The U.S. Department of Agriculture has canceled nearly 400 of the National Agricultural Library’s roughly 2,000 journal subscriptions, Science reported this week.
The decision to cancel the subscriptions came at the direction of the Department of Government Efficiency, a new agency led by South African billionaire Elon Musk who donated $288 million to President Donald Trump’s 2024 re-election campaign.
The eliminated journal titles include any of those published by 17 presses, most of which are affiliated with universities or nonprofit scientific societies, including Cambridge University Press; Oxford University Press; the American Phytopathological Society, and the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, which publishes the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
However, the cuts spared journals published by for-profit publishers Elsevier, Springer Nature and Wiley, which collectively accounted for more than half of the library’s journal subscriptions, according to Science’s analysis.
USDA told staff members Friday that though the agency would consider restoring some of the journals, they were only given hours to submit justifications.
“Peer-reviewed publications are literally the cornerstones and building blocks of science, and taking these away from scientists at USDA is like you’re building a house and pull out the foundation: Everything else above becomes more unstable,” said Chris Stelzig, executive director of the Entomological Society of America. “USDA scientists are doing this work to protect the American food supply, and it frustrates me that that’s not being recognized here.”
Academic presses may face a slump in sales as U.S. university librarians become more cautious about buying books related to gender, politics or race in light of Donald Trump’s attack on “woke” research, publishers have warned.
With the Trump administration seeking to slash what it calls “radical and wasteful” spending on government diversity, equity and inclusion programs, American science agencies have begun cancelling active research projects on transgender populations, gender identity, environmental justice and any studies seen to discriminate on race or ethnicity.
There are now fears that U.S. university libraries might soon be targeted if they are seen to be buying new titles related to politically sensitive areas.
Nicola Ramsey, director of Edinburgh University Press, told Times Higher Education that the DEI crackdown could significantly impact the global academic publishing industry.
“If librarians are told they cannot purchase content that references topics on gender, race, sexuality or minorities, sales will be negatively affected due to the nature of our publishing,” said Ramsey who noted the U.S. academic library market is “key for most university presses and other academic publishers as it’s so large and [universities] traditionally have had much bigger budgets.”
The “real commitment to bibliodiversity” among U.S. university libraries “especially among the Academic Research Libraries” underscored their importance to publishing, she added.
“Those libraries which had sought to build big collections—with a real commitment to bibliodiversity—might soon have to make difficult decisions on what they can buy,” explained Ramsey.
The Trump administration’s antipathy toward DEI initiatives was also likely to reduce research related to diversity that might lead to academic books on such subjects, she said.
“Most academic publishers have been committed in recent years to diversifying our lists, both in terms of author base and research areas [but] this research has relied heavily on federal grant funding, which is being cut from areas connected to DEI initiatives.”
Some university presses, such as Edinburgh, are still committed to publishing on diverse topics from a range of authors, added Ramsey. “This [crackdown] will not deter our editors from continuing to diversify in our publishing—it’s a fundamental commitment that can’t be swayed by one administration,” she said.
That need to uphold diversity in publishing was echoed by Anthony Cond, president of the Association of University Presses and director of Liverpool University Press.
“Many university presses have long histories of publishing on topics that could be construed as DEI. Recent policy announcements make that work more important, not less,” he said.
“In a challenging higher education sector across several countries, including financial pressure on libraries, the university press focus on values-based publishing will remain an essential component for the bibliodiversity of scholarship.”
Steven Thrasher, an assistant journalism professor who tried to block police from breaking up a pro-Palestinian encampment at Northwestern University last spring, announced he was denied tenure and will lose his job in August 2026, the end of the next academic year.
“This has nothing to do with my scholarship or teaching,” Thrasher wrote in a statement he shared on Bluesky. “It is a political hit job over my support for Palestine and for trying to protect our student protesters last year from physical attack, by nonviolently subjecting my own body to assault by the Northwestern Police instead of our students.”
The incident between Thrasher and campus police came up when Northwestern president Michael Schill went before Congress during a hearing on campus antisemitism. In a June 2024 letter, the House Committee on Education and the Workforce accused Schill of not fully answering members’ questions at the hearing, including about Thrasher.
Thrasher was suspended from teaching last summer. According to an email from Medill School of Journalism dean Charles F. Whitaker, which Thrasher’s lawyer provided to Inside Higher Ed, the dean initiated disciplinary proceedings in response to complaints about Thrasher’s social media activity and allegedly sexist comments to students, as well as his failure to disclose major course changes and his comments about journalism standards that were “antithetical to our profession.”
According to Thrasher’s statement, posted Thursday, Whitaker wrote in an explanation of the tenure denial that Thrasher’s teaching was “inadequate with serious concerns reported by some students.” Thrasher said he previously received a “glowing” mid-tenure review in 2023. He also said a university-wide ad hoc faculty committee “exonerated” him after a four-month investigation into issues, including student concerns.
“I read the situation as a Plan B by Northwestern after Dean Whitaker tried (and failed) to exclude me through the disciplinary process,” Thrasher wrote. “I will appeal this decision at Northwestern and have much more to say.”
In a statement to Inside Higher Ed, a university spokesperson wrote, “As policy, Northwestern does not comment on personnel matters. The University takes the tenure process very seriously and has adhered to the rules that govern that process. The University has full confidence in the decision-making process of our Medill faculty and dean.”
American voters want to see an overhaul in higher education and Republicans are taking advantage of it. Over the course of its first 75 days, the 119th Congress introduced more than 30 pieces of legislation concerning higher education—more than half of which came from members of the GOP.
Historically, conservative lawmakers have taken a laissez-faire approach to governing colleges and universities. But at a time when students and families are demanding greater accountability and a solution to the debt crisis, Republicans—who hold majority in both the House and the Senate—are laying the legislative groundwork to increase federal control over colleges.
But while the bills do in some ways levy penalties against institutions, lawmakers are also aiming to advance key Trump agenda items, an Inside Higher Edanalysis tracking proposed legislation shows. For example, they’ve introduced bills to crack down on immigration and foreign influence by threatening student visas and restricting international donations; to hamper flexibility for borrowers by capping student loan amounts; and to suppress “liberal ideologies,” by establishing penalties for pro-Palestinian protests. Republicans are also escalating their ongoing attacks on wealthy colleges with proposals to significantly increase the tax on university endowments.
Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican who chairs the House Committee on Education and Workforce, has applauded Trump’s “enormous strides” and reinforced that these efforts will be a priority.
“Under President Trump, common sense is returning to America, and House Republicans are committed to enacting his bold vision for the country,” he said in a statement after the President’s March 4 joint address. “I will work in lockstep with this administration to protect students, workers, and job creators to ensure every American has a chance to thrive.”
Meanwhile, Democrats have rallied in defiance, introducing many bills that promote the exact opposite of what Republicans are trying to achieve. For example, the Republican bill that would ban transgender women from participating in female sports has a direct Democrat counterpart that would prohibit discrimination in athletics based on gender identity.
And all of that doesn’t even take into account the possibility that Republicans could revive parts of the College Cost Reduction Act—a comprehensive piece of legislation introduced last Congress to overhaul higher education. Although the bill itself has yet to be introduced, many of its provisions—such as requiring colleges to pay back a portion of students’ unpaid loans—could be part of the forthcoming reconciliation bill, a top priority for Congressional Republicans this spring that could mean billions in cuts to higher education. (Reconciliation is a budgetary tool which can be used once a year to quickly advance high-priority—and often controversial—pieces of legislation.)
Combined, the proposed legislation and potential for sweeping changes via reconciliation could lead to an unprecedented amount of federal focus on higher ed that college and university advocates say could heavily discourage international enrollment, indirectly increase the cost of attendance and cause a chilling effect on campus free speech.
“Higher education has moved to the forefront of the minds of our policy makers,” said Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education. “It has become a point of contention, especially with the increased oversight over institutions themselves by the current administration.”
But regardless of which party’s behind a bill, Guillory said he’s focused on educating lawmakers on how each piece of legislation could also have unintended consequences for institutions and the students they serve.
“Oftentimes what we see with Republicans and Democrats is they have good intentions behind what they’re trying to do, it’s just the way that they go about doing it,” he said. “When we begin to have more detailed conversations. Then [lawmakers] are like, ‘Oh, well no, we didn’t think about that. We didn’t realize this would happen. So it’s just a matter of us still continuing to do our job in advocating and educating.”
Given the emphasis on higher education in this session of Congress and the stakes for colleges, Inside Higher Ed is tracking higher-ed related bills. The searchable database, available here, currently includes 31 bills introduced since January, and we’ll update it regularly. Below you can find a breakdown of the legislation proposed so far.
Legislating at the federal level is complicated, so below you can find more information about how a bill becomes a law in 2025 as well as more details about the legislation raising concerns for institutions.
How a Bill Becomes Law
Few of the introduced bills will ever become law, based on Congress’s recent track record. And while the process is similar to what Schoolhouse Rock! described in the 1970s, partisan divides over policy have led to much gridlock on Capitol Hill.
An Inside Higher Ed cartoon showing a bill on the steps of Congress.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed dkfielding/iStock/Getty Images
During the 118th Congress—which ran from 2023 to 2025 with a Republican-controlled House and Democrat-controlled Senate—more than 90 percent of measures introduced died in committee and only about 3 percent became law, according to GovTrack.US. Even during the 115th Congress, the last time the Republicans held a trifecta, 85 percent of bills got stuck in committee and only 8 percent became law.
Many pieces of legislation introduced are considered nothing more than messaging bills by which a party or lawmaker signals their priorities. For example, it’s highly unlikely the Democrats will advance either the Closing the College Hunger Gap Act or the Affordable College Textbook Act, but they demonstrate a focus on meeting students’ most basic needs.
But if the legislation comes from Republicans on the House Committee on Education and Workforce and the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions, it might be more likely to gain traction.
The chairs of those committees hold a lot of power over whether a bill will move forward. They control the schedule for public hearings and mark up sessions—where a bill is debated, amended and then voted on—so if a bill isn’t a priority for the chairs, it’s dead in the water.
But once again, having support and investment from an education committee member is helpful here. If they can make a case for the bill to receive time on the floor, it will face debate, amendments and a final vote. Bills have to pass both chambers and undergo negotiations to settle legislative differences before they go to the White House to become law. And that doesn’t include potential road bumps like the Senate filibuster.
Long story short, it’s a tedious process that can take months or even years. That’s why having support from Republicans on the education-focused committees—especially committee chairs—is critical to gaining momentum this year.
As Guillory said, “There are other members of Congress that are introducing legislation in the higher education space, but it doesn’t mean that those bills will necessarily have legs and actually be able to move through regular order.”
Bills Higher Ed Is Watching
Much of lawmakers’ attention right now is on reconciliation as they work to cut billions in dollars from the federal budget in order to pay for tax cuts and Trump’s other priorities. But outside of that just a handful of bills have received a hearing and/or a markup session so far. One of the most notable and concerning to higher ed advocates is the DETERRENT Act.
Scheduled for a vote on the House floor next week, this bill would require colleges to submit much more information about the foreign gifts and contracts that they receive. Republicans have claimed for years that colleges aren’t sufficiently complying with Section 117 of the Higher Education Act, which requires them to disclose twice a year all foreign gifts and contracts totaling $250,000 or more.
The legislation, which supporters say would discourage foreign influence in higher education, would lower the threshold to $50,000. For gifts and contracts from countries of concern—China, Russia, Iran and North Korea—colleges would have to report gifts and contracts of any amount. Institutions that fail to comply could lose access to federal student aid.
The House passed a nearly identical bill last Congress, but it died in the then-Democrat controlled Senate. House Republicans argued that as tensions with communist countries like China rise, universities have not taken their reporting obligations and vetting processes for international students seriously and in doing so are risking national security by granting foreign governments access to American research.
But institutional advocates say this bill goes well beyond what Section 117 of the Higher Education Act ever intended, making an already time consuming and confusing process more difficult.
Sarah Spreitzer, ACE’s chief of staff for government relations, said that these added steps and the processing workload that will come with it for the shrinking Education Department could lead to major delays in launching countless research collaborations and study abroad programs
In addition to the DETERRENT Act, Guillory said ACE is also paying attention to any measures focused on accountability, affordability and transparency of institutional data, many of which represent threads of last year’s College Cost Reduction Act (CCRA).
For example, the Graduate Opportunity and Affordable Loans Act would put a cap on the amount of loans available to graduate students and terminate their access to PLUS loans. The Endowment Tax Fairness Act would increase the amount of excise tax private institutions pay each year. And the Ensuring Distance Education Act would reverse some components of the Education Department’s 90-10 rule.
“In a lot of ways, CCRA is still alive, even though it has not been reintroduced this Congress,” Guillory said.
Lastly, he noted that many of the bills echo the Trump administration’s focus on more culture war facing topics like campus protests and immigration. The Laken Riley Act, which has already been passed, could impact visa access for international students from countries with a large number of undocumented immigrants. And several bills focused on antisemitism are likely to be discussed in the HELP Committee’s first education-specific hearing, Guillory said.
In general, he noted, a lot of the agenda is left to be determined. “I think it’s a matter of what can we accomplish in reconciliation first? Then, after that, what would we have to move through regular order?”
A federal judge recently dismissed claims that Drake University defamed Des Moines Area Community College, the latest development in a fraught trademark battle between the two institutions, the Des Moines Register reported.
Their ongoing legal dispute, which began last summer, is over the letter “D.”
Drake University sued the community college after it changed its logo to a simple, block-style “D.” The university has used a “D” as its logo for decades and argued the similar branding creates confusion.
U.S. Chief District Judge Stephanie Rose concluded in November that Drake was likely to prevail, given the logos’ similar color schemes and other details, and issued a preliminary injunction that the community college stop using the new logo. The order led to two pending appeals, one from the community college to reverse the preliminary injunction and one from Drake asserting the ruling didn’t include some older logos. The community college achieved some wins in February when Rose determined DMACC tried in “good faith” to change the logo and Drake should put more money toward helping the college switch the logo if Drake ultimately wins the case.
Meanwhile, counterclaims from DMACC accused Drake of defamation. The college dropped those claims after Drake asked the court to dismiss them but then brought defamation claims against the university again on behalf of the Des Moines Area Community College Foundation after Drake sent out an email about the case to its alumni in July.
Rose wrote on Friday that the foundation took “giant interpretive leaps from the content of the email” such that the defamation claims were “untenable.”
“While zealous advocacy is expected, counsel must ground their pleadings in reasonable factual and legal interpretations,” she chided.
Drake President Marty Martin said in an email statement to The Des Moines Register that he was pleased by the outcome. But DMACC shows little sign of giving up.
“DMACC and the DMACC Foundation continue to believe that Drake does not own the letter ‘D’ and the scope of Drake’s rights are now the subject of appeal,” spokesperson Dan Ryan said in a statement.
What I want to know is why The New York Times lets opinion columnist Bret Stephens lie about higher education institutions.
I understand this is a strong charge, and perhaps it’s unfair. Maybe Stephens is merely uninformed and parroting bad information.
I’m thinking these things because we recently had the rare occasion of a pundit (Stephens) being challenged in real time by two experts (Tressie McMillan Cottom and M. Gessen) in the form of a three-way conversation printed under the headline “‘It Is Facing a Campaign of Annihilation’: Three Columnists on Trump’s War Against Academia.”
The conversation is moderated by Patrick Healey, another Times journalist, who gives Stephens the first word on the question “What went wrong with higher ed? How did colleges become such easy pickings?”
Stephens hearkens to the infamous Yale Halloween incident from 2015, when students committed the grave error of speaking intemperately to university administrators about a communication that seemed to authorize racially insensitive Halloween costumes over the objections of students.
Stephens wonders why these students weren’t expelled or at least suspended, justifying a crackdown for what may have been a break in decorum but was undeniably the exercise of free speech. Stephens ostensibly is against the threats of the Trump administration against Columbia University and others, and yet here he is essentially authorizing the administration rationale of punishing institutions that are not sufficiently punitive toward protesting students.
The voice of reason appears in the form of Cottom, both an active professor at the University of North Carolina and a sociologist who studies higher education. In the words of Kevin Carey, “Reading Tressie McMillan Cottom debate Bret Stephens on higher education is like watching Steph Curry play H.O.R.S.E. against a barely-sentient lump of gravel.”
Cottom counters with lived experience over Stephens’s fever dream: “I have taught the most quintessentially tense courses my entire academic career. My course names often have the words race, class and gender in them. I do this as a Black woman. I have never had a problem with students refusing to have debates. It could be that I am a uniquely gifted pedagogue but I reject that idea.”
This becomes a pattern throughout the exchanges, where Stephens makes something up and then Cottom and/or Gessen knock it down. Later on, Stephens goes on an uninformed rant about the lack of value of degrees with the word “studies” in them before going on to extol the virtues of humanistic study in the spirit of Matthew Arnold: “It means academic rigor, it means the contestation of ideas, it means a spirit of inquiry, curiosity, questioning and skepticism. Outside of a few colleges and universities, I’m not sure that kind of education is being offered very widely.”
That Stephens is extolling the virtues of rigorous thought and questioning while parroting ill-informed tropes about higher education does not occur to him. Cottom again corrects his misapprehension with verifiable data: “It is worth pointing out that data on labor market returns really challenge the well-worn idea that such degrees are worthless. We love the joke about your barista having a liberal arts degree, but most of the softness among those degree-holders disappears when you look at state-level data and not just starting salaries after graduation.”
Cottom goes on to acknowledge that there are some problems with the kinds of institutions she wrote about in Lower Ed: The Troubling Rise of the For-Profit College in the New Economy, after which Stephens jumps in with my favorite nonsense of the entire deal before being again, corrected—more gently than he deserves—by Cottom:
Stephens: I’d say the lowest-quality institutions created since the 1990s have names like Columbia and Berkeley—these are essentially factories of Maoist cadres taught by professors whose political views ranged almost exclusively from the left to the far left.
Cottom: I would counter, Bret, that the lowest-quality institutions are the for-profit colleges created as paradigmatic economic theories of exchange value that churned out millions of students in “career ready” fields who found it hard to get a job worth the debt—colleges not unlike the one that our current dear leader once ran as a purely economic enterprise.
It is worth pausing here to consider how untethered Stephens is from the truth with saying the Columbia and Berkeley are “essentially factories of Maoist cadres.” One would think that if this were the case, they would be overwhelmingly churning out graduates in those dubious “studies” majors.
Let’s go to the data.
Top majors at Columbia: political science, economics, computer science, financial economics
Top majors at Cal: computer science, economics, cellular biology, computer and information sciences, engineering
The wokeness … it burns! Actually … it’s nonexistent.
I don’t know if Stephens has convinced himself of a fantasy based on a selective accounting of what’s happening on campus, promulgated by his center-right anti-woke fellow travelers, or if he is simply a liar, but either way, he is demonstrably out of touch with reality.
Stephens consistently authorizes the “logic” of the authoritarian, even if he disagrees with the specifics of the punishment. The idea that he would claim the mantle of the protector of rights is an irony beyond understanding.
Stephens concludes, “When diffident liberal administrators fail to confront the far left, the winners ultimately tend to be on the far right.”
I take a different lesson from all of this, namely that diffident administrators found some utility in the scolding of figures like Stephens as a rationale to crack down on student dissent and protect a status quo of administrative authority. If student demands are inherently unreasonable, they don’t need to be dealt with. I seem to recall a very popular book that invented an entire psychological pathology on the basis of a handful of campus incidents in order to delegitimize student speech people like Stephens didn’t like because it threatened authority.
This was the core weakness, and it is coming home to roost, because the most important asset institutions have in defending themselves against the attacks of the Trump administration would be the students—provided there was a reservoir of trust between students and administrations, which, in many cases, there isn’t.
The whole thing is a mess, and an existential one for universities. Stephens seems to think it’s possible that the current actions by Trump are “a loud shot across the bow of academia to get it to clean up its act.” This is, I fear, only additional delusion.
I’d ask leaders of institutions who they think is going to be a bigger help in this situation, people like Stephens, who seem to believe that at least some measure of the arbitrary punishment is deserved, or the people who live and work in their communities, who understand the mission and importance of what these institutions try to do.
Listen to the experts, particularly those on your own faculty, not the pundits.
This month marks the 60th anniversary of the teach-in movement against the U.S. war in Vietnam. The first teach-in was held at the University of Michigan, March 24–25, 1965; by the end of the spring semester, teach-ins had spread to college and university campuses across the nation, educating tens of thousands of students, faculty and community members about the moral, political and strategic reasons why the escalating Vietnam War was doomed to failure.
The teach-ins were sparked by the Johnson administration’s launch of the Rolling Thunder bombing campaign against North Vietnam in late February 1965. But it is less its antiwar ideas than its strategic and tactical brilliance that makes the teach-in movement so relevant today, offering a valuable model for resisting the threat that the Trump administration’s authoritarianism and hatred of the liberal university poses to academic freedom and free speech on campus, the university’s funding of scientific research, the college and university’s role in battling racial and sexual discrimination, and higher education’s cosmopolitanism and international character.
Though we tend to think of the campus antiwar movement as led by radical students who used militant tactics, breaking university regulations and the law in their protests, the teach-in movement was initiated by faculty, not students, and it did not break any such regulations or the law. Its only tools were education—offered by knowledgeable speakers—and effective publicity and outreach. In fact, the very idea of a teach-in was the result of a tactical retreat.
Initially, Michigan’s Faculty Committee to Stop the War in Vietnam had envisioned a work moratorium, a day when faculty did not teach their regular academic classes so that the whole university could focus on the Vietnam War. But this moratorium idea proved immensely controversial, drawing all kinds of denunciations, especially from the state’s war-hawk politicians, who labeled it an anarchist hijacking of the university that denied students access to their classes. Seeing that this controversy was distracting people from the war itself, the faculty shrewdly changed course. Instead of a work moratorium, they came up with the idea of an antiwar teach-in that would begin after classes ended and go on through the night (from 8 p.m. to 8 a.m.).
Some on the left saw this tactical shift as unfortunate, even cowardly, and feared that few students would attend such an evening event. But they were wrong. This first teach-in drew some 3,000 students, faculty and community members. It was, in the words of one its speakers, Carl Oglesby, “like a transfigured night. It was amazing: classroom after classroom bulging with people hanging on every word of those who had something to say about Vietnam.” Michigan’s antiwar faculty then helped raise funds for more teach-ins in May, which connected with faculty and student activists on more than 100 campuses, with the movement reaching its peak at a University of California, Berkeley, weekend teach-in that drew some 30,000 participants. All this provided a major boost to the peace movement and helped make the campuses a center of antiwar activism.
In our own era, college and university administrations have tightened campus regulations to restrict mass protest and have been quick to have even nonviolent anti-Gaza war student protesters arrested for the most minor campus rule violations. In fact, last spring there were more than 3,000 arrests nationally, for campus antiwar encampments that were quite tame compared to the disruptive student protests that erupted in the Vietnam era’s most turbulent years.
The decline of free speech on campus since the 1960s is also evident when one reflects back on the famous case of Marxist historian Eugene Genovese. At a Rutgers University teach-in, Genovese, in 1965, provoked a huge right-wing backlash by saying that he did “not fear or regret the impending Vietcong victory in Vietnam. I welcome it.” Despite calls for Genovese’s firing from many supporters of the war, including then-former Vice President Richard Nixon, Rutgers’ administration, while disdaining Genovese’s pro-Vietcong views, defended his right to free speech and refused to fire him—though two years later Genovese, tired of the death threats and political pressure, opted to leave Rutgers. One hears no such campus administration defense of free speech today as Trump, who pardoned his J6 rioters, pursues arrests and deportations of anti-war student protestors, including the arrest and detention of recent Columbia University graduate and Green Card holder Mahmoud Khalil.
All this repression has struck fear into the hearts of student activists. So, while direct action and civil disobedience have their place in campus protest, they are, understandably, not in vogue at this authoritarian moment. This is a time when important news outlets, such as The Washington Post and TheLos Angeles Times, the business community, the U.S. Senate minority leader, and campus administrators cower in fear of the Trump administration. This seems like a good time for faculty to act boldly yet strategically, taking the lead, showing that their campuses can, without rule-breaking or civil disobedience, become major centers of education about Trump’s authoritarianism, his embarrassingly illiberal and predatory foreign policy, and his crude attacks on education, the courts, the press, the First Amendment and federal agencies. Faculty should use their skills as teachers and scholars, as their predecessors did in 1965, but this time help teach America about the threat Trumpism poses to democracy and education, in a new national wave of teach-ins that would honor our past and offer hope for the future.
Robert Cohen is a professor of history and social studies at New York University. His research focuses on student protest, free speech and the Black Freedom Movement in 1960s America. His most recent book is Confronting Jim Crow: Race, Memory and the University of Georgia in the 20th Century (University of North Carolina Press, 2024).
Welcome Inside Higher Ed‘s legislation tracker, a database of the key higher-ed related bills lawmakers have proposed in Congress. Few will likely become law, but the proposals offer insights into how Republicans and Democrats want to reshape the sector.
So far, lawmakers have proposed 31 bills that would directly impact colleges and universities.
You can search the database below to learn more about each proposal. The current session of Congress runs through the end of 2026 which means this list will grow. We’ll update the database regularly, so please check back for updates.
Questions, comments or think we’re missing a bill? Email [email protected].
Matthew Howling, Principal Associate at Mills & Reeve LLP, and Poppy Short, Partner at Mills & Reeve, reflect on a February round table discussion amongst university leaders chaired by Nick Hillman of HEPI.
On 26 February 2025, a group of 18 university leaders, advisors and stakeholders met to reflect on how universities can best position themselves in the current financial climate. The meeting was a follow-up to our joint dinner with HEPI on 10 October 2024 at the Royal Society in London. As we remarked at the time, there was a clear desire to continue the conversation, and the fast-paced and content-rich discussion here was a testament to that desire.
Our theme was the limits of self-help. Given the current financial headwinds, institutions have been restructuring their activities on an unprecedented scale. However, once the severance schemes, asset sales and course closures have come to pass, will these remedies be sufficient to put institutions back on a sound enough financial footing to continue to serve their students and communities for the longer term? The unspoken and yet resounding understanding across the group was that further and more radical changes are needed across the sector to stabilise the situation.
What is the role of the private providers in helping to improve the financial health of the sector? Several voices suggested that foreign investment could help to save certain British universities and that the sector needs to be less reticent about such investment. Other participants thought that, while foreign investment might work in the context of smaller providers, it was less likely to be successful when dealing with larger, more complex institutions, particularly those that have a legacy of contracts with trade unions and other stakeholders. It is well known that a number of private providers and foreign investors are waiting in the wings to acquire UK degree-awarding powers from distressed higher education providers if the opportunity presents itself. The sector should be prepared to consider its response to this.
In a recent HEPI poll, when students were presented with a list of 10 options for what could happen if their own higher education institution were to fall over financially, a takeover by a foreign company was the joint least popular option. Foreign investors would have to work hard to tackle these negative perceptions.
In some ways, the antithesis of self-help is a forced merger. It was noted that, in other jurisdictions, forced mergers are not as uncommon as might be thought. Estonia, France, Germany and Denmark had all experienced forced university mergers. Is this the direction of travel for the United Kingdom? There was a feeling that, in Wales and Scotland, there was a willingness to consider higher education provision on a more holistic basis than in England.
In terms of state support, it was felt that the sector had to acknowledge government spending pressures. The evidence of cuts to budgets elsewhere (such as foreign aid) strongly suggests that there will be no chance of further increases to the home undergraduate tuition fee in the foreseeable future and despite the need, other forms of financial help are not expected.
If government funding will not be forthcoming, the other obvious source of funds is existing lenders. Participants observed that, while sector borrowing was high, much of the recent debt taken on by providers was in the form of revolving credit facilities (which provide short-term funds up to a specified limit for a stipulated period of time, all or part of which can be repaid and re-borrowed as required), rather than the term loans that universities have traditionally found more attractive (which provide long-term funds for a specified period of time). There was concern that, in some cases, banks might be considering withdrawing those lines of credit when they come up for renewal. There was also a concern about how many institutions might be relying on revolving credit facilities to satisfy the OfS’s minimum liquidity requirements. There was anecdotal evidence that certain banks were focussing their new lending on higher tariff institutions, partly because of credit risk but also because of the ancillary opportunities to make money from larger institutions. This risks a self-fulfilling cycle of winners and losers.
It was generally felt that a new Special Administration Regime would make life easier as opposed to harder in terms of access to funds. It is not necessarily about encouraging enforcement by banks. It is highly unlikely that a UK clearing bank would want the adverse publicity associated with enforcing against a UK university (although foreign lenders may be less PR squeamish). However, giving lenders a clear line of sight as to a recovery process, even if not used in practice, may further encourage commercial lending to the sector.
Beyond the question of more money, there was a feeling that certain sector skills were lacking to navigate these troubled waters. As one participant put it, transformation expertise was what was needed, not just transformation funds. And how does all this transformation happen at pace?
Above all, there was a sense that the sector needed to move as one on certain key issues. One example was the increased costs for post-92 institutions associated with the Teachers’ Pension Scheme. Another key area where the sector needs to work together is soliciting the opinion of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) on how universities can collaborate without breaching competition law. There were grounds for optimism: the CMA guidance on applying the competition rules to sustainability agreements and collaborations is an example of the CMA taking a proactive approach to assuage concerns that competition law should not hinder legitimate collaboration where this was in the public good. In other areas, such as procurement and shared services, it was felt that there was much that the sector could be doing together to be more efficient and reduce the cost of delivery.
As an hour of rapid and informed discussion drew to a close, perhaps the overall conclusion was that it is only by acting collectively that the sector can arrive at solutions to allow institutions to truly put their houses in order at an individual level. Universities need to start planning how they will support themselves through this next phase. To survive they will need to mobilise themselves to work at pace to foster local and regional connections to drive forward the priorities for their regions.
Dr. Marlene TrompThe University of Vermont (UVM) Board of Trustees has selected Dr. Marlene Tromp as the institution’s 28th president.
Tromp, who is currently serving as president of Boise State University, will assume her new role later this summer.
“Dr. Tromp brings with her the experience and ability for great success that will benefit the university, community, and state,” said Cynthia Barnhart, Board of Trustees chair and co-chair of the Presidential Search Advisory Committee.
A first-generation college student raised in rural Wyoming,Tromp brings nearly 30 years of experience in higher education. During her six-year tenure at Boise State, she successfully navigated the challenges of the COVID-19 pandemic while increasing student enrollment and improving affordability. Under her leadership, the university achieved record graduation rates and philanthropic funding while expanding its research footprint.
“This is a university that has the power to truly lead the nation and even the world on several fronts,” Tromp said of UVM. “I’m so excited to work with my colleagues, the students, alumni, and friends to improve individual lives and the life of the community.”
Tromp’s rural background appears to have been a significant factor in her selection.
“She grew up with the experience of being in a rural state and understanding the importance of the flagship institution to that state, both urban and rural parts of the state. She really demonstrated an ability to connect well with Vermont culture, given that upbringing,” said Ron Lumbra, immediate past chair of the Board of Trustees and co-chair of the search committee.
A humanities scholar with a concentration in Victorian literature and culture, Tromp has published nine books and dozens of peer-reviewed papers. Her administrative experience includes serving as campus provost and executive vice chancellor at the University of California at Santa Cruz and vice provost and dean at Arizona State University.
Senator Patrick Leahy, who met with Tromp during her campus visit, expressed confidence in her leadership abilities.
“Dr. Tromp seems poised and ready to lead UVM. She clearly understands the impact and responsibilities UVM has in our state,” Leahy said.
Campus leaders have also voiced strong support for the appointment. Athletic Director Jeff Schulman praised Tromp’s “experience, commitment to excellence and passion for UVM,” while Bill Falls, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, described her as “an empathetic and collaborative leader.”
Tromp holds a Bachelor of Arts from Creighton University, a Master of Arts in English from the University of Wyoming, and a Ph.D. from the University of Florida. She currently serves on the NCAA Division I Board of Directors and consults on higher education with the Federal Reserve Board of San Francisco.
She will succeed Dr. Suresh Garimella, who led UVM from 2019 until October 2024 when he became president of the University of Arizona. Provost Dr. Patricia Prelock has been serving as interim president since Garimella’s departure.
