart of neoliberal academia. Their true constituents are not students or faculty—but the donors and trustees who demand institutional alignment with corporate and political interests.
Trustees as Enforcers of the Status Quo
University trustees are often drawn from the ruling class: hedge fund managers, defense contractors, fossil fuel executives, and venture capitalists. These are not individuals selected for their commitment to education or the common good. They are chosen precisely because of their wealth and their proximity to power.
Their presence on governing boards ensures that universities continue to invest in private equity, fossil fuels, and weapons manufacturers. They help enforce austerity for faculty and students while protecting multi-million-dollar endowments from divestment campaigns. When students call for cutting ties with Israeli defense contractors or fossil fuel companies, it is trustees who push back the hardest.
Donors as Puppeteers
Donors exert a quiet but overwhelming influence on policy, curriculum, and campus climate. Mega-donors like Stephen Schwarzman, Kenneth Griffin, and Leonard Lauder have given hundreds of millions to name buildings, shape public discourse, and suppress dissent. Often, these donations come with invisible strings—ideological conditions that shift the priorities of entire departments or shut down lines of critical inquiry.
In the case of fossil fuels, large gifts from oil and gas interests help sustain “energy centers” at top institutions, which in turn push pro-industry research and obstruct climate activism. In terms of war, donations from defense industry executives or foreign governments with poor human rights records ensure a steady normalization of militarism on campus.
Even genocide, once a line that no institution dared cross, is now rendered a matter of “complex geopolitics” by the same donors who pour money into think tanks and academic centers that sanitize ethnic cleansing and apartheid.
Genocide and the Academy
It is no longer possible to ignore the role of elite institutions in justifying or supporting genocidal policies. When universities accept grants and partnerships with governments or corporations involved in mass displacement, ethnic cleansing, or indiscriminate bombing, they become accomplices in atrocity.
During the ongoing Israeli siege of Gaza, for example, several major U.S. universities have contracts or investments tied to Israeli defense firms or U.S. arms manufacturers whose weapons are used against civilians. Students calling for divestment face violent repression, police brutality, and academic retaliation. The pursuit of justice is punished. The preservation of power is prioritized.
Fossil Fuels and the Death Economy
Despite decades of research proving the existential threat of fossil fuels, many university endowments remain deeply invested in oil, gas, and coal. The divestment movement, led primarily by students, has scored some victories—but these are often cosmetic. Institutions may pull direct holdings while maintaining exposure through private equity or index funds.
Fossil fuel interests also shape research agendas, sponsor misleading “carbon capture” or “clean energy” projects, and silence environmental whistleblowers. Professors who speak out risk losing funding. Departments that challenge fossil capital are marginalized. The truth, as always, is inconvenient.
War as a University Business Model
Finally, the war economy permeates American higher education at every level. Defense contracts support engineering departments. ROTC programs and military recruiting are embedded in campus life. Universities run weapons labs, receive funding from DARPA, and participate in Department of Defense research initiatives. The “military-academic-industrial complex” is not an abstraction—it is the everyday reality of higher ed.
Many of these contracts directly support weapons development used in current conflicts. And as with fossil fuels, the system is built to insulate the university from moral scrutiny. War is framed as “security research.” Genocide is called “a contested political issue.” Exploitation is rendered invisible through language.
Toward a Reckoning
The American university must decide: Will it continue to serve as a laundering machine for violence, fossil capital, and authoritarian control? Or can it reimagine itself as a truly democratic institution—answerable not to trustees and donors, but to the communities it serves?
That transformation will not come from the top. It will come from students occupying campus lawns, adjuncts organizing for fair wages, and the public demanding transparency and divestment. The reckoning is long overdue.
Until then, university presidents, trustees, and donors will remain what they have become: polished stewards of empire, cloaked in Ivy and moral evasion.
The Higher Education Inquirer continues to investigate the political economy of higher ed, exposing how institutions prioritize power and profit over people and planet.
Louisiana will join the new accrediting body Florida established earlier this month in conjunction with five other states, according to an executive order Gov. Jeff Landry signed Tuesday.
Florida governor Ron DeSantis announced the formation of the new accreditor, the Commission for Public Higher Education (CHPE), last month, decrying higher education’s “woke ideology” and vowing to take down the “accreditation cartel.” CPHE’s business plan said the idea arose from “growing dissatisfaction with current practices among the existing institutional accreditors and the desire for a true system of peer review among public institutions.”
In addition to the state university system of Florida, Louisiana now aims to join public university systems in Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas in switching to the new accreditor.
“Louisiana stands to benefit from early engagement with CPHE, both by diversifying accreditation options and by shaping the standards and procedures that align with the public mission of its institutions,” Landry’s executive order said. “CPHE will focus on student outcomes, streamline accreditation standards, focus on emerging educational models, modernize the accreditation process, maximize efficiency, and ensure no imposition of divisive ideological content on institutions.”
The order establishes a task force “to lead statewide engagement on accreditation reform aligned with institutional autonomy, academic excellence, and federal requirements.”
Landry will appoint the 13 members of the task force, which is required to reports its findings and recommendations no later than January 30, 2026.
CPHE still needs to secure recognition from the Department of Education, a process that could take years. In the meantime, higher ed institutions can retain their current accreditors, according to the CPHE business plan.
Louisiana’s public institutions are currently accredited by the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges (SACSCOC).
Kansas public university leaders have ordered employees to remove “gender-identifying pronouns or gender ideology” from their email signatures. The officials say they’re complying with new state prohibitions against diversity, equity and inclusion.
In March, the Republican-controlled Kansas Legislature passed Senate Bill 125, a nearly 300-page piece of budget legislation. The following month, Gov. Laura Kelly, a Democrat, signed it into law. A spokesperson from the governor’s office didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment on why.
According to a few lines on page 254, the Kansas secretary of administration must certify that all state agencies—including colleges and universities—have eliminated all positions, policies, preferences and activities “relating to diversity, equity and inclusion.”
SB 125 also specifically requires the secretary to certify that agencies have “removed gender identifying pronouns or gender ideology from email signature blocks on state employee’s [sic] email accounts and any other form of communication.” The law doesn’t define DEI or gender ideology.
Kansas isn’t the first state with a GOP-controlled legislature this year to pass nonfinancial public higher ed provisions by inserting them into budget legislation. Among other things, Indiana lawmakers required faculty to undergo “productivity” reviews and post syllabi online, and Ohio lawmakers stressed that boards of trustees have “final, overriding authority to approve or reject any establishment or modification of academic programs, curricula, courses, general education requirements, and degree programs.”
Ross Marchand, program counsel at the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, told Inside Higher Ed the new Kansas law is unconstitutional.
“No one knows how to interpret this, and it’s overly broad,” Marchand said. “And both of these issues are fatal for First Amendment purposes.”
Citing the law, the Kansas Board of Regents issued guidance in June directing universities to comply by the end of this month. On July 9, Kansas State University provost Jesse Perez Mendez wrote to K-State’s campuses that “all faculty, staff and university employees—including student employees—are asked to review and update their signature blocks accordingly.”
On Tuesday, the University of Kansas’s chancellor, provost and chief health sciences officer wrote to KU’s campuses that “all employees shall comply with this directive by removing gender-identifying pronouns and personal pronoun series from their KU email signature blocks, webpages and Zoom/Teams screen IDs, and any other form of university communications.”
The leaders also warned against efforts to circumvent the ban.
“Your KU email account is your only official means for sending emails related to your employment at the university,” they wrote. “Do not use an alternate third-party service, such as Gmail, to conduct university business or communications.”
They told supervisors that “employees who have not complied with the new proviso by July 31 should be reminded of it and the deadline.” They told supervisors to contact human resources about those who continue to refuse—while also telling KU community members to “please consider submitting a Support and Care referral” if they “know of a student, staff, or faculty member who needs assistance as a result of this new requirement.”
A KU spokesperson shared the university’s new policy banning pronouns from email signatures. While it broadly says it applies to “all employees and all affiliates that use ku.edu and kumc.edu email addresses,” it also says “this policy shall not apply to or limit or restrict the academic freedom of faculty.”
Joseph Havens, a KU undergraduate student researcher who has he/him/his listed in his email signature, said fellow students are unhappy with the order and are now adding their pronouns in protest. He said he doesn’t know how this will go over after July 31, but “I’m kind of excited to see the drama.”
Havens said listed pronouns help people to avoid assumptions, and helped him personally to avoid misgendering a professor. “It seems very likely to me that the university’s hands are tied on this,” he said. But “in a lot of ways it feels like they agree with it.”
Jim Ryan’s decision last month to step down as president of the University of Virginia in the face of pressure from the Trump administration drew renewed attention to the political appointees steering the public institution who will pick the next campus leader.
Multiple onlookers blamed Ryan’s resignation at least partly on the university’s Board of Visitors, which has been dramatically reshaped over the last three-plus years by Republican governor Glenn Youngkin’s appointments. Since taking office in 2022, Youngkin has stocked the board with former GOP lawmakers, Republican donors and members of the Jefferson Council, a conservative alumni group that called for Ryan’s ouster.
But UVA’s board isn’t the only one that has seen a dramatic overhaul. An Inside Higher Ed analysis shows that boards at public institutions across the state are heavy with GOP donors, former lawmakers and Trump officials, and members with ties to conservative think tanks. Tensions between conservative boards and faculty have prompted two recent no confidence votes and concerns over whether members who are ideologically aligned with Trump will protect universities in the administration’s crosshairs.
Now, a battle is brewing over who gets to serve on Virginia’s governing boards at a pivotal moment for higher education in the commonwealth.
A Battle Over Appointments
When Youngkin took office, he quickly focused on education-related issues, banning so-called “divisive concepts” in K-12 classrooms and purging “equity” from the state education system.
While the Democrat-controlled General Assembly has blocked some of Youngkin’s other efforts to overhaul education, he’s wielded board appointments as a tool to reshape higher education across Virginia, largely bypassing state lawmakers. His appointees have since pushed out university leaders, eliminated diversity, equity and inclusion programs, and taken aim at faculty members for teaching on topics such as race and gender.
Democrats in the General Assembly signed off on most of the appointments, even the controversial ones. But the Democrats started pushing back this year.
In January, the Democrats rejected former Trump officials Kenneth Marcus and Marc Short along with four other appointees—a move Youngkin blasted as “petty.” Later, they turned down former Virginia attorney general Ken Cuccinelli (who Youngkin appointed to the UVA board in March to replace Bert Ellis, who the governor removed due to his volatile conduct) and seven others.
Democrats argued that the appointees were “poor choices.”
“Historically, the governance of higher education in Virginia has not been nearly this political,” State senator and Democratic majority leader Scott Surovell told Inside Higher Ed.
Surovell said Democrats grew concerned by the actions of Youngkin’s appointees as they gained a majority on the university boards. For example, Virginia Military Institute declined to renew the contract of superintendent Cedric Wins, the first Black leader in VMI history. Wins, a VMI graduate, faced frequent criticism from alumni over diversity, equity and inclusion efforts that were introduced following allegations of a racist and sexist environment at the military school.
But when the Democrats on the Senate Privileges and Elections Committee rejected eight nominations for public university boards in a special session last month, the Youngkin administration refused to accept that outcome. The governor’s office has argued that those nominees need to be voted on by the full Senate and can continue to serve in the meanwhile.
Democrats then sued board representatives of George Mason University, Virginia Military Institute and UVA. The nine state senators who brought the lawsuit alleged that Youngkin “refused to recognize the rejection of those appointments by a coequal branch of government, in open defiance of the Constitution of Virginia and 50 years of tradition in the Commonwealth.” Plaintiffs asked the court to block appointees from serving on those boards.
A hearing in the case is scheduled for Friday.
Virginia Education Secretary Aimee Rogstad Guidera accused state Democrats of gamesmanship in a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed and argued that rejecting the recent slate of Youngkin’s board appointees could undermine the governance of public institutions.
“One of the strengths of the Virginia Higher Education system is the quality of citizens who choose to take time away from personal and professional endeavors to serve the Commonwealth as Visitors to our colleges,” she wrote. “The baseless attacks by Senate Democrats on these good peoples’ reputations may deter future leaders’ willingness to serve.”
And Youngkin’s office bristled at the notion that the governor has stocked the board with Republican donors and conservative political figures, arguing all appointees are highly qualified.
“The premise of your question is absurd—to diminish Governor Youngkin’s imminently qualified higher education board appointees as mere partisans is an insult to the citizens who willingly put in the time and effort to voluntarily serve our Commonwealth,” Press Secretary Peter Finocchio wrote in an emailed statement to Inside Higher Ed. “Governor Youngkin is proud to have appointed individuals who are distinguished alumni of our universities, respected business executives, and integral community leaders who have demonstrated experience overseeing complex budgets, running large organizations, and implementing long-term strategies.”
Concerns at GMU
Among Virginia’s public institutions, GMU’s board has likely attracted the most attention for its picks, which includes 10 former Republican officials, current and former Heritage Foundation employees—which had included Project 2025 co-author Lindsey Burke, who recently stepped down to join the Department of Education—and others with ties to conservative groups.
Although Youngkin’s appointees have featured multiple political firebrands, the appointment of donors is common. Ralph Northam, the Democratic governor who preceded Youngkin, appointed multiple Democratic mega donors who contributed to him. Northam’s appointees to the GMU board included six former Democratic officials. Two other Northam appointees served as legislative aides to Republicans earlier in their careers. (Governors, regardless of political affiliation, frequently appoint donors, though political activists are less common. One notable exception is Florida governor Ron DeSantis, a Republican, who has regularly appointed conservative activists and GOP political figures to university boards in recent years.)
Now, many professors question whether the board will meet the moment as GMU faces four investigations from the federal government spanning admissions and scholarship practices, alleged discrimination in hiring decisions, and claims the university has not adequately addressed antisemitism. Given the numerous connections between the Trump administration and George Mason’s Board of Visitors, some faculty members believe that the university is facing a series of coordinated attacks designed to oust GMU President Gregory Washington.
George Mason University President Gregory Washington.
Bill O’Leary/The Washington Post via Getty Images
“I think when you peel back the connections of all of these individuals, it’s hard to imagine that this is not orchestrated or coordinated,” said Bethany Letiecq, chair of GMU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors, which passed a no confidence vote in the board Monday.
The AAUP chapter expressed support for Washington and condemned the board for “fail[ing] to support President Washington and George Mason University during this period of unprecedented and increasing federal scrutiny and political targeting,” according to a copy of the resolution.
GMU faculty senate chair Solon Simmons, who also serves as the faculty representative on the Board of Visitors, believes “this is a coercive action by the federal government” and that Mason is caught up “in a larger ideological agenda.” But Simmons is less critical of his fellow members.
Simmons said he hasn’t seen “bad faith actions from the board members,” in that they haven’t tried to micromanage faculty tenure cases or dictate what should be in the university curriculum, though he added they have raised concerns about what they believe shouldn’t be included. He also suggested that “they’re enacting their values and sometimes they’re enacting their biases.”
But he added that, in a purple state that has long been trending blue, the board seems politicized.
“They’ve been professional, but they bring a much more conservative point of view than you’d think would be typical of a swing state where you’re appealing to the median taxpayer,” Simmons said.
Letiecq, however, argues the board is packed with extremists who have targeted faculty members. One member, Sarah Parshall Perry, works for the conservative group Defending Education, which posted the syllabus for one of her classes online last year as an example of “indoctrination.” The organization took aim at the graduate level course titled “Critical Praxis in Education” because it included topics such as “white supremacy, family privilege, intersectionality, and gender affirming policies.” Following that post and coverage from conservative media about her research, Letiecq said she has received two death threats.
“Tell me how faculty can feel safe, not just to exercise their academic freedom, but safe in their personhood, when you have extremist board members siccing their organizations on us,” Letiecq said.
George Mason officials did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed. However, the board has offered some limited statements about the federal investigations, committing to respond to the government’s request and noting its fiduciary obligation to ensure the university continues to thrive.
Fallout at UVA
Meanwhile, at UVA, questions are swirling in the aftermath of Ryan’s resignation, including what the board knew and what role it played. Answers, however, are in short supply.
Former University of Virginia President Jim Ryan.
Mike Kropf-Pool/Getty Images
After Ryan said he would resign, UVA’s faculty senate voted no confidence in the Board of Visitors, alleging they failed to protect “the university and its president from outside interference.” Faculty also accused the BOV of failing to engage the faculty senate in a “time of crisis” and demanded “a full accounting of the specific series of events, and actions taken by the board” that led to Ryan’s resignation.
Initially, the faculty senate intended just to censure the board. That escalated when board members refused to commit to “protecting the selection of the interim president and the [next] president of the university from outside influence,” said faculty senate chair Jeri Seidman. They also declined to share additional details with faculty about Ryan’s resignation.
Of the 17 appointed board members listed on UVA’s website, all have donated to Republican candidates and causes. Of those members, 11 have donated to Youngkin, including several who contributed hundreds of thousands of dollars to his gubernatorial campaign and associated political action committee. Other members also have Republican ties, such as Cuccinelli.
(Northam appointed multiple Democratic mega donors who contributed to him. He also appointed three former Democratic lawmakers to UVA’s board.)
And it’s not just faculty members pressing the board for more transparency. UVA’s board also reportedly ignored requests from 12 deans who asked to meet, noting the palpable concerns of students, faculty and staff, alumni, and other community members. The deans wrote that some donors are withholding pledges and new hires are reconsidering plans to work at UVA.
Seidman said the board has “not been terribly responsive to us,” though she noted legal issues have hampered its ability to meet. Given the legal question over whether Cuccinneli is a board member or not, she said the board could risk lawsuits by including or excluding him from meetings.
UVA officials did not respond to a request for comment.
Vacancy at VMI
At VMI, the Board of Visitors that declined to renew Wins’s contract includes major GOP donors.
Former board president Thomas Gottwald, whose term ended in June, donated $130,000 to Youngkin’s Spirit of Virginia PAC and $77,500 to his gubernatorial campaign. Other members include former Trump official, Kate Todd; former Youngkin adviser, Meaghan Mobbs; two former lawmakers—William Janis and Scott Lingamfelter, both Republicans–and failed GOP political candidate Ernesto Sampson.
(Northam, a VMI graduate, also appointed multiple members who contributed to his campaign.)
Former Virginia Military Institute Superintendent Cedric Wins.
Justin Ide/for The Washington Post via Getty Images
Although the rejection of Wins came immediately after a new swath of appointments, Board President James Inman (a minor Youngkin donor) denied they were given direction by the governor and emphasized members are committed to acting in the best interest of VMI.
“Members of the board recognize their responsibility to work across party lines with the governor, the administration, and the General Assembly to advance the critical mission and vision of the Institute. The VMI BOV has received no directives—binding or otherwise—from Governor Youngkin,” Inman wrote in an emailed statement shared by the university.
Other Appointments
Youngkin has made notable appointments at university boards across Virginia.
Some are national conservative figures such as Carly Fiorina who ran for president as a Republican in 2016 and was appointed to the James Madison University Board by Youngkin in 2023. Fiorina is joined on the JMU board by former Heritage Foundation and Trump Administration staffer Kay Coles James; David Rexrode, former executive director of the Republican Party of Virginia; and other appointees with direct ties to Youngkin or the GOP.
At Old Dominion University, Youngkin appointed Susan Allen, the wife of former Republican senator and Virginia governor George Allen. He also named Stanley Goldfarb to the board, a former University of Pennsylvania medical school dean and national advocate against gender-affirming care. However, Goldfarb was one of the rare Democratic rejections before this summer, which he claimed was because he had questions about the medical school curriculum.
Similar appointments dot multiple boards across the state.
Surovell said now that the partisan composition of Virginia boards has become clear, Democrats are vowing to take up reforms in the next legislative session. Likely reforms include changing the terms of board members so that no one governor can reshape an institution through such appointments over one term. He would also like to see board members wait to take their seats until they’ve been confirmed by the General Assembly. Currently, appointees may join boards after being named by the governor and while awaiting confirmation.
Surovell also thinks Democrats need to hold off on appointments until such reforms are in place.
“The governor has exposed some real weaknesses in our current system of higher educational governance, and we’re going to come back in January, and we’re going to reform the process,” Surovell said.
The Office for Civil Rights is investigating five universities for offering scholarships to undocumented students, the Education Department announced Thursday.
The universities of Louisville, Nebraska Omaha, Miami, Michigan, and Western Michigan University have been accused of violating Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination against or otherwise excluding individuals on the basis of race, color, or national origin, in offering the scholarships.
“Neither the Trump Administration’s America first policies nor the Civil Right Act of 1964’s prohibition on national origin discrimination permit universities to deny our fellow citizens the opportunity to compete for scholarships because they were born in the United States,” said Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights Craig Trainor in a statement.
Trainor said the department is expanding its enforcement efforts to “protect American students and lawful residents from invidious national origin discrimination.”
The scholarships at issue that allegedly provide exclusionary funding based on national origin include the University of Miami’s U Dreamers Program and University of Michigan’s Dreamer Scholarship.
The investigations are in response to complaints submitted to OCR by the Equal Protection Project (EPP), an initiative from the Legal Insurrection Foundation (LIF), a national free speech advocacy group founded by Cornell law professor William A. Jacobson.
EPP describes itself as “devoted to the fair treatment of all persons without regard to race or ethnicity” and lists as part of its “Vision:2025” “continued OCR complaints” “strategic lawsuits” and “media-narrative setting.”
LIF also runs criticalrace.org, a series of databases cataloguing admissions policies, programming, funding models and other instances of alleged critical race training.
In a statement provided by the department, Jacobson said: “Protecting equal access to education includes protecting the rights of American-born students. At the Equal Protection Project, we are gratified that the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights is acting on our complaints regarding scholarships that excluded American-born students.”
The Department of Education also is planning to investigate the colleges for other scholarships detailed in the complaint that provide funding to undergraduate LGBTQ+ students of color, Hispanic students, Native American students, African American students and other underrepresented student groups.
