This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The education sector saw 180 ransomware attacks worldwide in the first three quarters of the year — a 6% year-over-year increase from the 170 attacks recorded in 2024, according to Comparitech data released Thursday. The findings include both confirmed and unconfirmed attacks.
Most of the 2025 ransomware attacks — 95 out of 180 — were in the U.S. Some 35 of those 95 attacks have been confirmed by the targeted schools so far. The number of confirmed attacks is expected to climb in the coming months, as breaches are often reported some time after an attack.
Still, the past two quarters marked the first dip in attacks since the start of 2024, which could indicate “a more positive outlook for the education sector,” according to the cybersecurity and online privacy product review website.
Dive Insight:
The ransom demand across all 180 attacks globally averaged $444,400.
“This definitely isn’t the time to get complacent,” said Rebecca Moody, head of data research at Comparitech, in an email to K-12 Dive on Thursday. “These attacks, and their subsequent breaches, remain a dominant threat. That’s why it’s imperative schools and colleges of all sizes take key steps to try and mitigate their risks.”
Many of the confirmed attacks resulted in systems going offline, leading to network disruptions and classes being cancelled for days or weeks. The incidents led to stolen data more often than not, with an average of 2.6 terabytes worth of data stolen per attack.
In South Carolina’s Cherokee County School District, for example, a confirmed March attack affected systems for around a week and resulted in 624 gigabytes of data allegedly stolen. Last month, the school district reported that data from 46,000 peoplewas impacted.
To prevent ransomware attacks, Moody said schools should keep systems up to date, patch vulnerabilities as soon as they’re flagged, and conduct regular cybersecurity training for employees.
“A worst-case scenario plan should also be in place because, as gangs continue to exploit vulnerabilities via third parties, even schools with the best cybersecurity standards can be left vulnerable if the third parties they’re working with are targeted,” said Moody.
Likewise, cybersecurity experts suggest that school districts implement phishing tests, establish a backup network and tap into state and federal support such as cybersecurity advisors to prevent and respond to ransomware attacks.
Phishing, which often seeks to trick staff into revealing login credentials, can target high-profile employees more often than others, such as those working in human resources, business, the superintendency and other administrative roles with access to sensitive data.
The attacks on universities by the Trump administration have proven that higher education has “enemies” among authoritarian populist leaders and left other sectors wondering when they will be next, European leaders warn.
Michael Ignatieff, who was rector of the Central European University between 2016 and 2021, when the institution was expelled from Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, said the Hungarian prime minister had provided enormous inspiration to politicians around the world.
Speaking at the Going Global conference, Ignatieff, also a former opposition leader in Canada, said Orbán was “the master” who had learned that controlling the universities that recruit and train elites means they can eventually control the political system.
“Authoritarian populists have grasped the crucial strategic importance of universities … [which] gives them the possibility of ideological control of a society as a whole.”
As Trump continues to put pressure on U.S. universities, Ignatieff, now professor of historical studies at the CEU, which has relocated to Austria, likened higher education to sitting on a mountaintop “watching a storm forming on the horizon” over a nearby village.
“That village has been hit by lightning and thunder and storm, and our question now is how long will it be before that storm hits us?”
“We’re in a political battle. We cannot assume that the higher education sector in any of our countries is secure going forward. If the higher education sector can be attacked in the United States, let me tell you folks, it can be attacked anywhere,” he added.
“This sector has enemies. The American experience has shattered my confidence that the sector that I’ve spent my entire life in is safe.”
Speaking at the British Council event in London, Ignatieff said the “renationalization” of one of the most outward-looking educational systems in the world had put international education under threat for the first time in his lifetime.
He warned that European universities were also at risk because of how reliant they are on the state for research funding—allowing authoritarian governments to use funding against them to shut down academic freedom.
“I worry going forward that an authoritarian political regime could come to power … and begin to look at the way in which cutting off state funding or using the threat of cutting off state funding becomes an instrument to secure control of the higher education sector.”
Another weakness of the European sector is the lack of statutory protection for academic freedom, which makes universities vulnerable, he added, as do rising tuition fees in many countries.
“The increasing costs of higher education are weakening domestic popular political support for higher education,” he said. “It becomes easier and easier for populist politicians to attack higher education as a kind of elite luxury that the taxpayer pays for.”
Speaking at the same session, Maddalaine Ansell, director of education at the British Council, said the values that underpin higher education are coming under threat because of populism and polarization.
“In some places, academic freedom is challenged from without and highly polarized views amongst students and staff can affect robust debate within institutions,” she said.
“As nations focus on domestic issues, it can be harder to win arguments that internationalization of higher education deserves government support through regulatory support, including an enabling visa system and funding for international collaboration.”
When a crisis strikes, college and university presidents and chancellors are asked to balance competing priorities in real time: protecting students, reassuring faculty, and staff, addressing trustees and communicating with stakeholders, including the public and other key partners. All while trying to be the role model and stay on mission as best as possible.
While each crisis has distinctive characteristics, these situations never unfold in a vacuum. Today, they are happening as the value of higher education is being questioned, policymakers are sharpening their scrutiny, and financial pressures are forcing tough choices across campus communities. Moreover, our fast, fragmented information environment doesn’t just shape crises. It can, in effect, create them, manufacturing controversy where little existed.
Strong crisis communications are not just about surviving the alarming hours, days or weeks of a crisis. They are about preserving trust and protecting reputation–which inevitably connects with revenue–thereby positioning the institution to lead credibly into the future.
We were heartened when attending a recent annual, on-the-record convening of college presidents and journalists at the Press Club in Washington, DC, last month. Campus leaders showed up and readily expressed renewed energy for their roles and prospects for what remains the world’s most admired higher education system. These higher ed leaders gathered voluntarily (yes, voluntarily) to share specific examples of today’s campus environment, dispel some of the current higher ed narratives and inform the media–without defensiveness or naiveté–of the impact on their immediate communities and beyond.
We cannot recommend engaging in such public conversations highly enough, as a means of building goodwill and busting myths. After all, the best crisis “response” begins long before any crisis occurs.
Preparing before the crisis
Presidents should ensure their teams are equipped with:
Clear, values-based messaging. A well-defined set of institutional values, articulated consistently (and easily located on public-facing websites), gives everyone a steady reference point. Do students, faculty, staff, families, alumni, neighbors and legislators know what the university stands for during times thick and thin?
Scenario planning and tabletop exercises. Running through potential crises, from student protests to cybersecurity breaches, helps identify weaknesses in protocols and message discipline. Exercises also clarify roles so that when a real situation arises, the team knows who speaks, who decides and who executes.
Designated spokespeople, prepared with media training. While a president may become the voice in a crisis, other leaders, such as a provost, communications official or dean of students, must be ready to carry the message.
Leading during the crisis
During the heat of a crisis, your guiding stars are simple: safety and support for your people. Accuracy, speed and transparency will matter most. Keep the following principles in mind:
Respond promptly, but don’t speculate. Silence creates a vacuum, but premature statements can backfire or harm. Even a short acknowledgment, such as “We are aware of the situation and will share updates as we confirm details,” signals attentiveness and concern. This playbook paid off during the pandemic for William & Mary, when President Katherine A. Rowe gathered input from the university’s subject-matter experts early on and established credible public health and safety approaches.
Center your people, not your process. Your stakeholders need to hear about safety, support and accountability before they hear about the college’s committees or investigations coming together. Prioritize action coupled with compassion. Even 20 years later, we remember the example of Scott Cowen, president of Tulane University during Hurricane Katrina, and the trust built due to his people-first approach. During the pandemic, Colgate University President Brian Casey modeled people-first leadership by moving into student housing to better understand students’ experiences and guide the campus through an especially challenging time.
Communicate consistently across channels. Students, families and alumni are likely to first encounter your messages (or off-base, inaccurate versions of this news) on social media, while others may hear news via email, during town halls or staff meetings. Coordinated, consistent language is critical for accuracy and credibility.
Engage trustees and legislators early. Surprises erode trust. One university president we admire follows the “No surprises” rule, crisis or no crisis. Keep key stakeholders briefed, even if details are evolving. A healthy president-board relationship, or the opposite, can easily become apparent during a crisis.
The all-important post-crisis phase
Too many falter by assuming that once any headlines fade, the crisis is behind them. In fact, the post-crisis period is where reputations are refined and strengthened. Presidents should treat this phase as an opportunity for reflection, accountability and rebuilding confidence.
Conduct a candid after-action review. What worked? What didn’t? Invite honest feedback from leadership, communications staff and key campus partners. A president who once worked at NASA introduced that agency’s practice of conducting a “hotwash,” the immediate, constructive, after-action review at her university.
Fix what needs improvement. Based on what you learn from the after-action review, consider who among your team demonstrated they are best suited for crisis situations. Determine who will stand in when these individuals are away or temporarily unreachable. Have a backup plan for the backup plan, including communications tools ranging from analog to digital. Cybersecurity breaches happen, as do power outages. Consider engaging external expertise to audit your policies and practices before, yes, the next crisis.
Follow up with your community. Students, faculty, staff, families and alumni will remember how your institution followed through. Report on the status of (non-confidential) investigations, share policy changes and highlight steps taken to prevent recurrence. Determine the cadence and keep to it, for communication containing substantive updates. Demonstrating accountability reinforces trust.
Reconnect the crisis to the institution’s mission. For example, if the issue involved free speech, show how new steps align with the university’s now-broader commitment to inquiry and dialogue. If it involved safety, emphasize your institution’s improved duty of care.
Strengthen external relationships. Use the post-crisis time to meet with legislators, donors and alumni leaders. Transparency about what happened and how the university has responded often earns respect over time, potentially turning doubters into advocates. The word potentially is deliberate here, in that this work can be challenging, it may take years and we need to be realistic about what is feasible. Is there common ground to be found? Are we seeking to please a few at the expense of the many?
The special case of manufactured crises
While the principles of communication are consistent across all crises, a manufactured crisis—one designed to harm a leader through disinformation—requires a different approach. Unlike a natural disaster or an institutional mistake, these situations are orchestrated attacks. Their primary purpose is not to address a problem but to create one. They become personal, understandably taken to heart. Leaders must steel themselves, identify key allies to clarify misinformation, and draw from resources in the “bank of goodwill” built during their presidency. Always easier said than done, yet the challenge for any leader in such circumstances is to not become the crisis.
Why it matters more than ever
Higher education’s current reputational challenges heighten the stakes. Campus leaders cannot afford to treat crisis communications as a tactical exercise. Instead, crisis communications should be integrated into a broader strategy for sustaining trust in the institution and, by extension, in the value of higher education itself.
Handling a crisis can demonstrate an institution’s resilience, values and leadership. It can show students and families that the university is committed to their safety and success. It can show legislators that higher education takes accountability seriously. And it can remind the broader public that colleges and universities remain vital engines of knowledge, opportunity and community—even in turbulent times. You may have heard this beautiful phrase before, but remember and repeat: Higher education builds America.
Crises will come. Presidents cannot control exactly when or how. By preparing in advance, leading with compassion and clarity in the moment and taking ownership in the aftermath, leaders can turn adversity into an opportunity to strengthen their institution’s credibility and standing. All of higher education stands to benefit from such examples of leadership.
If you have any questions or comments about this blog post, please contact us.
The Association for the Study of African American Life and History (ASALH) will convene its annual conference in Atlanta from September 24-28, 2025, bringing together Black leaders, academics, educators, and community members during what organizers describe as a “critical hour” for Black history and education.
TDr. Stephanie Y. Evanshe conference, themed “African Americans and Labor,” comes as educational institutions nationwide face mounting pressure over diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, and as several states have enacted legislation restricting how race and racism can be discussed in classrooms.
The conference will feature several prominent voices in African American studies and social justice, including Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Dr. Edda Fields-Black and scholar-activist Dr. Ibram X. Kendi. Labor organizer Chris Smalls, who led the successful effort to form the first independent union at an Amazon warehouse in the United States through the Amazon Labor Union, will headline the Friday John Blassingame Luncheon.
Other featured speakers include historians Drs. Peniel Joseph, Maurice Hobson, Stephanie Evans, and Joe Trotter Jr., along with civil rights leaders Ambassador Andrew and Andrea Young and Rev. Jamal Bryant.
A key component of the conference programming will address current challenges facing educators and institutions seeking to teach Black history. Specialized sessions will provide guidance to librarians, teachers, and community organizers on establishing Freedom Schools and teaching Black history “in the current challenged national environment.”
Dr. Peniel JosephThe Wednesday plenary session, “The Fire Now!,” will specifically examine how budgets and policies are “Undermining Preservation of the African American Experience,” featuring experts from the National Parks Conservation Association, Trust for Public Land, and the U.S. Department of the Interior.
“Our goal is to make as many of the activities free and accessible to the public as possible,” organizers announced, with Wednesday sessions, plenaries, film festival screenings, poster sessions, and vendor exhibits offered at no charge.
Thursday’s plenary, “Towards a Theory of Liberation: The State of Black Radicalism Today,” will feature scholars Drs. Charisse Burden-Stelly, Gerald Horne, Akinyele Umoja, Joy James, and Ashley Howard examining contemporary Black liberation movements.
Friday’s session will honor the scholarship of historian Dr. Joe William Trotter Jr., a leading expert on African American labor history and urban studies.
A Saturday luncheon titled “An Unusual Emphasis on Scholarship: Carter G. Woodson, Omega Psi Phi, and the Power of Black History” will explore the legacy of ASALH’s founder and the role of Black Greek letter organizations in preserving African American history.
Registration for the ASALH Conference is open, with both free and ticketed events available. The annual gathering represents one of the premier venues for African American historical scholarship and community engagement in the United States.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression on Wednesday sued top Trump administration officials,alleging their attempts to deport student visa holders over speech have violated the constitutional right to free expression and due process.
The free speech advocacy organization filed the lawsuit on behalf of Stanford University’s independent student newspaper and two unnamed plaintiffs who entered the U.S. on student visas. It accuses the Trump administration of illegally deporting those it deems to have “anti-American or anti-Israel” views,creating a “pall of fear” that is “incompatible with American liberty.”
The lawsuit is asking a federal judge to bar U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio from making the plaintiffs eligible for deportation and U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem from initiating deportation proceedings based on their speech.
Dive Insight:
Beginning in March, the Trump administration began targeting international students studying at U.S. colleges, including but not limited those who had participated in pro-Palestinian campus protests or published commentary criticizing Israel. The wide-ranging campaign resulted in the federal government revoking at least 800 student visas by April 11.
Later that month, the Trump administration walked back hundreds of the visa revocations amid intense legal scrutiny. But it then published a policy expanding the authority of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to terminate educational visas.
Evidence of an international student’s failure to comply with the terms of their legal status — not proof or “clear and convincing evidence” — would be enough for ICE to revoke it, according to guidance from law firm Hunton. The new policy did not address the federal government’s practice of terminating students’ visas without notifying them — meaning they may still have their legal status pulled without them or their colleges being informed, the firm added.
Under the administration’s current policies, the plaintiffs face “an ongoing and credible threat” of student visa terminations and deportation proceedings, the lawsuit said.
The Trump administration has cited two provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act to justify these moves — one that allows Rubio to revoke student visas and another that allows him to determine a noncitizen is eligible for deportation if their statements or associations “compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest.”
FIRE’s lawsuit alleges these provisions are unconstitutional when used to target free speech rights — which apply to all in the U.S., not just American citizens.
“Secretary Rubio and the Trump administration’s war against noncitizens’ freedom of speech is intended to send an unmistakable message: Watch what you say, or you could be next,” the lawsuit said.
The plaintiffs intend to seek permanent injunctive relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, the only court with the authority to “enjoin or restrain” aspects of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
At The Stanford Daily, student writers who are attending the university on a visa are turning down assignments related to the conflict in the Middle East over concerns their reporting would endanger their immigration status, the lawsuit alleges.
Other such reporters are requesting to have their published articles taken down or are quitting the newspaper altogetherout of fear of deportation.
Beyond the newsroom, international students have also largely stopped talking to the Daily’s staff since March, the lawsuit said. When they do, they often refuse to speak on the record, “particularly when it comes to discussing topics like Israel and Palestine,” it said.
“There’s real fear on campus and it reaches into the newsroom,” Greta Reich, editor-in-chief of the student newspaper, said in a statement. “The Daily is losing the voices of a significant portion of our student population.”
Both of the unnamed plaintiffs entered the U.S. on F-1 student visas, hold no criminal record, and have publicly voiced pro-Palestinian views. But both began self-censoring over “their rational concern about the ongoing danger of deportation for expression Secretary Rubio deems anti-American or anti-Israel,” the lawsuit alleges
One of the plaintiffs had been a member of her university’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and criticized America’s relationship with Israel online. Her work led to her inclusion on Canary Mission, an anonymous website that “publishes the personal information of students, professors and organizations it deems ‘anti-Israel,’” according to the lawsuit.
The lawsuit cited testimony from Peter Hatch, assistant director of ICE’s Homeland Security Investigations department,in which he told lawmakers that “most” of the student protesters DHS asked ICE to investigate came from Canary Mission’s website.
Among its posts, the website had published information on Mahmoud Khalil, Rümeysa Öztürk,and Mohsen Mahdawiprior to the Trump administration detaining and attempting to deport them. All three current and former students have since been released on the orders of federal judges.
Aware of this environment, the plaintiff has “refrained from publishing and voicing her true opinions regarding Palestine and Israel” since March and deleted a social media account “to guard against retaliation for past expression.”
Likewise, the other unnamed plaintiff previously attended pro-Palestinian protests and published both pro-Palestinian and anti-Israel commentary. But he began self-censoring his work over fears of deportation, according to the lawsuit.
He also served as a teaching assistant at his college, and the course’s professor advised him to reconsider his advocacy related to Israel and Palestinians, as it might endanger his immigration status, the complaint said.
“No one should fear a midnight knock on the door for voicing the wrong opinion,” the lawsuit said. But the Trump administration, and Rubio in particular, are working to make free speech “a privilege contingent upon the whims of a federal bureaucrat,” it said.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Ransomware attacks against schools, colleges and universities rose 23% year over year in the first half of 2025, according to a report from Comparitech, a cybersecurity and online privacy product review website.
The six months saw 130 confirmed and unconfirmed ransomware attacks against educational institutions, with an average ransom demand of $556,000.
Education was the fourth-most-targeted sector during the first half of 2025, behind business, government and healthcare, according to Comparitech.
Dive Insight:
Schools have become a popular target for hackers thanks to a combination of increased digitization, the robust amount of student and staff data, and a lack of cybersecurity resources. Some 82% of K-12 schools in the U.S. experienced a cyber incident between July 2023 and December 2024, according to a March report from the nonprofit Center for Internet Security.
In one of the most prominent recent known examples,a 19-year-old agreed to plead guilty in May to allegedly hacking and extorting student information system provider PowerSchool for $2.85 million. The incident resulted in the leaking of sensitive data of 10 million teachers and more than 60 million students. School districts also received extortion threats in relation to the cyberattack, and more than 100 school systems sued PowerSchool over the breach.
One challenge of tracking cyberattacks is that incidents aren’t always disclosed by the organization targeted or the ransomware group that attacks. As a result, the Comparitech report said, figures are likely to change as more information is released and incidents are confirmed.
Comparitech labels a ransomware attack as “confirmed” when the impacted organization publicly reports a ransomware incident or acknowledges a cyberattack that aligns with a ransomware group’s claim.
As school districts try tonavigate these threats and attacks, some of the leading preventative measures include investing in cybersecurity insurance and incorporating multifactor authentication for accessing files.
Once a breach is discovered, experts recommend determining what external help is needed, whether from cyber incident support teams or private vendors, and alerting law enforcement — including the FBI and entities such as the Department of Homeland Security’s U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team. The FBI advises against paying ransoms, as doing so can encourage further cyberattacks and doesn’t guarantee that stolen data will be returned or that access to critical systems will be restored.
The Trump administration has waged its war on higher education on the battlegrounds of social media, press releases and on-air interviews. Shrouded in vague terminology and questionable legal authority, the public attacks are a stark departure from the channels the federal government traditionally uses to issue guidance and policy changes.
In March, we learned from the Department of Health and Human Services press office that it, along with the Department of Education and the General Services Administration, had started a comprehensive review of $54.1 million in federal contracts and $5 billion in federal grant commitments for Columbia University over alleged violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. The next day, the president doubled down on social media, posting to the conservative site Truth Social, which he owns, that colleges and universities that allow “illegal protests” would be at risk of losing federal funding.
In May, during an ongoing public battle with Harvard University, Education Secretary Linda McMahon announced in a letter posted to the social media platform X thatthe federal government would no longer give grants to the institution. The document aired a litany of grievances against the institution including allegedly adopting a remedial math program and hiring “failed” former mayors Bill De Blasio and Lori Lightfoot; it also took aim at the Harvard Corporation’s senior fellow Penny Pritzker for being a “Democrat operative.”
The style and tone of communication goes beyond bombast and tells of a more coherent vision for the country, including higher education, according to Daniel Kreiss, the Edgar Thomas Cato Distinguished Professor in the Hussman School of Journalism and Media at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the faculty director and principal researcher of the UNC Center for Information, Technology, and Public Life. Issuing public threats, using pliable labels and making examples of individual colleges are tactics to control an autonomous sector and provoke widespread confusion, he said in an interview with Inside Higher Ed.
Colleges have little recourse to fight the full force of the federal government—legally or through publicity, Kreiss said, but he urged institutions to invest more in their local communities and to recommit to their teaching missions. He also explained why Vice President JD Vance’s autobiography is a great teaching tool.
(This interview has been edited for length and clarity.)
Q: The way the administration is communicating with higher ed is unlike anything the sector has seen before. Public letters and social media posts now deliver news of investigations, funding freezes or threats of future action. What does that reveal about how the government is thinking about its relationship with higher ed?
Daniel Kreiss
UNC at Chapel Hill
A: This is not the relationship, let’s say, between the U.S. government and research universities that prevailed from World War II on, when the government was collaborating with its research industries to make America stronger, militarily and economically. This is very much an adversarial relationship where the Trump administration is saying, “Universities and higher education broadly are making America weaker, and therefore we need to bring U.S. higher education to a heel in order to fit with our political vision for what America should be.” I think that some of the characteristics of the communication that you described is the strategy of policymaking through publicity, as well as the creation of a pervasive climate of uncertainty that is really directed by this core goal of theirs, which is control. In essence, what they want is for universities to fall in line behind the administration’s own vision and priorities for what the American agenda should be, which is one of a deeply reactionary, far-right coalition that is currently occupying all three branches of government.
Q: Do you think the administration has a vision for higher education in particular?
A: I think it’s a vision for America, and Trump has been remarkably clear on what that looks like. It’s an America defined pretty narrowly on racial, ethnic and religious terms. It’s an America that has a certain understanding of its history that aligns with those dominant religious, racial and ethnic groups. It’s an America that has doubled down on masculinity as its defining gender in terms of who should be in power and have power in public life. So when we talk about a vision for higher ed, it’s a higher ed that serves that.
This is what you see in these very vague pronouncements about things like DEI. Anyone who educates or does research on anything that runs counter to that celebration of a very particularistic America is suspect and un-American. Higher ed is part of a whole set of knowledge-producing institutions in society—we can think about journalists and scientists, too— as being problematic because they serve accountability functions. They hold corporations responsible for things like polluting. They hold executives responsible for violations of democratic norms. Or, you know, they hold people in power accountable for not being good custodians of public trust. I think the administration wants to weaken that accountability function that can be played by universities because it undermines, ultimately, their ability to exercise power in the service of that larger vision of what they believe America should be.
Q: You mentioned vague pronouncements about things like DEI. What conclusions do you draw from this tactic of sowing confusion and using unclear and undefined language?
A: Ultimately, the end goal is control. They have a few tools to do so—legal means, regulatory means—and they have a lot of funding means to get institutions that are otherwise autonomous in civil society to comply with what they want them to do. But in the absence of those levers, what do you use? Well, you use publicity to get willing compliance or anticipatory compliance.
This is really what’s key about the publicity piece, because every time they issue something on X or Truth Social or speak publicly about something, whether it’s a threat or making claims that a college is going to be investigated, they’re speaking to the sector as a whole. And publicity ensures that everyone in higher ed is going to have to be responsive to what they say, even if not publicly, but at least in internal decision-making.
If nobody really knows what DEI is, what discrimination actually entails, what threats are actually real and legal, who will be investigated and how, that creates conditions where every single university administrator has to act in some anticipatory way in order to mitigate a perceived threat, or to escape scrutiny. That ultimately increases this control over universities because they’re acting in ways that might comply in some way and likely are going far beyond what the law will actually allow. We can understand this by looking at other countries, like Hungary, for example. Viktor Orbán has created enough of a climate of both outright control and uncertainty over funding that people comply with what he wants them to do. He’s weaponized this to his advantage
The Supreme Court’s recent decisions have also played a role in this—in making it harder for [federal] judges to issue these broad injunctions. In essence, what they’re saying is that people are going to be anticipatory, interpreting whatever this public statement is in some way, and in the absence of any other guidance of what might be subject to judicial scrutiny or might be, let’s say, judicially suspect in itself, administrators are going to be making these decisions based on their own risk assessments.
Q: Speaking of the courts, we’ve seen a flurry of lawsuits challenging the administration, so some final decisions will be made on these issues at some point. Will that clarity roll back some of the pre-emptive compliance you’re describing?
A: Well the rub is the judicial process takes years. And administrators have to act now. And it’s in exactly that disconnect between that far-off time horizon of, “Oh, I’m sure our lawyers are telling us that this will likely get struck down” and in the meantime, you have to act on the basis of yearly budgets or what is in compliance with guidelines coming from the NIH or the NSF. All of those decisions have to be made in the moment, in a climate of uncertainty.
So in that context, no, the legal resolution is so far off, and the strategy of how to get there is so deeply unclear, that I don’t think higher ed’s in a great place to pursue judicial remedies for these things.
Q: We’ve got a number of examples of how institutions have responded to the administration—Harvard pushing back, Columbia and Penn conceding to demands, Jim Ryan resigning from the UVA presidency. Are universities at all prepared for how to handle this moment?
A: There’s a lot going on there, right? The best public case that we have for resistance is Harvard, but even while Harvard is negotiating, the Trump administration is continuing to put a lot of public pressure on it, which gets back to that earlier point that they’re speaking far beyond Harvard, saying, “If you do this, you will come under the full weight of federal government scrutiny, and we’re willing to have this battle.”
Universities are in a hard spot for a few reasons. One, collective action is really hard. Higher ed as a sector is deeply diversified, so the question is: Who’s in the best position to actually do that sort of fighting? The second is that every institution, no matter how large, is really complex. It’s hard to make a proactive case for anything, for just all of faculty, for example, let alone an entire university.
That said, there are a few effective models that we can begin to pick out. Harvard’s choice to double down on making an easily understandable argument for the value of higher education is our best public communication strategy—really doubling down on how universities are an economic engine for communities, states and America itself. When we’re talking about advancing science and technology, early research into artificial intelligence, the development of the internet—that all comes from university-led research that was funded, in part, through federal subsidies and research dollars. That has made America the leading country in technology innovation. This is where we get into a big tent with people from the Republican coalition who are pro-business and pro-corporations that are built on the infrastructure that universities help put together. We train the employees that go work for Fortune 500 companies that position America’s global dominance in its corporate workforce. It’s not saying we do everything, but we do a lot of really great public value work. And somebody needs to make that argument, because if no one is doing it, why would the American public come to these answers themselves?
Q: On the point about federally funded research at universities advancing technology innovation and the economy—is that argument lost on this administration?
A: My educated guess of why universities are this particular target in this particular way is that this is political. It’s not about America’s economic growth or America’s technological advantage at the end of the day. This is foremost a political strategy of mobilizing a set of grievances and victimhoods that help to build and maintain a coalition. It’s this idea that Trump’s electoral coalition is being continually victimized by being less safe. That America is losing its culture, its language, its identity, etc., through immigration. This has been the dominant drumbeat since Trump announced his candidacy for president in advance of 2016.
The other piece to this is the divide in the two parties between who has a college education and who doesn’t. This is a really important point that fuels the Republican Party’s coalition, and which is why attacks on higher ed, if we read them through the lens of publicity, are about identity work. [It’s] saying, “We are representing you people who never went to college against all these higher ed elites who don’t respect you, constantly denigrate America and who want us to be some cosmopolitan global force that’s going to undermine what makes America great.” That’s why, to me, it’s fundamentally political.
Q: Can you say more about the education divide among voters? How can colleges address that?
A:The New York Times did some great reporting maybe two years ago that gave universities social mobility scores. It was looking at which universities were the best vehicles of the American dream. One broad conclusion from that reporting was that a lot of universities are failing at this. Now, there’s all sorts of complicated reasons for that—income inequality generally, the finances of higher ed, etc.—but I think one thing that universities can very much do across the board is reinvest in opportunities for those who have the least amount of money or access to a college education.
I’m somebody who spent some time at very elite institutions, and, you know, they don’t always have great relationships with the communities that exist right next to them. If we’re thinking about what a model would look like to win people back to see these great advancements and their ultimate value for the American people, it would involve just trying to extend it locally. How do we create more affordable housing in towns where universities are located? How can we help people in communities where there’s vast income inequalities between the university and its surrounding environments? How do we get our deep wells of expertise and knowledge out into the communities closest to us in a way that clearly demonstrates through action, not just words or abstract statistics, our real value in people’s lives?
The last thing is that we need to reinvest in our teaching missions. Most professors I know care deeply about their students, but their time and attention is split in many different ways. We really need to restore commitment to that educational mission that we all have, at least for the very simple reason that students are the bridges to the communities that they represent. They’re our best messengers for what the value of this amazing institution of American higher education is. I have kids from all over the state, from all different walks of life—this idea is that what the university does is serve those students as well as their communities. The knowledge that students are bringing from those communities and the traditions that they are a part of flows into universities as much as knowledge is flowing out.
Q: In the swirl of staffing cuts and hiring freezes in response to federal funding cuts, are you concerned about what it means for science communication, fact-checking and efforts to combat misinformation?
A: At its best, science communication is scientists and social scientists making assessments based on the best available evidence that we have about a particular phenomenon in the world and society. We need people to play that function, because that’s the best evidence we have to make political decisions. We can have a range of possible political solutions to things as long as we’re safeguarding institutions that produce a set of public facts that we’re all sharing.
But as you know, science is complicated. There are always going to be debates. And that’s good. But when social scientists or scientists have a general consensus about something, it is the outcome of a very antagonistic process. Maybe that speaks to something that we used to have a lot more conversations around—explaining the scientific process and how hard it is to produce a fact, and how many millions of dollars go into producing research that can produce something as reliable as a fact.
We’re seeing this erosion of institutions that can serve the goals of public accountability, and it is deeply problematic for the field. So there’s going to be fewer people entering the field, because there’s less funding and fewer opportunities for them to do this work. The other thing is a lot of people make the choice not to go into doing disinformation-related research, in part, because it’s hard. We’ve seen doxing, death threats against researchers. It’s also the rhetoric, like when the vice president is calling somebody an “enemy of the people.” I taught JD Vance’s book to my undergraduates in 2017, and we had a great series of conversations about that book. I could have all sorts of differences with him, but I would never say JD Vance is an enemy of the people. It’s that deliberately inflammatory rhetoric that is exactly what a lot of researchers like myself are concerned about.
Q: Do you still teach Hillbilly Elegy to your undergrads?
A: That was a special one-off course, but I 100 percent would teach it again. It’s a great teaching tool and book, and I think it lays out a very particular and searing account of somebody’s upbringing while then prescribing a set of political responses that are thoughtful and can and should be debated in a classroom. It resonated with a lot of my students.
Luke Sheehy during a discussion at the Universities Australia conference in Canberra. Picture: UA
Universities Australia (UA) has again called on the Albanese government to invest in research fund Horizon Europe amid growing uncertainty from the United States.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
President Trump issued two directives targeting international students just hours apart on Wednesday night. One is a ban on entering the U.S. for citizens from 12 countries and heightened visa restrictions for those from another seven. The other bans all international students, researchers and other “exchange visitors” from Harvard University.
The orders represent another escalation of the Trump administration’s simultaneous, and sometimes overlapping, campaigns to both punish Harvard and curtail the number of foreign students studying in the U.S.
Chris Glass, a professor of higher education at Boston College and a member of the college’s Center for International Education, said the combination of the travel ban and the Harvard order are part of the administration’s “flood the zone” strategy for its higher education agenda. He added that the timing of the dual orders, following on the heels of a “seemingly indefinite” pause on student visa interviews and a promise to “aggressively revoke” Chinese students’ visas, seems intended to cause the most chaos possible.
“The timing couldn’t be worse … this is when 70 percent of international students are getting or renewing their visas,” he said. “It injects catastrophic uncertainty, and the uncertainty is the strategy from my perspective.”
On Thursday evening, Harvard filed a legal challenge to the proclamation targeting the university and asked a judge to issue a temporary restraining order against the administration. Judge Allison Burroughs from the District of Massachusetts quickly granted that request and extended the current restraining order issued last month. She set a hearing for June 16.
2017 Again
The last time Trump instituted a travel ban, in his first term, it threw colleges into chaos and left students and researchers stranded for months in the middle of winter break, sending colleges scrambling to find ways to bring them back. Higher ed has been bracing for a repeat of that travel ban since Trump was elected in November; many institutions told their international students to return to campus before the inauguration to avoid the same fate.
The new ban is not as drastic as many predicted; when the White House initially proposed another travel ban in March, officials rolled out a list of 43 potential target countries. But it is more expansive than the 2017 ban—it affects 19 countries instead of eight—and, combined with the administration’s barrage of attacks on international students over the past three months, could be even more damaging to international enrollment.
The full ban applies to Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Eritrea, Equatorial Guinea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen—largely Middle Eastern and African countries with substantial Muslim populations. Trump also restricted visas from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.
The travel ban doesn’t immediately affect students currently in the U.S. or who have already been approved for visas. But with many admitted international students still languishing in a visa process that the State Department halted two weeks ago, it will likely prevent thousands of students from attending in the fall and upend institutions’ projected enrollments.
The countries on the list send a relatively small number of students to U.S. colleges. Of the affected countries, Iran has by far the most students studying in the U.S. It is the 15th most common origin country for international students, with 12,430 studying at American colleges and universities as of fall 2024, according to the latest report from the Institute for International Education.
Still, the order is likely to compound the uncertainty and fear that has grown among international student populations, leading to signs of a large decline in student visa applications. Glass’s research, along with more recent reports, shows a double-digit decline in student visas from March 2024 to this March alone; the latest moves could double that, he said.
“[The] COVID [pandemic] was a disruption of 15 percent,” he said. “This looks like it could be more significant than COVID, if the pause is extended and the uncertainty continues.”
In his proclamation announcing the travel ban, Trump wrote that the targeted countries had “deficient” vetting and screening processes for visa applicants, or had “taken advantage of the United States in their exploitation of our visa system and their historic failure to accept back their removable nationals.”
Sarah Spreitzer, vice president and chief of staff for government relations at the American Council on Education, said the rationale outlined in the travel ban—that students pose a unique national security threat and have been overstaying their visas—doesn’t align with reality.
“If this is for national security concerns, our students are some of the most vetted visas out there,” she said. “And I don’t know if our students actually overstay their visas very often.”
Fanta Aw, the president of NAFSA, an association of international educators, echoed Spreitzer and said that international students are already “among the most tracked individuals entering the United States.”
“Actions such as halting student visa issuance and implementing nationality-based travel bans do not enhance national security,” she wrote in an email. “Instead, they weaken it—undermining our economy, diminishing our global competitiveness and eroding our country’s ability to effectively engage with the global population.”
The 2017 travel ban was amended twice after being challenged in the courts and eventually exempted nonimmigrant visas, including student and exchange visas. Spreitzer said the administration’s outsize focus on student visa holders over the last few months makes that outcome less likely, but only time—and the courts—will tell.
Havoc at Harvard
The travel ban came on the heels of another White House proclamation Wednesday night, this one banning foreign students and scholars from attending Harvard.
Trump restricted visa applicants from entering the country “solely or principally to participate in a course of study at Harvard University or in an exchange visitor program hosted by Harvard,” claiming that allowing foreign students on campus would be “detrimental to the interests of the United States because, in my judgment, Harvard’s conduct has rendered it an unsuitable destination for foreign students and researchers.”
A Harvard spokesperson wrote that the proclamation is “another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard’s first amendment rights” and that the university “will continue to protect its international students.”
The proclamation is the latest jab in a weeks-long fight over international students on Harvard’s campus. Last month the Trump administration attempted to revoke Harvard’s Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification, which would have banned the university from enrolling international students altogether, affecting not just visa applicants but also foreign students and researchers currently on campus. Harvard challenged the effort in court, and a judge swiftly granted the university an injunction; on Monday, the Trump administration lost its appeal to overturn that decision.
Harvard amended that lawsuit to include a challenge to the newest proclamation, calling it “an unlawful evasion of the Court’s order.”
“When the Court enjoined the Secretary [of State’s] efforts to revoke Harvard’s certifications and force its students to transfer or depart the country, the President sought to achieve the same result by refusing to allow Harvard students to enter in the first place,” the amended suit reads.
Unlike the SEVP decertification attempt, Trump’s executive proclamation doesn’t immediately affect international students currently enrolled at Harvard, only those who have yet to secure visas—though it does instruct the State Department to determine whether current students “should have their visas revoked.”
The proclamation runs through a gamut of justifications for its international student ban. Trump cites data on increasing campus crime rates in the interest of student safety, alleges discrimination in the admissions process that he claims foreign students exacerbate and points to academic partnerships and financial contributions from countries like China that he says endanger U.S. national security interests.
Notably, Trump also says Harvard has failed to cooperate with the administration’s demands for student misconduct records; the university has provided data on “only three students,” which Trump wrote was evidence that “it either is not fully reporting its disciplinary records for foreign students or is not seriously policing its foreign students.”
Glass said the move is almost certainly an attempt to work around the court injunction using executive powers rather than the visa bureaucracy. And making the issue about constitutional authority in the national security realm—rather than whether the proper SEVP decertification process was followed—could change the legal calculus in court.
“That’s what’s going to set a precedent for generations,” Glass said. “Will the precedent of autonomy and academic freedom at Harvard win in the courts? Or will the precedent of national security powers for the government win the day?”
(This story has been updated to correct the list of banned countries to include Republic of the Congo.)
Few will be unaware of Donald Trump’s antipathy towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the US. In February 2025, Trump issued executive orders and policy directives aimed at eliminating DEI programmes and removing references to “gender ideology” from federal agencies.
For those of us who know DEI as equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), there is concern about the ripple effects of Trump’s measures on UK universities, for research as well as teaching and learning.
One of the immediate impacts of this manoeuvre was to remove essential LGBTQ+ content from federal websites. Terms such as “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “pregnant person” were all banned. Decades of HIV data, contraception guidelines, and research on racial health disparities were suddenly inaccessible. For US researchers in higher education, such staggeringly blatant anti-EDI policies have disrupted the passage of critical research focused on improving health outcomes for marginalised groups.
Such censorship – to our minds at least – thoroughly undermines scientific integrity, limiting the study of complex health and social issues. Our colleagues in the US are now forced to work within these constraints, which threaten accuracy and inclusivity. Indeed, the politicisation of scientific terminology arguably damages public trust in research and, in the US, diminishes the credibility of federal agencies.
Implications for LGBTQ+ researchers
Trump’s anti-EDI stance is a menace to any form of university research seeking to address inequalities and build inclusion for seldom heard population groups, and the effects of these decisions will have wide-reaching and intersectional repercussions.
As committee members of a university’s LGBTQ+ staff network, our focus is understandably on the impact for our colleagues working on LGBTQ+ issues. US-based researchers working on LGBTQ+ themes now face obstacles in securing funding and publishing their work. And this has a knock-on effect on wider LGBTQ+ population groups. The suppression of critical health information and the suspension of targeted research leaves LGBTQ+ communities bereft of vital support and resources.
More fundamentally, Trump’s policies send the signal that LGBTQ+ identities and needs are irrelevant from his agenda for US growth. It’s a quick step from this to the increase of social stigma and discrimination targeted at LGBTQ+ people. And this in turn worsens mental health and social marginalisation. To put it bluntly: the absence of LGBTQ+ representation in official communications sends a damaging message about the validity of these communities’ experiences.
Lessons for UK universities
To bring this back to the UK context then, a few things come to mind.
First, the UK has its own, depressingly recent, history of government-led suppression of LGBTQ+ communication, which we’d do well to remember. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools across England, Scotland, and Wales. Repealed in England and Wales in 2003, this act led to years of silence and marginalisation within educational settings.
Section 28 not only harmed students and staff at the time but also created a culture of fear and misinformation, curtailing inclusive teaching and research. To ensure the UK does not repeat such history, universities must prioritise legal advocacy and protection for all involved in higher education, to safeguard academic freedom and inclusivity. Being involved in the LGBTQ+ staff network as we are, we might also add that coalition building among universities, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and non-profits can also strengthen efforts to resist any potential policy shifts that might echo the restrictive measures of the past.
Second, Trump’s agenda also urges us to re-think our approach to US-UK research collaborations and student exchanges. There seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what the UK and US each consider to be worthy of research and funding.
Universities in the UK should assess how they foster links with other nations whose research agendas align more closely with UK priorities, to mitigate any potential funding losses. Moreover, UK universities should ideally review their reliance on external funding from the US to determine whether any existing projects might be impacted by shifts in US policy. Equally, with US suppression of data relating to LGBTQ+ issues impacting LGBTQ+ health and wellbeing, it’s vital that UK universities ensure that their research connected to LGBTQ+ issues is readily available.
Third, it seems crucial that UK universities futureproof their relationships with US students. The possibility of new limitations on exchange programmes, including restrictions on modules with extensive EDI content, could impact the accessibility of UK higher education for US students. Online programmes that currently enrol US students may also face scrutiny, raising concerns about whether course content is monitored or whether degrees will continue to be recognised in the US due to their inclusion of EDI principles.
Looking forward
UK universities have a pivotal role to play in responding to what’s happening in the US in relation to Trump’s anti-EDI stance.
We’ve focused particularly on the impacts of these political and policy shifts on LGBTQ+ research and culture in higher education. But they represent a more wholesale attack on initiatives seeking to safeguard the wellbeing of marginalised population groups. UK universities must continue to represent a safe space for education which upholds inclusivity, critical thinking, and academic integrity. This requires a strong coalition of organisations, advocacy groups, and academic institutions working together to resist the erosion of rights and the suppression of essential research.
Such a coalition of critically-minded parties seems all the more important given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which insisted on the binary nature of sex, which is determined by biology. As a result, this leaves trans women unable to avail themselves of the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act.
Universities, like other institutions, will need to review their policies accordingly and should do their utmost to continue to assert a safe and inclusive environment for trans people. But this decision, coming so soon after the Cass review, is also contributing to the anxiety and uncertainty experienced by LGBTQ+ people more broadly. With echoes between the US situation and recent UK developments, the direction of travel is concerning.
By standing together, we can safeguard the rights of all marginalised communities and ensure that the integrity of scientific research, human dignity, and social progress are protected.
