Tag: Education

Research Funding Starts to Flow Back to Columbia, Brown

Much of the money funds medical research, including time-sensitive clinical trials.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Wolterk/iStock/Getty Images | Alex Kent/Getty Images

Days after reaching deals with the Trump administration, Columbia and Brown Universities say the government has already initiated the process of restoring hundreds of millions in federal research dollars it terminated earlier this year in retaliation for their alleged failures to address antisemitism on campus.

Many of those grants came from the National Institutes of Health, which is overseen by the Department of Health and Human Services, and funded medical research, including time-sensitive clinical trials.

“The agreement finalized this week restored all National Institutes of Health grants to Brown researchers that had been terminated,” Brian Clark, a Brown spokesperson, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed Thursday evening. “We started to see that formalized in award letters today and expect in the coming days and weeks to see this across all of these grants.”

In April, the administration blocked $510 million in federal grants and contracts for Brown. But under the terms of the agreement the government and university finalized Wednesday, Clark said, “Any payments should resume within 30 days,” which applies to both “the restoration of specific grants that had been terminated, and also to active (non-terminated) grants for which Brown had not been reimbursed.”

If you had a grant frozen because of the Trump administration’s investigations, we want to hear about your experience and whether you’ve received your funding. Email [email protected] to share more.

The Brown deal came about a week after Columbia agreed to pay the government $221 million in addition to changing its admissions policies, disciplinary processes and academic programs in order to restore about $400 million in federal funding the administration canceled in March.

According to Columbia’s website, “Funding and reimbursement payments have already begun to flow.”

“One week later, more than half of the terminated grants have been restored, and we expect the others to be reinstated promptly,” the website says. “Renewals and continuations that were frozen are also coming in on non-terminated grants.”

The university wrote that it’s “reviewing all grants that were terminated or suspended over the last months to identify those that were specifically directed at Columbia” and expects “the fair treatment of Columbia grants and ability to compete to be honored by all federal agencies.”

The university noted that the agreement only applies to HHS and NIH grants that the administration canceled as part of its targeted pressure campaign on Columbia.

Faculty who asked to remain anonymous told Inside Higher Ed that either the university or NIH has told them that some grants are being reinstated or renewed. But it was unclear to them whether actual dollars have resumed flowing, and how many.

Since Trump took office in January, numerous federal agencies, including the NIH, the National Science Foundation and Education Department, have terminated thousands of other research grants at institutions across the country that don’t align with their ideological priorities. In particular, many grants that focused on transgender health, vaccine hesitancy, climate change and racial disparities have been canceled.

Columbia researchers whose grants were terminated as part of that sweep should not expect to see their funding restored as part of this deal, the university wrote on its website.

“Some of these grants were terminated or suspended across the board for all institutions, and have nothing specific to do with Columbia,” the webpage said. “To the extent that the federal government has made the decision not to fund certain types of projects at any institution, those grants will not be coming back to Columbia.”

Columbia and Brown are just two of numerous Ivy League Institutions that the Trump administration has targeted by threatening federal funding.

The administration was also holding up $175 million at the University of Pennsylvania in retaliation for the university allowing a transgender athlete to compete on its swim team. Last month, the university reached a deal with the government, which has said it will restore the funding.

The administration is also blocking $2.2 billion at Harvard University, $202 million at Princeton University and $1 billion at Cornell University. However, those institutions have yet to reach agreements with the government that could result in restoration of their federal funding.

So far, the administration has frozen nearly $5.9 billion across eight universities, including Brown, Columbia and Penn. Most of the funding freezes started in March, but in the last week, the administration resumed blocking funds at institutions under investigation. First, it put about $108 million on hold at Duke University, and then officials suspended an unspecified number of grants at the University of California, Los Angeles.

Ryan Quinn contributed to this report.

Source link

August 1, 2025
GMU President Keeps Job Amid Tensions

Embattled George Mason University president Gregory Washington remains on the job despite concerns that GMU’s Board of Visitors would fire him amid multiple federal investigations into alleged racial discrimination, antisemitism and other matters, which he has publicly pushed back on.

GMU’s Board of Visitors met Friday to review Washington’s performance and to consult with legal counsel on “actual or probable litigation,” according to the board agenda. While specific legal matters were not detailed in the agenda, GMU is facing investigations from both the U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Justice over alleged discrimination in hiring practices and antisemitism. The DOJ also launched a highly unusual investigation into GMU’s Faculty Senate after it approved a resolution in support of Washington’s leadership.

The Trump administration seized on remarks made by Washington following the 2020 murder of George Floyd. Washington, as noted in a letter from the DOJ to the university, expressed the need to hire diverse faculty members, promised to advance an antiracist agenda and threw his support behind GMU’s diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Washington denied engaging in what the Trump administration labeled “illegal DEI” efforts.

On Friday, he defended both GMU and his own performance, noting he arrived on campus in 2020 when tensions were high and racial strife was still simmering over Floyd’s murder. Adding to the pressure, students, faculty members and others demanded he tear down a statue of university founder George Mason, who was a slave owner.

“Despite the commentary that you might hear, this institution is doing extraordinarily well,” Washington told board members on Friday in the open session portion of the meeting, during which he touted GMU’s rise in various university rankings as well as an increase in state funding.

But many community members feared that Washington, GMU’s first Black president, would lose this job as a result of the investigations. They worried that the inquiries give the Board of Visitors—which is stocked with conservative political activists and former GOP officials—the pretext to remove him. Multiple speakers and attendees at a Friday rally held in support of Washington pointed to other campus leaders recently pushed out. That includes Jim Ryan at the University of Virginia, who resigned under pressure from the DOJ over DEI programs, and Cedric Wins, superintendent of Virginia Military Institute, whose contract was not renewed this spring amid alumni complaints about DEI. One rally organizer had referred to the Friday meeting as “high noon at the OK Corral.”

Instead, after roughly three hours in closed session, the board emerged with one action item: approval of a 1.5 percent raise for Washington, which members unanimously signed off on. Board members did not discuss their review of his performance conducted behind closed doors.

That means despite faculty concerns Washington will keep his job—at least for now.

Support for Washington

As faculty, students and local lawmakers gathered Friday, they had a clear message for the Board of Visitors: Support Washington and push back on federal investigations they deemed both illegitimate and a broadside against academic freedom at GMU. They also called on the board to protect DEI at GMU, which is Virginia’s most diverse university. However, the board defied that demand by passing a resolution Friday to end race-conscious hiring, scholarships, graduation ceremonies and other initiatives.

While Washington’s fate was unknown during the rally, speakers urged attendees to push on.

“We’ve got to keep fighting. No matter what happens today, this is still our university,” said Bethany Letiecq, chair of GMU’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors. Letiecq also referenced personal safety concerns, arguing, “Faculty are being harassed and threatened.” (She previously told Inside Higher Ed she has been subject to two death threats.)

Bethany Letiecq was one of several speakers to voice support for GMU president Gregory Washington at a Friday rally.

Former Board of Visitors member Bob Witeck, who served on the search committee that hired Washington in 2020, said he “could not believe our luck” in selecting the president from a pool of nearly 200 candidates and praised his “character, intellect and honesty.” Witeck also warned about threats to both academic freedom and the inclusive nature of GMU, stating, “Discrimination cannot find a home here, nor should political interference or baseless investigations.”

Another speaker was supportive of Washington while also critical.

Ellie Fox, a GMU student and president of its Jewish Voices for Peace chapter, was critical of Washington for allegedly repressing “pro-Palestinian speech in the name of Jewish safety.” Fox added that he was “reluctant to resist Trump and conservatives and their attack” on GMU but urged Washington to defy calls to resign from his position and work “toward a better future.”

Other rally speakers included Fairfax mayor Catherine Read and State Senator Saddam Salim, both GMU graduates and Democrats, who threw their support behind the university and Washington and expressed concerns about the investigations and other attacks on higher education.

Board-Faculty Tensions

Although the board did not make any public announcement about the items they discussed in closed session, beyond approving a raise for Washington, an exchange between one member and a GMU professor highlighted the tensions at play.

Robert Pence, a former ambassador to Finland appointed during President Donald Trump’s first term, took issue with a faculty member’s protest sign when he encountered her in a hallway outside the board’s meeting room during a break. Tehama Lopez, a professor in the Jimmy and Rosalynn Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution, held a sign calling on the board to support Washington and uphold the First Amendment, academic freedom and due process.

“You’re suggesting that Bob Pence—Robert Pence—does not support the First Amendment,” he told Lopez before shifting his attention to her call for board members to support Washington.

Pence then asked Lopez, “If you got a lot of facts and you became convinced that he was engaged in conduct that is deleterious to the university, would you then fire [Washington]? If he meets the standard—whatever the standard is for discharge—would you be willing to fire him?”

Lopez responded, “Who is being deleterious to the university?” Pence fired back, “You won’t answer the question” and “I’m not playing that game” before walking away from the exchange to return to the meeting.

Board member Robert Pence clashed with a faculty member outside of Friday’s meeting.

In a brief interview following that conversation, Lopez said that she wanted to see the board uphold its fiduciary duties as GMU faces multiple investigations, which she called “politically motivated.” Given the stakes, she wants to make sure the Board of Visitors protects the university rather than enacting a political agenda pushed by the Trump administration.

But Lopez appeared uncertain of which path the board will take.

“Their job on the Board of Visitors is to do the work of protecting the school and the school’s interest, and it’s very unclear whose bidding they’re doing,” Lopez said.

Source link

August 1, 2025
Higher Education Inquirer Surpasses 1 Million Views, Including More Than 200,000 in July 2025

The Higher Education Inquirer has reached a major milestone: more than 1 million total views since its founding, with over 200,000 views in July 2025 alone—a record-breaking month for the independent investigative site. This surge in readership reflects growing public concern with the state of U.S. higher education, especially at a time of increasing economic precarity, political unrest, and institutional dysfunction.

As corporate media outlets continue to downsize or ignore coverage of student debt, credential inflation, predatory schools, and the exploitation of academic labor, readers are seeking more critical, independent voices. HEI, which has long focused on underreported stories within the higher education-industrial complex, is becoming a go-to resource for policymakers, whistleblowers, journalists, and everyday people trying to make sense of the education economy.

Most Viewed Stories in July 2025

A few standout articles reveal key themes that are resonating with readers:

1. “Camp Mystic: A Century of Privilege, Exclusion, and Resilience Along the Guadalupe”

Views: 8,730

This deeply researched piece on the elite girls’ camp in Texas struck a nerve with readers interested in the intersection of inherited wealth, segregation, and performative philanthropy. Camp Mystic serves as a metaphor for the parallel institutions that shape American leadership in quiet, exclusive ways—far from public scrutiny.

Trend: Growing interest in how generational wealth and private networks perpetuate elite power and influence, especially through educational institutions.

2. “The Big Beautiful Bill”: A Catastrophic Blow to College Affordability

Views: 1,290

This analysis of new legislation affecting federal student aid programs explores how a bill dressed in populist language has real consequences for working-class and middle-income families. Readers responded to its dissection of policy doublespeak and the structural defunding of public education.

Trend: Rising awareness of how both major political parties contribute to the erosion of affordable education—often under misleading rhetoric.

3. “Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run”

Views: 956

A pointed critique of University of Michigan President Santa Ono’s high salary and revolving-door administrative career drew in readers frustrated by bloated leadership pay and lack of institutional accountability.

Trend: Increased public scrutiny of university presidents and boards of trustees, especially at elite institutions.

4. “List of Schools with Strong Indicators of Misconduct, Evidence for Borrower Defense Claims”

Views: 943

This database-style article provided a valuable resource for former students, journalists, and attorneys. By documenting schools with troubling records, it supported those filing Borrower Defense to Repayment claims and highlighted the ongoing fallout from the for-profit college boom.

Trend: Continued demand for actionable consumer information amid the Biden Administration’s limited and politically fraught debt relief efforts.

5. “Degrees of Discontent: Credentialism, Inflation, and the Global Education Crisis”

Views: 900

This global take on the failures of credential-driven economies resonated with a wide audience—from jobseekers with degrees they can’t use to educators struggling to make sense of shifting academic value.

Trend: A philosophical and economic reckoning with credentialism, especially as degrees lose value while tuition and debt skyrocket.

6. “Layoffs at Southern New Hampshire University”

Views: 826

Coverage of SNHU, a major player in online education, shed light on the darker side of “innovation”: layoffs, overwork, and instability for faculty and staff.

Trend: Growing doubts about the long-term sustainability and labor ethics of the online education model.

7. “Universities Brace for Endowment Tax Hike, Rethink Investment Strategies”

Views: 687

A timely piece on elite university endowments caught the eye of readers interested in how wealth hoarding and financial engineering are baked into modern academia.

Trend: Rising critiques of nonprofit tax loopholes and the financialization of higher ed.

8. “Liberty University in Black and White”

Views: 684

This critical examination of Liberty University’s public image, internal contradictions, and links to right-wing political power explored how Christian nationalist ideology operates through higher education.

Trend: High interest in the political roles of conservative religious institutions and their ties to the culture wars.

9. “Corruption, Fraud and Scandal at Los Angeles Community College District (LACCD Whistleblower)”

Views: 615

A whistleblower-centered article on LACCD corruption revealed widespread misuse of funds and institutional cover-ups, especially in facilities projects.

Trend: Rising demand for investigative journalism focused on local corruption in publicly funded institutions.

10. “Agency Information Collection Activities…Borrower Defense to Loan Repayment Universal Forms”

Views: Not Yet Indexed

While bureaucratic in title, this article was shared among policy experts and debt activists for its breakdown of how regulations—and public comment periods—impact real people trying to discharge fraudulent debt.

Trend: Readers are becoming more engaged in regulatory policy and more skeptical of federal agencies’ ability or willingness to protect consumers.

What Readers Want

What these stories show is a distinct pattern: readers want more accountability, more transparency, and less propaganda from the education system that has long promised prosperity and delivered precarity. They’re fed up with bloated administrative salaries, empty credentials, elite hypocrisy, and legislative betrayal.

Thanks to grassroots support and collaborations with students, whistleblowers, and journalists, the Higher Education Inquirer continues to grow in both reach and relevance.

As we pass 1 million views, we’re not just marking clicks—we’re tracking the pulse of a system in crisis. And we’re not done yet.

Source link

August 1, 2025
Mass. Governor Proposes $400M in State Funding for Research

Massachusetts governor Maura Healey introduced legislation Thursday that would provide $400 million in state funding for research and development, including projects conducted by colleges and universities, The Boston Globe reported. The move appears to be an attempt to alleviate some of the pain caused by the Trump administration’s drastic federal funding cuts to higher ed institutions.

Introducing the legislation at the State House yesterday, Healey cited Massachusetts’ prowess as a research leader, noting that it has the highest percentage of STEM graduates and hosts 10 percent of all research and development jobs in the country. It is also home to Harvard University, which has had roughly $2.6 billion in funding frozen by the Trump administration.

“In the face of uncertainty from the federal government, this is about protecting one of the things that makes Massachusetts so special—our global leadership in health care and helping families across the world,” Healey said in a statement.

The plan calls for $200 million to be appropriated for research at hospitals, universities and independent research groups; the other $200 million will support the state’s public colleges and universities in covering the direct and indirect costs of research and partnerships, as well as hiring personnel. The funds must be approved by the Legislature.

Higher ed leaders applauded the move.

“University research fosters the creation of new knowledge, drives regional economies, and is vital to prepare the next generation of innovators,” said Northeastern University president Joseph Aoun in a statement. “I commend Governor Healey and her team for their commitment to ensuring Massachusetts remains a global leader in cutting-edge research.”

“In moments of uncertainty, it is essential that we protect the integrity of Massachusetts’ renowned biomedical research ecosystem, which contributes immensely to our nation’s research enterprise,” said Michael Collins, chancellor of the UMass Chan Medical School. “We are profoundly grateful to Governor Healey and her administration for their leadership in recognizing the urgent need to support research and innovation in the commonwealth, and we look forward to working with the Legislature to assure passage of this timely initiative.”

Source link

August 1, 2025
Why Universities Must Not Capitulate to the Trump Regime

The $221 million settlement with the Trump administration by Columbia University (and a similar $50 million deal by Brown University) represent a terrible capitulation by these campus leaders. AAUP president Todd Wolfson called the settlement “a disaster for Columbia students, faculty, and staff, as well as for academic freedom, freedom of speech, and the independence of colleges and universities nationwide. Never in the history of our nation has an educational institution so thoroughly bent to the will of an autocrat.”

Columbia and Brown had slam-dunk legal cases against the Trump administration, which clearly violated the processes required under Title VI when they suspended funding. (Brown was never notified of any reasons for the funding to be cut off, and there wasn’t even the pretense of a finding of antisemitic discrimination.) By making a settlement, universities give up their legal rights to challenge this repression, agree to impose massive censorship and pay a huge sum for the privilege of sacrificing their values.

It’s possible that the leaders of Columbia and Brown made this agreement because they concluded that Trump is a pathological liar, a petty dictator, a petulant lawbreaker intent on taking revenge against any perceived enemy and a president who will simply ignore any adverse judicial rulings. That analysis is accurate. But if you think Trump will ignore the law and violate any rules, then trusting his regime to obey a legal settlement is just as crazy.

The settlements include a bizarre amount of federal micromanagement of private universities, requiring Brown to provide single-sex floors in student housing, ban admissions decisions using personal statements that mention race and conduct a survey about antisemitism by the end of the year and take “appropriate action” in response. Even the smallest violation of the numerous requirements could be used to justify a future cutoff in federal funds.

The same officials who made ludicrous accusations of antisemitic discrimination to punish these universities will get to decide if the colleges are violating the agreement and deserve to be punished. While the agreements settle the old baseless charges, nothing prevents new baseless charges from being filed and leading to the same illegal funding cuts. Colleges that settle with the Trump administration have no guarantee of safety from further retaliation, and Trump officials will actually use these settlements to demand a tighter reign of censorship.

The New York Times reported about those praising the Columbia agreement, “Many have focused on a provision that said no part of the settlement ‘shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate faculty hiring, university hiring, admissions decisions or the content of academic speech.’” Far from being a positive protection for intellectual liberty, this language is actually a terrible threat to free expression on campus.

By only protecting academic speech, this provision leaves the door wide open for government-imposed repression. Most expression on college campuses is not academic speech. The extramural utterances of faculty, along with virtually all student speech, is not academic speech and therefore is open to any suppression by the government under this agreement. But protecting extramural utterances is an essential part of academic freedom and has been a fundamental aspect of its definition since the AAUP’s 1915 Declaration of Principles.

While the provision says that the government can’t “dictate faculty hiring,” there’s nothing about dictating faculty firings. By solely protecting hiring decisions, Columbia leaves the door wide-open for purging faculty, staff and students who are deemed undesirable by the Trump administration.

In an email to the campus, Brown president Christina H. Paxson wrote that the first key aspect of the settlement was that “no provision of this Agreement, individually or taken together, shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate Brown’s curriculum or the content of academic speech.” (Brown apparently didn’t bother to follow Columbia and get a ban on federal control over its hiring decisions, which is an alarming omission.)

Some people might think that paying $221 million to get $400 million in research grants is a good bargain. Federal grants aren’t free money for colleges. All of the funding goes to research expenses. Now that the Trump administration has arbitrarily lowered the indirect cost rate to 15 percent, government-sponsored research is much less profitable for colleges—and possibly an expense they must subsidize. Certainly, Columbia will be losing money by paying $221 million to get access to $400 million in grants.

Paramount bribed Donald Trump a mere $16 million (and purged a few critics) in order to get approved an $8 billion merger that can’t be undone. As terrible as Paramount’s submission to Trump was, Columbia purged far more students and spent 13 times as much to get a deal worth 1/20th the value that increases ongoing federal control over Columbia. Paramount and Columbia executives may share a moral gutter, but at least Paramount’s bribe made financial sense.

Worse yet, by making a settlement, Columbia loses that $221 million forever, with no opportunity to prevail in court and receive the full funding their researchers are entitled to. By agreeing to obey the government, Columbia hurts its legal options to challenge future funding cutoffs, because the government can claim that Columbia failed to live up to the terms of the settlement. If the courts rule against the Trump administration’s illegal actions, Columbia and Brown will still be forced to pay these millions, impose repressive censorship and face retaliation without legal recourse.

The Columbia capitulation sets a precedent for Harvard to pay an even bigger settlement, estimated at up to $500 million. Unfortunately, hapless apologists for repression such as former Harvard president Larry Summers are urging Harvard to follow Columbia’s model, and Summers praised the Columbia capitulation as “the best day higher education has had in the last year.” Summers claimed, “The prestige of the university is not to be arrogated by faculty members in support of any set of political convictions, particularly those in leadership positions of academic units.”

Let me translate this: Professors should not be allowed to express political views. For believers in censorship such as Summers, the desire to suppress academic freedom finds a convenient partner in the Trump administration.

Universities are making these deals with the Trump regime not in spite of the requirements for censorship, but because of those restrictions. The provisions in these settlements enhance administrative power to suppress dissent, and that’s precisely what makes them so appealing to some campus administrators.

Columbia and other colleges are trapped in a no-win situation, but even difficult moral dilemmas have wrong answers, and that’s what Columbia’s leadership has chosen. Let’s hope Harvard is not the next lemming to throw itself over the cliff and sacrifice its core values, its donor money and its common sense in the vain hope that fawning obedience and bribery can satisfy the vengeance of a mad leader.

Source link

August 1, 2025
National Science Foundation Suspends Grants at UCLA

The Justice Department this week accused UCLA of failing to protect its Jewish students.

Frederic J. Brown/AFP via Getty Images

(This article has been updated with comment from UCLA.)

The National Science Foundation said Thursday that it’s suspending grant awards at the University of California, Los Angeles.

An NSF spokesperson said that the university’s awards “are not in alignment with current NSF priorities and/or programmatic goals,” though they didn’t offer more specifics. NSF changed its priorities in April and, as a result, cut off funding to programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion and those aimed at combating misinformation

Freelance journalist Dan Garisto wrote on BlueSky that nearly 300 grants at UCLA are now suspended. That includes a $25 million grant that supports the university’s Institute for Pure and Applied Mathematics. (In 2022, UCLA had about 450 grants from the NSF, totaling more than $350 million.)

UCLA chancellor Julio Frenk wrote in a letter to the campus community that the freeze extended beyond NSF to include grants from the National Institutes of Health and other federal agencies.

“This is not only a loss to the researchers who rely on critical grants,” Frenk wrote. “It is a loss for Americans across the nation whose work, health, and future depend on the groundbreaking work we do.”

Frenk noted that UCLA was prepared for a grant freeze and has developed contingency plans. “We will do everything we can to protect the interests of faculty, students and staff—and to defend our values and principles,” he pledged.

The Associated Press reported that the freeze affected $339 million in federal grants.

The grant suspension comes as UCLA finds itself the Trump administration’s latest target in its growing war with higher education. Earlier this week, the university settled a lawsuit in which a group of Jewish students alleged that UCLA enabled pro-Palestinian activists to cut off Jewish students’ access to parts of campus. On the same day the settlement was announced, the Justice Department accused UCLA of violating the federal civil rights law that bars antisemitism and race-based discrimination.

Frenk said the government claimed “antisemitism and bias as the reasons” for the freeze. But he argued that Trump’s “far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination.”

He added that UCLA shares the goal of eradicating antisemitism, detailing the steps the university has taken in the last year to address the issue, including establishing new policies for campus protests.

UCLA has until Aug. 5 to respond to the DOJ’s notice of violation; DOJ officials threatened that the university would “pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk.” The Justice Department is also investigating the admissions practices at UCLA, but that inquiry hasn’t wrapped up yet.

Source link

August 1, 2025
Senate Appropriators Reject Trump’s Education Dept. Cuts

Senate Republicans are planning to protect the Pell Grant program, keeping the maximum grant award at $7,395 for the coming academic year, despite the Trump administration’s proposal to lower it to $5,710.

The rejection of Pell Grant cuts at a key committee markup Thursday is just the latest rebuke from congressional appropriators as lawmakers in both chambers have appeared wary of President Trump’s plans to shutter offices, gut programs and generally reshape the federal government.

In addition to protecting $22.5 billion for Pell, the GOP also spared TRIO, campus childcare subsidies and numerous other programs that Trump had proposed zeroing out. It also set new staffing standards for the recently gutted Department of Education, increased funding for medical research by $400 million and rejected the National Institutes of Health’s attempt to cap indirect research cost reimbursements at 15 percent. The legislation also restricts other efforts at NIH to change how grants are awarded, though Democrats say “more needs to be done to protect NIH research programs.”

Over all, the Department of Education is going to receive $79 billion and the NIH will get $48.7 billion. In comparison, Trump had requested $66.7 billion for ED and $27.5 billion for NIH.

Committee chair Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, said she was proud of the legislation that advanced Thursday, calling it a bipartisan effort to fund the health and education of American families. She noted that “the appropriations process is the key way that Congress carries out its constitutional responsibility for the power of the purse.”

But Democrats, while overall supportive, noted that they’ve had to make a number of compromises already and warned that Trump could still attempt to make unilateral changes moving forward.

“These are not the bills I would have written on my own, but nonetheless they represent serious bipartisan work to make some truly critical investments in our country and families’ future,” said Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington Democrat and ranking member of the committee. Still, she added, this is only half the battle. “The fact of the matter is we have an administration right now that is intent on ignoring Congress, breaking the law and doing everything it can without transparency to dismantle programs and agencies.”

The Trump administration has repeatedly frozen or cut grant funding, largely declining to spend money that Congress appropriated—moves that Murray and others have decried as illegal. More recently, the administration waited weeks before sending critical funding to states that supports after-school programs, migrant education and adult education. About $7 billion was affected, and colleges had to scramble to find a way to fill the funding gaps before Trump’s Office of Management and Budget finally released the money last week. Meanwhile, colleges are still waiting for the Education Department to open up grant applications for millions in funds.

At NIH, grant cancellations and other changes have slowed the flow of research funding to colleges. Earlier this week the administration briefly paused all new grant awards, infuriating congressional Democrats. Over all, since Trump took office, the biomedical research agency has cut more than 4,000 grants at 600 institutions totaling somewhere between $6.9 billion and $8.2 billion.

Beyond the grant cuts, the Trump administration recently clawed back money that had been allocated to public broadcasting, using a legislative process called rescission. The president is expected to propose a second rescission package in the months to come, this time targeting education dollars. Democrats have warned that using rescissions to change the budget could endanger talks on fiscal year 2026 spending.

So while higher ed lobbyists typically look to the Senate’s spending plan as the framework for what to expect in the final bill, Trump’s willingness to test the limits of executive power complicates the picture.

Still, the Senate’s proposals for the NIH as well as the Education Department, which funds a number of programs at the previous year’s level, is a victory for advocates who spent months warning that Trump’s budget cuts would be devastating for students and research.

“We are not surprised by what we’ve seen. The Senate often works more bipartisanly together, and that was reflected in the markup today,” said Emmanual Guillory, senior director of government relations at the American Council on Education. “In this political environment, flat funding is a win. It’s not ideal, but it is us being mindful of the current realities that we’re in and the financial constraints that we’re in, especially with the upcoming rescissions package that’s supposed to include education.”

That said, Guillory noted that he’s bracing for deeper cuts from the House, which has yet to release its education and health spending proposals.

“I could see the House having a bit more influence [than most years past], as they have had more influence so far this Congress,” he said.

Seeking Guardrails

Democrats did try to amend the bill in order to establish guardrails that would retroactively address Trump’s funding cuts and protect the fiscal year 2026 appropriations from a similar ambush.

Sen. Dick Durbin, an Illinois Democrat, proposed reinstating all college grants frozen or retracted since Jan. 28, with the exception of those pulled due to financial malfeasance. He highlighted how, in Chicago, the cuts have halted infant heart defect research and then ran through a lengthy list of other medical projects affected in other senators’ districts.

“This could happen to any of your states’ research centers. It could hurt any of your families,” he argued.

Later, Sen. Chris Murphy of Connecticut, one of the few Democrats who did not support the bill, sought an inspector general report into whether the Department of Education’s civil rights office is properly following statutes when investigating discrimination complaints and issuing discipline.

The Department of Education’s OCR, along with other agencies, has launched dozens of investigations into alleged civil rights violations at colleges and universities. Those inquiries haven’t followed the required statutory procedures, but colleges have lost funding and faced other consequences.

Murphy proposed withholding OCR funding until the appropriations committee received the IG’s report.

“My worry is simply that the president is going to ignore the will of Congress that is present in this legislation,” he said. “If this does become normalized—if the president of the United States gets to deny funds to universities because they don’t like political viewpoints of the student body or of the faculty—that is a Pandora’s box that is hard to ever again close.”

Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, the West Virginia Republican who leads the education and health subcommittee, shot down both proposals, calling Murphy’s amendment “contrary to the point of the [OCR] office” and Durbin’s “too broad.”

“I think every administration has the prerogative to implement new goals and priorities,” she said.

Source link

August 1, 2025
Higher Ed Lobbying Spending Rises

Facing a proposal by congressional Republicans to significantly raise the endowment tax and other major changes for the sector, colleges spent millions of dollars on lobbying efforts in the second quarter of 2025.

An Inside Higher Ed analysis of federal lobbying spending by members of the Association of American Universities and other select institutions showed a slight uptick in spending over the first quarter of 2025. AAU members alone spent about $9 million in the first quarter of 2025, which dramatically outpaced the same time frame in 2024.

That number rose even more in the second quarter: Federal data shows AAU members spent more than $9.7 million on lobbying—and that’s without the multiple institutions that failed to report their numbers by a July 21 deadline, making the total likely higher. Emory University spent the most among AAU members, totaling $500,000. Among non-AAU members, the University of Phoenix spent the most, at $480,000.

Here’s a look at how much universities spent on federal lobbying in the second quarter of 2025, and what issues they focused on between April 1 and June 30, as reported in required disclosures.

Lobbying Expenditures

Some institutions maintained spending levels similar to the first quarter, while others significantly increased lobbying expenditures. Emory, for example, spent $170,000 in the first quarter of 2025. But in the second quarter it increased that spending by $330,000 as lobbyists pressed Congress on cuts to federal research and public health funding, Senate disclosure reports show. Compared to data from prior years, this is the most Emory has spent on lobbying in one quarter.

(Emory did not respond to a request for comment.)

Emory was one of a few institutions that cracked the top 10 in terms of spending while also having the highest percentage increase in lobbying expenditures, at nearly 200 percent. Others that heavily ratcheted up lobbying efforts include Cornell University, which went from $230,000 to $444,000 over one quarter; the University of Washington, which jumped from $250,000 to $440,000; and Johns Hopkins University, which boosted lobbying from $170,00 to $380,000 between quarters.

Only the University of Washington provided a statement to Inside Higher Ed on lobbying expenses, with spokesperson Victor Balta writing, “In light of a changing federal policy environment, we want to make sure that we are well represented so that we can continue to serve the American people through our teaching and research. Additionally, some expenses from our associations in these areas have gone up or are charged in Q2 for the full year.”

All four institutions—along with many others—brought concerns about federal research funding to Congress, according to lobbying disclosure forms. Other key concerns for the sector included legislation that would likely limit international student enrollment and federal student aid.

Some institutions dialed back their lobbying expenditures in the second quarter.

Northwestern University spent the most on lobbying among single-institution AAU members in the first quarter of 2025 (excluding the University of California, which lobbies as a system)—$607,000. That declined to $306,000 for the second quarter, a figure that remains in the top 10 among AAU member institutions despite falling by nearly half.

Lobbying Wins and Losses

Higher education lobbyists seemed to score at least a few wins with their congressional efforts.

Liz Clark, vice president for policy and research at the National Association of College and University Business Officers, noted at NACUBO’s annual conference this week that recent federal legislation could have imposed far-reaching and costly changes for higher education.

The One Big Beautiful Bill Act, as President Donald Trump deemed it, capped some student loan programs and eliminated the Grad PLUS program, limited repayment options, and mandated that programs pass an earnings test for attendees to be able to access federal student loans. The federal legislation also tweaked the endowment excise tax, among other changes for the sector.

But Clark noted that a leaked memo from January, well before the bill was passed in July, showed congressional Republicans considered changes that would have gone further, including imposing taxes on scholarships, dramatically increasing the endowment tax and cutting certain tax credits.

“In that memo, it was very clear that higher education was on the menu,” Clark said.

However, those changes never materialized as proposed. The Senate walked back House plans to significantly raise the endowment tax and extend it to far more institutions, opting for a softer blow, capping it at a maximum of 8 percent instead of the proposed 21 percent. Clark told NACUBO attendees that “what was not in the bill” was a win for the sector.

Thad Inge, vice president at the lobbying firm Van Scoyoc Associates, told NACUBO attendees Monday that the leaked memo was “a real wake-up call” that “activated a lot of advocacy.”

Inge argued that many of the proposals in the memo would have been harmful for the sector and that while higher education can absorb some hits, altogether it presented “an existential threat.” He credited individual institutions with making a personalized push to get through to Congress.

“It’s easy to demonize Harvard and Yale and Columbia and say higher education is woke,” Inge said. “But when folks hear from schools in their state, schools in their district, they don’t paint with such a broad brush. I think those cultural battles will continue, but the more we as advocates bring it back home—not that we’re not fighting on behalf of all of higher education—but I think making it more personal to the state and the district makes it easier to win those battles.”

Sector lobbyists weren’t quite as successful in other areas.

Multiple universities have lobbied to maintain research funding as the Trump administration yanked federal grants and contracts, often with little to no warning or explanation. So far, the federal government has been impervious to their efforts. Similarly, many institutions advocated for the continuance of the Grad PLUS program, which was axed by Congress in July.

Some colleges also encouraged Congress to push back on policies that could harm international enrollment and cause visa processing delays or denials—such as vetting social media posts for criticism of the U.S. government and culture—which the State Department continues to do.

Source link

August 1, 2025
UL Lafayette President Retires Suddenly

University of Louisiana at Lafayette president Joseph Savoie is retiring suddenly after 17 years in the top job at the public research institution, The Louisiana Illuminator reported.

His retirement, announced Wednesday, is effective today.

Savoie, who earned both undergraduate and graduate degrees from UL Lafayette, served in multiple administrative roles at the university from 1978 to 1996, when he stepped down to serve as Louisiana’s commissioner of higher education. Savoie returned as president in 2008.

Altogether, Savoie spent more than 35 years at UL Lafayette.

“I reached the decision to transition to this new position after months of careful consideration,” Savoie said in a university news release about his retirement. “Higher education has changed immensely in the past two decades. The expectations on colleges and universities are as great as they have ever been and meeting those responsibilities to our community today—and to generations that follow—requires new ideas and fresh approaches. I owe it to this institution that has given me so much, personally and professionally, to make way for the future.”

Savoie will become emeritus president and ULL provost Jaimie Hebert will serve as interim leader while the University of Louisiana system Board of Supervisors seeks a permanent hire.

While Savoie is credited with various accomplishments, including overseeing Lafayette’s rise to R-1 status in the Carnegie Classifications of Institutions, the university has also faced criticism from board members and state officials over inadequate financial controls in two consecutive audits.

Savoie is the second public university leader in Louisiana to step down abruptly in recent weeks. Southern University New Orleans chancellor James Ammons announced that he was departing last month and has already been replaced by Democratic lawmaker Joe Bouie, who held the job from 2000 to 2002 before he was fired over what he said was a political matter.

Elsewhere in the state, Louisiana State University president William F. Tate IV also stepped down in June after he was hired to lead Rutgers University.

Source link

August 1, 2025
Universities Meet Just a Fraction of Demand for AI Training

Interest in artificial intelligence training is soaring, but only a fraction of the demand is being met by higher education, according to a new report.

Nearly 57 million people in the U.S. are interested in learning AI-based skills—with about 8.7 million currently learning, the higher education marketing and research firm Validated Insights estimates.

Two-thirds of them are doing so independently through videos, online reading and other learning resources, and a third are doing so via a structured and supervised learning program. However, just 7,000 (0.2 percent) are learning AI via a credit-bearing program from a higher education institution.

This is despite enrollment in AI courses growing quickly in recent years. According to the report, the first bachelor’s degree in the subject was launched by Carnegie Mellon University in 2018.

Over the next five years, enrollment in AI programs at colleges and universities grew 45 percent annually. The report found that approximately 1 percent of institutions now offer a master’s degree in AI, 2.5 percent a bachelor’s degree and 3 to 5 percent offer a nondegree program.

SUNY’s University at Buffalo saw enrollment in its master’s degree in AI grow over 20 times from 2020 to 2024, from five to 103 students.

“Based on the data, there was sizable existing interest and demand for professional and workplace education and training in AI and AI-related areas, but we probably haven’t seen anything yet,” said Brady Colby, head of market research at Validated Insights.

“According to survey data and hiring trends, this market, the AI education and training market, is positioned for incredible, maybe explosive, growth.”

Validated Insights said ed-tech companies have seized the opportunity and are serving more than 99 percent of those looking to upskill in AI. Just 14 months after the launch of ChatGPT, enrollment in generative AI courses on platforms like Coursera and Udemy had grown to 3.5 million.

“Given the expected very high demand for learning AI, that so few existing learners are in credit programs is an important thing to know,” said Colby.

“It’s not necessarily a warning for colleges and universities as it may be a blast of opportunity. If for-credit, degree-granting institutions can sync their programs and reach this massive pool of interested students, the rewards could be excessive—for the students and schools alike.”

Estimates published by Statista suggest that the aggregate market for AI in the U.S. in 2025 is worth $74 billion.

Source link

August 1, 2025