This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
George Mason University’s governing board said late last week that it wants to negotiate with the Trump administration to resolve allegations that it violated civil rights law.
In late August, the U.S. Department of Education alleged that George Mason has illegally used race and other protected characteristics in hiring and promotions, a conclusion reached just six weeks after the agency announced a probe into the university.
An attorney for university President Gregory Washington, who is at the center of the probe, hasrepudiated the agency’s allegations, describing them as “a legal fiction.” Washington’s attorney will also be involved in talks with the Education Department, according to the board’s statement.
Dive Insight:
Over a period of weeks this summer, the Trump administration ramped up pressure on George Mason. The departments of Education and Justiceopened at least four probes between them into the university, often citing comment from Washington in support of diversity initiatives.
Washington’s attorney, Douglas Gansler, took the Education Department to task for how quickly it determined George Mason violated the law.
“It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and ‘findings’ have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process, including only two interviews with university academic deans,” Gansler wrote.
The attorney also described some of the evidence cited by the Education Department as “gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington” that didn’t lead to policy changes.
For example, when the Education Department concluded that George Mason violated civil rights law, it linked to a statement Washington made in 2021 in support of having faculty reflect the diversity of the student body and broader community. The department took the statement as expressing “support for racial preferencing” in hiring.
But, as Gansler highlighted, Washington specifically said in the statement that the diversity principles he was promoting were “not code for establishing a quota system.”
Gansler also warned the university’s board against requiring Washington to apologize, which was among the demands made by the Education Department. The lawyer pointed out that such an apology could open the university up to liability.
Through all of this, George Mason’s board of visitors — headed by Charles Stimson, who holds leadership positions at The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank — has been relatively quiet.
To represent it in dealings with the Trump administration, the board hired Torridon Law, which was co-founded by William Barr,formerly U.S. attorney general during the first Trump administration. The firm also has several prominent Republican lawyers on staff.
In July, the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors voted no confidence in the board and called its response to the Trump administration’s actions to that point “inadequate and deeply troubling.”
And yet, in August — at a meeting that the AAUP chapter warned could set the stage for Washington’s ouster — George Mason’sboard voted to give the leader a raise.
Since then, Democrat members of a Virginia Senate committee have blocked six appointeesto George Mason’s board picked by the state’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. The move has left the board of visitors without a quorum for conducting official business.
In announcing plans to negotiate with the Education Department, the board said Friday that it “remains committed to ensuring that George Mason complies with all federal civil rights law and remains hopeful that a favorable resolution can be reached.”
George Mason is just the latest in an expanding set of colleges targeted by the Trump administration over allegations related to racial preferencing, campus antisemitism and policies supporting transgender student athletes.
The Trump administration’s aggressive stance toward higher education institutions is contributing to a precipitous drop in support among college-educated voters, with new polling data revealing the president’s approval rating among graduates has fallen to historic lows.
President Donald J. TrumpAccording to Gallup polling, Trump’s approval rating among college graduates plummeted from 34% in June to just 28% by August, with disapproval climbing to 70%. This represents a concerning trend for Republicans as they look toward the 2026 midterm elections, particularly given the growing influence of college-educated voters in key suburban swing districts.
The administration’s education policies have taken aim at what Trump characterizes as liberal bias and antisemitism on college campuses. Harvard University has faced the most severe federal intervention, with the White House canceling approximately $100 million in federal contracts and freezing $3.2 billion in research funding. The administration has also moved to block international student enrollment and threatened to revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status while demanding sweeping reforms to admissions processes and curricular oversight.
Similar measures have been enacted against Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University over issues ranging from pro-Palestinian campus activism to policies regarding transgender athletes in women’s sports. Harvard officials have characterized these interventions as an unprecedented assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
The crackdown has generated significant campus unrest and drawn comparisons to Cold War-era loyalty investigations, raising questions about the federal government’s appropriate role in higher education governance.
The polling data reflects broader dissatisfaction with the administration’s educational approach. Only 26% of college graduates approve of Trump’s handling of education policy, while 71% disapprove. A separate AP-NORC survey from May found that 56% of Americans nationwide disapprove of the president’s higher education agenda.
However, the policies resonate strongly within Trump’s Republican base, with roughly 80% of Republicans approving his higher education approach—a higher approval rate than his economic policies garner. About 60% of Republicans express significant concern about perceived liberal bias on college campuses, aligning with the administration’s framing of universities as ideologically compromised institutions.
The Republican coalition shows some internal division on enforcement mechanisms, with approximately half supporting federal funding cuts for non-compliant institutions while a quarter oppose such measures and another quarter remain undecided.
While political controversies dominate headlines, economic concerns remain the primary driver of public opinion on higher education. Sixty percent of Americans express deep concern about college costs, a bipartisan worry that transcends ideological divisions around campus politics.
Current data from the College Board and Bankrate show average annual costs of $29,910 for in-state public university students, $49,080 for out-of-state students, and approximately $61,990 for private nonprofit institutions when including room, board, and additional expenses. Financial aid reduces these figures to average net prices of $20,800 at public universities and $36,150 at private colleges.
These costs reflect decades of sustained increases. EducationData.org reports that public in-state college costs have risen from $2,489 in 1963 to $89,556 in 2022-23 (adjusted for inflation). Over the past decade alone, in-state public tuition has increased by nearly 58%, while out-of-state and private tuition have risen by 30% and 27% respectively.
The economic pressures extend beyond college costs to post-graduation employment prospects. While overall unemployment among adults with bachelor’s degrees remains low at 2.3%, recent graduates face significant challenges. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that only 69.6% of bachelor’s degree recipients aged 20-29 were employed in late 2024, with unemployment among 23-27-year-olds reaching nearly 6%—substantially above the 4.2% national average.
These employment difficulties contribute to broader economic anxiety, with 39% of college graduates describing national economic conditions as “poor” and 64% reporting job search struggles.
The confluence of political and economic pressures creates a challenging landscape for Republicans heading into the 2026 midterms. College-educated voters represent a growing and increasingly decisive demographic, particularly in suburban areas that often determine control of swing seats.
The Trump administration, since returning to power in 2025, has escalated attacks on the foundations of democracy, the environment, world peace, human rights, and intellectual inquiry. While the administration has marketed itself as “America First,” its policies have more often meant profits for the ultra-wealthy, repression for the working majority, and escalating dangers for the planet.
Below is a running list of 100 of the most dangerous actions and policies—a record of how quickly a government can dismantle hard-won protections for people, peace, and the planet.
I. Attacks on the Environment
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement—again.
Dismantling the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Opening federal lands and national parks to oil, gas, and mining leases.
Gutting protections for endangered species.
Allowing coal companies to dump mining waste in rivers and streams.
Rolling back vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
Subsidizing fossil fuel companies while defunding renewable energy programs.
Suppressing climate science at federal agencies.
Greenlighting pipelines that threaten Indigenous lands and water supplies.
Promoting offshore drilling in fragile ecosystems.
Weakening Clean Water Act enforcement.
Dismantling environmental justice programs that protect poor communities.
Politicizing NOAA and censoring weather/climate warnings.
Undermining international climate cooperation at the UN.
Allowing pesticides banned in Europe to return to U.S. farms.
II. Undermining World Peace and Global Stability
Threatening military action against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.
Expanding the nuclear arsenal instead of pursuing arms control.
Cutting funding for diplomacy and the State Department.
Withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Weakening NATO alliances with inflammatory rhetoric.
Escalating drone strikes and loosening rules of engagement.
Providing cover for authoritarian leaders worldwide.
Walking away from peace negotiations in the Middle East.
Blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, Yemen, and other war-torn areas.
Expanding weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite human rights abuses.
Using tariffs and sanctions as blunt instruments against allies.
Politicizing intelligence briefings to justify military adventurism.
Abandoning refugee protections and asylum agreements.
Treating climate refugees as security threats.
Reducing U.S. participation in the United Nations.
III. Attacks on Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Expanding family separation policies at the border.
Targeting asylum seekers for indefinite detention.
Militarizing immigration enforcement with National Guard troops.
Attacking reproductive rights and defunding women’s health programs.
Rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in schools and workplaces.
Reinstating bans on transgender service members in the military.
Undermining voting rights through purges and voter ID laws.
Packing the courts with extremist judges hostile to civil rights.
Weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents.
Expanding surveillance powers with little oversight.
Encouraging police crackdowns on protests.
Expanding use of federal troops in U.S. cities.
Weakening consent decrees against abusive police departments.
Refusing to investigate hate crimes tied to far-right violence.
Deporting long-term immigrants with no criminal record.
IV. Attacks on Domestic Peace and Tranquility
Encouraging militias and extremist groups with dog whistles.
Using inflammatory rhetoric that stokes racial and religious hatred.
Equating journalists with “enemies of the people.”
Cutting funds for community-based violence prevention.
Politicizing natural disaster relief.
Treating peaceful protests as national security threats.
Expanding federal use of facial recognition surveillance.
Undermining local control with federal overreach.
Stigmatizing entire religious and ethnic groups.
Promoting conspiracy theories from the presidential podium.
Encouraging violent crackdowns on labor strikes.
Undermining pandemic preparedness and response.
Allowing corporations to sidestep workplace safety rules.
Shutting down diversity and inclusion training across agencies.
Promoting vigilante violence through online platforms.
V. Attacks on Labor Rights and the Working Class
Weakening the Department of Labor’s enforcement of wage theft.
Blocking attempts to raise the federal minimum wage.
Undermining collective bargaining rights for federal workers.
Supporting right-to-work laws across states.
Allowing employers to misclassify gig workers as “independent contractors.”
Blocking new OSHA safety standards.
Expanding exemptions for overtime pay.
Weakening rules on child labor in agriculture.
Cutting unemployment benefits during economic downturns.
Favoring union-busting corporations in federal contracts.
Rolling back protections for striking workers.
Encouraging outsourcing of jobs overseas.
Weakening enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in workplaces.
Cutting funding for worker retraining programs.
Promoting unpaid internships as a “pathway” to jobs.
VI. Attacks on Intellectualism and Knowledge
Defunding the Department of Education in favor of privatization.
Attacking public universities as “woke indoctrination centers.”
Promoting for-profit colleges with predatory practices.
Restricting student loan forgiveness programs.
Undermining Title IX protections for sexual harassment.
Defunding libraries and public broadcasting.
Politicizing scientific research grants.
Firing federal scientists who contradict administration narratives.
Suppressing research on gun violence.
Censoring federal climate and environmental data.
Promoting creationism and Christian nationalism in schools.
Expanding surveillance of student activists.
Encouraging book bans in schools and libraries.
Undermining accreditation standards for higher education.
Attacking historians who challenge nationalist myths.
Cutting humanities funding in favor of military research.
Encouraging political litmus tests for professors.
Treating journalists as combatants in a “culture war.”
Promoting AI-driven “robocolleges” with no faculty oversight.
Gutting federal student aid programs.
Allowing corporate donors to dictate university policy.
Discouraging international students from studying in the U.S.
Criminalizing whistleblowers who reveal government misconduct.
Promoting conspiracy theories over peer-reviewed science.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The Trump administration on Thursday proposed capping the length of time international students can stay in the U.S. at four years,regardless of the length of their studies, per a plan published in the Federal Register.
International student visas, known as F visas, typically allows them to stay in the U.S. for as long as it takes to finish their programs. Bachelor’s and master’s degrees are typically designed to be completed in four years or less, but many Ph.D. programs tend to run longer.
The new rule would also affect J visas, which cover certain international students, as well as short-term college instructors and researchers.If finalized, holders of both types of visas would need to apply for extensions and undergo “regular assessments” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to stay in the country after four years.
Dive Insight:
Restricting the flow of noncitizens into the U.S. — international students included — is not a new focus for the Trump administration.During the last year of President Donald Trump’s first term, the agencies proposed the same cap on F and J visas. The Biden administration withdrew the proposal the following year.
DHS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement argued Thursday that neither program gives federal authorities enough oversight over how long visa holders remain in the country.
In the proposed rule, the agencies alleged that the lack of a fixed end date for F and J visas incentivizes fraud, and DHS said it has identified“many examples of students and exchange visitors staying for decades.” As of April, over 2,100 international students who first entered the country between 2000 and 2010 still hold an active F visa, DHS said.
That’s a tiny share of the total number of international students the U.S. hosts. In 2023 alone, more than 1.6 million people entered the U.S. through F visas, according to DHS data. Over 500,000 people entered via J visas that year.
A DHS spokesperson on Wednesday accused international students of “posing safety risks”and “disadvantaging U.S. citizens” — and accused past administrations of allowing them to stay in the country “virtually indefinitely.”
“This new proposed rule would end that abuse once and for all by limiting the amount of time certain visa holders are allowed to remain in the U.S., easing the burden on the federal government to properly oversee foreign students and their history,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
The proposal would also prohibit graduate students on F-1 visas from transferring to other institutions or “changing educational objectives,” along with adding similar restrictions for first-year students.
Student advocates quickly panned the Trump administration’s plan, saying it would increase bureaucratic backlogs, deter international students from attending U.S. colleges and harm the country’s advancement.
Fanta Aw, CEO and executive director of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, said Wednesday that the change would also give federal agencies oversight over decisions that “have long been the domain of academia.”
“This proposal will only increase the degree of government oversight without any evidence that the changes would solve any of the real problems that exist in our outdated immigration system,” Aw said in a statement.
Aw also decried the proposal as a poorly considered draft that represents a “dangerous overreach by government into academia.”
“These changes will only serve to force aspiring students and scholars into a sea of administrative delays at best, and at worst, into unlawful presence status — leaving them vulnerable to punitive actions through no fault of their own,” she said.
Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, called the proposed rule an “unnecessary and counterproductive action.”
She emphasized the increased paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles it would require of international students.
“The rule would force them to regularly and unnecessarily submit additional applications to be able to stay in the country and fulfill requirements of their academic programs, imposing significant burdens on students, colleges and universities, and federal agencies alike,” Feldblum said in a Wednesday statement.
Both Feldblum and Aw noted that international students are already one of the most closely monitored groups in the U.S.
The DHS spokesperson on Wednesday also alleged that international students cost an “untold amount of taxpayer money.”
Yet foreign students are often a financial boon for colleges — especially tuition-dependent ones — as they are more likely than U.S. residents to pay an institution’s full sticker price.
In 2023, international college students contributed more than $50 billion to the U.S. economy, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
George Mason UniversityPresident Gregory Washington’s lawyer on Monday firmly repudiated the Trump administration’s allegations that thepublic Virginia institution had violated civil rights law.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleged that George Mason’s hiring and promotion practices violated Title VI, which bans federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. An agency official singled out Washington as the leader of a “university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race,” and the department demanded that he apologize.
In an 11-page letter to the college’s governing board sent on Washington’s behalf, his attorney Douglas Gansler called OCR’s allegations “a legal fiction,” and stressed that George Mason’sleadership has kept the university in compliance with federal law.“Far from needing to apologize, you all have a shared record to be proud of,” he wrote.
Since July, the Trump administration has opened at least four investigations into George Mason, targeting the large research institution over universitywide diversity initiatives, of which Washington has been a champion.
The Education Department’s findings came just six weeks after the agency opened the investigation, citing a complaint from “multiple professors at GMU” alleging that the university’s leaders had approved policies illegally giving certain underrepresented groups preferential treatment since 2020.
Gansler called out the brief length of the agency’s investigation and said OCR’s letter shows that federal officials “have not spent sufficient time finding critical and materials facts.”
“It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and ‘findings’ have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process, including only two interviews with university academic deans,” Gansler wrote.
The Education Department’s announcement last week focused much of its ire onWashington, alleging the university president’s prior statementswere proof of “support for racial preferencing.”
But some of the department’s evidence was out-of-context or “gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington”that didn’t lead to policy changes, Gansler wrote. And one contested policy would have predated Washington’s tenure, he argued.
In one example, the Education Department quoted a 2021 statement from Washington on adopting an inclusive hiring framework.
“If you have two candidates who are both ‘above the bar’ in terms of requirements for a position, but one adds to your diversity and the other does not, then why couldn’t that candidate be better, even if that candidate may not have better credentials than the other candidate?” Washington said at the time.
Gansler said the quote was pulled out of context and never resulted in a policy being enacted.
“His question was just that: a question, offered to provoke dialogue within the university community, as should be expected of a faculty member and academic leader of a university,” the attorney wrote. “The question does not suggest hiring minority candidates of lesser credentials, but rather considering how two equally qualified candidates may contribute differently to the campus.”
He added that Washington is not directly involved in evaluating candidates for faculty positions and that OCR would be unable to cite “any discriminatory hiring decision made based on it.”
It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and “findings” have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process.
Douglas Gansler
Attorney for George Mason University President Gregory Washington
The Education Department gave George Mason 10 days to voluntarily agree to a proposalit said would resolve the alleged violations. Part of that proposal would require Washington to publicly apologize to the university community “for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes.”
In response, Gansler advised George Mason’s trustees against agreeing to the Education Department’s demand for an apology.
“If the Board entertains OCR’s demand that Dr. Washington personally apologize for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes, it will undermine GMU’s record of compliance,” Gansler wrote. “An apology will amount to an admission that the university did something unlawful, opening GMU and the Board up to legal liability for conduct that did not occur under the Board’s watch.”
And while the proposed apology may help resolve the Education Department’s inquiry, it would not prevent other federal agencies from using that statement to penalize the university, the lawyer added.
Mike Fragoso, a lawyer representing the board, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
“Our sole focus is our fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of the University and the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the board said in a Friday statement.
Publicly, George Mason’s board has said little as the Trump administration announced the litany of its investigations into the university. The response prompted George Mason’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors to approve a no-confidence resolution against the board last month and called on it to defend Washington.
MOREHEAD, Ky. — The summer after ninth grade, Zoey Griffith found herself in an unfamiliar setting: a dorm on the Morehead State University campus.
There, she’d spend the months before her sophomore year taking classes in core subjects including math and biology and electives like oil painting.
For Griffith, it was an opportunity, but a scary one. “It was a big deal for me to live on campus at the age of 14,” she said. Morehead State is about an hour from her hometown of Maysville. “I was nervous, and I remember that I cried the first time that my dad left me on move-in day.”
Her mother became a parent as a teenager and urged her daughter to avoid the same experience. Griffith’s father works as a mechanic, and he frowns upon the idea of higher education, she said.
And so college back then seemed a distant and unlikely idea.
But Griffith’s stepsister had introduced her to a federal program called Upward Bound. It places high school students in college dorms during the summer, where they can take classes and participate in workshops on preparing for the SAT and financial literacy. During the school year, students get tutoring and work on what are called individual success plans.
Upward Bound students test the robots they built in their robotics class – evaluating for programming and mechanical issues. Credit: Photo courtesy of the Upward Bound Programs
It’s part of a group of federal programs, known as TRIO, aimed at helping low-income and first-generation students earn a college degree, often becoming the first in their families to do so.
So, thanks to that advice from her stepsister, Kirsty Beckett, who’s now 27 and pursuing a doctorate in psychology, Griffith signed up and found herself in that summer program at Morehead State. Now, Griffith is enrolled at Maysville Community and Technical College, with plans to become an ultrasound technician.
Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
TRIO, once a group of three programs — giving it a name that stuck — is now the umbrella over eight some dating back to 1965. Together, they serve roughly 870,000 students nationwide a year.
It has worked with millions of students and has bipartisan support in Congress. Some in this part of the Appalachian region of Kentucky, and across the country, worry about students who won’t get the same assistance if President Donald Trump ends federal spending on the program.
Students Zoey Griffith, left, and Aniyah Caldwell, right, say the Upward Bound program has been life-changing for them. Upward Bound is one of eight federal programs under the TRIO umbrella. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report
A White House budget proposal would eliminate spending on TRIO. The document says “access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means” and puts the onus on colleges to recruit and support students.
Advocates note that the programs, which cost roughly $1.2 billion each year, have a proven track record. Students in Upward Bound, for example, are more than twice as likely to earn a bachelor’s degree by age 24 than other students from some of the nation’s poorest households, according to the Council for Opportunity in Education. COE is a nonprofit that represents TRIO programs nationwide and advocates for expanded opportunities for first-generation, low-income students.
For the high school class of 2022, 74 percent of Upward Bound students enrolled immediately in college — compared with only 56 percent of high school graduates in the bottom income quartile.
Upward Bound is for high school students, like Griffith. Another TRIO program, Talent Search, helps middle and high school students, without the residential component. One called Student Support Services (SSS) provides tutoring, advising and other assistance to at-risk college students. Another program prepares students for graduate school and doctoral degrees, and yet another trains TRIO staff.
A 2019 study found that after four years of college, students in SSS were 48 percent more likely to complete an associate’s degree or certificate, or transfer to a four-year institution, than a comparable group of students with similar backgrounds and similar levels of high school achievement who were not in the program.
“TRIO has been around for 60 years,” said Kimberly Jones, the president of COE. “We’ve produced millions of college graduates. We know it works.”
Yet Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the White House refer to the programs as a “relic of the past.”
Jones countered that census data shows that “students from the poorest families still earn college degrees at rates far below that of students from the highest-income families,” demonstrating continued need for TRIO.
McMahon is challenging that and pushing for further study of those TRIO success rates. In 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that even though the Education Department collects data on TRIO participants, “the agency has gaps in its evidence on program effectiveness.” The GAO criticized the Education Department for having “outdated” studies on some TRIO programs, and no studies at all for others. Since then, the department has expanded its evaluations of TRIO.
East Main Street in Morehead, Kentucky, just outside of Morehead State’s campus. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report
During a Senate subcommittee hearing in June, McMahon acknowledged “there is some effectiveness of the programs, in many circumstances.”
Still, she said there is not enough research to justify TRIO’s total cost. “That’s a real drawback in these programs,” McMahon said.
Now, she is asking lawmakers to eliminate TRIO spending after this year and has already canceled some previously approved TRIO grants.
“What are we supposed to do, especially here in eastern Kentucky?” asked David Green, a former Upward Bound participant who is now marketing director for a pair of Kentucky hospitals.
Green lives in a region that has some of the nation’s highest rates of unemployment, cancer and opioid addiction. “I mean, these people have big hearts, they want to grow,” he added. Cutting these programs amounts to “stifling us even more than we’re already stifled.”
Green described his experience with TRIO at Morehead State in the mid-1980s as “one of the best things that ever happened to me.”
He grew up in a home without running water in Maysville, a city of about 8,000 people. It was on a TRIO trip to Washington, D.C., he recalled, that he stayed in a hotel for the first time. Green remembers bringing two suitcases so he could pack a pillow, sheets and comforter — unaware the hotel room would have its own.
He met students from other towns and with different backgrounds. Some became lifelong friends. Green learned table manners, the kind of thing often required in business settings. After college, he was so grateful for TRIO that he became one of its tutors, working with the next generation of students.
TRIO’s all-encompassing nature makes it unique among college access programs, said Tom Stritikus, the president of Occidental College, a private liberal arts college in Los Angeles. He was previously president of Fort Lewis College, a public liberal arts school in Colorado with a large Native American student population. At both institutions, Stritikus said, he witnessed the effectiveness of TRIO’s methods, which he described as a “soup to nuts” menu of services for at-risk students trying to be the first in their families to earn degrees.
After participating in the Upward Bound program, David Green has had a successful career, becoming a community leader in his hometown of Maysville, Kentucky. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report
Jones, of the Council for Opportunity in Education, said she is cautiously optimistic that Congress will continue funding TRIO, despite the Trump administration’s request. The programs serve students in all 50 states. According to the COE, about 34 percent are white, 32 percent are Black, 23 percent are Hispanic, 5 percent are Asian, and 3 percent are Native American. TRIO’s guidelines require that a majority of participants come from families making less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four living in the contiguous United States, that’s a max of $48,225 a year.
In May, Rep. Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, called TRIO “one of the most effective programs in the federal government,” which, he said, is supported by “many, many members of Congress.”
In June, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia and a former TRIO employee, spoke about its importance to her state. TRIO helps “a student that really needs the extra push, the camaraderie, the community,” she said. “I’ve gone to their graduations, and been their speaker, and it’s really quite delightful to see how far they’ve come, in a short period of time.”
TRIO survived, with its funding intact, when the Senate appropriations committee approved its budget last month. The House is expected to take up its version of the annual appropriations bill for education in early September. Both chambers ultimately have to agree on federal spending, a process that could drag on until December, leaving TRIO’s fate in Congress uncertain.
While lawmakers debate its future, the Trump administration could also delay or halt TRIO funding on its own. Earlier this year, the administration took the unprecedented step of unilaterally canceling about 20 previously approved new and continuing TRIO grants.
At Morehead State, leaders say the university — and the region it serves — need the boost it receives from TRIO: While roughly 38 percent of American adults have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, in Kentucky, that figure is only 16 percent. And, locally, it’s 7 percent, according to Summer Fawn Bryant, the director of TRIO’s Talent Search programs at the university.
Summer Fawn Bryant, center, is director of TRIO’s Talent Search programs at Morehead State University in Kentucky. She stands with former TRIO students Alexandria Daniel, left, and Blake Thayer, right. Credit: Photo courtesy of Summer Fawn Bryant
TRIO works to counter the stigma of attending college that still exists in parts of eastern Kentucky, Bryant said. A student from a humble background who is considering college, she said, might be scolded with the phrase: Don’t get above your raisin’.
“A parent may say it,” Bryant said. “A teacher may say it.”
She added that she’s seen time and again how these programs can turn around the lives of young students facing adversity.
Students like Beth Cockrell, an Upward Bound alum from Pineville, Ky., who said her mom struggled with parenting. “Upward Bound stepped in as that kind of co-parent and helped me decide what my major was going to be.”
Cockrell went on to earn three degrees at Morehead State and has worked as a teacher for the past 19 years. She now works with students at her alma mater and teaches third grade at Conkwright Elementary School, about an hour away.
In a few years, 17-year-old Upward Bound student Isaac Bocook plans to join the teaching ranks too — as a middle school social studies teacher. Bocook said he was indecisive about what to study after high school, but he finally figured it out after attending a career fair at Morehead State’s historic Button Auditorium.
Upward Bound students visit the Great Lake Science Center in Cleveland for the end-of-summer educational trip. Credit: Photo courtesy of the Upward Bound Programs
Bocook lives in Lewis County, with just under 13,000 residents and a single public high school. At Morehead State’s TRIO program, Bocook met teenagers from across the entire region, which he said improved his social skills. TRIO also helped him with all kinds of paperwork on the pathway to adulthood. Filling out financial aid forms. Writing scholarship applications. Crafting a resume.
“I’m just truly grateful to have TRIO, as sort of like a hand to hold,” Bocook said.
His need for guidance is similar to what students at Morgan County High School in West Liberty, Kentucky, experience, said Lori Keeton, the school guidance counselor. The challenge facing these first-generation students, she said, is that “you just simply don’t know what you don’t know.”
As the sole counselor for 550 students, Keeton doesn’t have time to help each student navigate the complex college-application process and said she worries that some of her students will apply to fewer colleges, or no colleges at all, if TRIO disappears.
TRIO’s Talent Search program serves about 100 students at her high school, and roughly another dozen are part of Upward Bound. Each program has a dedicated counselor who visits regularly to guide and assist students.
Sherry Adkins, an eastern Kentucky native who attended TRIO more than 50 years ago and went on to become a registered nurse, said efforts to cut TRIO spending ignore the long-term benefits. “Do you want all of these people that are disadvantaged to continue like that? Where they’re taking money from society? Or do you want to help prepare us to become successful people who pay lots of taxes?”
As Washington considers TRIO’s future, program directors like Bryant, at Morehead State, press forward. She has preserved a text message a former student sent her two years ago to remind her of what’s at stake.
After finishing college, the student was attending a conference on child abuse when a presenter showed a slide that included the quote: “Every child who winds up doing well has had at least one stable and committed relationship with a supportive adult.”
“Forever thankful,” the student texted Bryant, “that you were that supportive adult for me.”
Contact editor Nirvi Shah at 212-678-3445, securely on Signal at NirviShah.14 or via email at [email protected].
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The University of California, Los Angeles has paused faculty hiring for the next academic year and is consolidating its cross-campus information technology teamsas the public institution weathers financial attacks from the Trump administration on top of existing budget woes.
In a community message Wednesday, two top UCLA leaders said they will“be prudent in making organizational changes, and do so in close collaboration with leaders across campus.” UCLA did not immediately answer questions Thursday about whether the IT consolidation will include layoffs.
The announcement follows a message late last week from Chancellor Julio Frenk,who noted the Trump administration is seeking $1 billion from the university over antisemitism allegations primarily related to a protest encampment on UCLA’s campus in 2024.
Dive Insight:
In their message, UCLA Provost Darnell Hunt and Chief Financial Officer Stephen Agostini said the university was working with University of California system leaders to restore some $584 million in research funding cut off by the Trump administration.
“Our immediate priority is to sustain the research enterprise,” the officials said. “We are doing this via a thorough review process, grant by grant, alongside campus deans and faculty members.”
At the center of those allegations was a spring 2024 pro-Palestinian protest encampment that UCLA leaders initially allowed to continue amid efforts to balance speech rights and campus safety.Less than a week later, they called police to break up the encampment.
The Justice Department has also launched a probe into whether the UC system discriminates against employees by allowing an antisemitic, hostile work environment.
Since Columbia University agreed to pay the federal government $221 million to settlesimilar allegations related to antisemitism, the Trump administration has reportedly sought payments from other high-profile colleges in its crosshairs.
Frenk recently panned the government’s effort to extract $1 billion from UCLA.
“I want to be clear: The costs associated with this demand, if left to stand, would have far-reaching consequences,” Frenk said in a statement last week. “The impacts to society are very real, as it could threaten our ability to conduct life-saving and life-changing research. But the impacts to our university are just as real.”
Last week, a federal judge ordered the National Science Foundation to restore grant funding potentially amounting to hundreds of millions of dollars.U.S. District Judge Rita Lin ruled that the cuts, made after the Justice Department announced its allegations, violated a prior court order in a lawsuit filed by UC researchers over mass grant terminations by the administration.
Even before the faceoff with the Trump administration,UCLA was shifting toward austerity as the wider UC system grappled with deficits. In fiscal 2024, UCLA posted an operating loss of $144.2 million, a sharp downturn from its positive operating income of $159.6 million the year before.
Hunt and Agostini noted the university had already cut administrative unit budgets by 10%, started a hiring review process and curtailed travel spending.
The officials said that existing efforts to streamline and save money in the university’s operations have become a subject of “immediate and urgent focus” given the financial environment.
The IT reorganization is part of those efforts. The move involves consolidating teams distributed across UCLA’s campus. The goal is to “boost our cybersecurity readiness; ensure more equitable access to high-quality IT services; and free up resources to elevate teaching, research and innovation,” Hunt and Agostini said.
“This is a critical juncture – and it’s essential you live the values Harvard teaches and not make a deal with the Trump administration that cedes the university’s autonomy in unconstitutional or unlawful ways,” states the August 1 letter.
Signed by 15,068 alumni, faculty, researchers, staff and other supporters, the letter criticises settlements made by Columbia and Brown, which signatories warn “represent a dangerous capitulation that risks eroding the foundation of American higher education”.
“As Harvard rightly argued in court in its lawsuit, the unconstitutional demands being made by this administration represent a blatant encroachment on academic freedom and university autonomy,” it continues.
Last month, Columbia became the first institution to settle with Trump over allegations of antisemitism on campus, paying the administration $221m in return for settling various civil rights and employment claims and restoring $400m in terminated funding.
Soon after, Brown University followed suit, reaching its own deal with the administration over similar disputes about DEI admissions practices and access to student data.
Harvard, having the largest endowment of any global university, has been the only one to challenge the White House in the courts, though recent rumours have suggested a $500m deal between Harvard and the government could be in the making.
The letter’s message is clear: “Do not give in.”
It calls on university leadership to uphold Harvard’s independence and reject political interference and punitive action, ensuring that admissions hiring, employment and disciplinary processes do not treat student and staff differently based on their political views.
The signatories recommend the establishment of a structure for the university to directly engage with the Harvard community about policy changes impacting them, urging Harvard to use its financial resources to “protect and honour” their livelihoods and education.
“Protect students, faculty, researchers and staff, especially those with international status, from any intrusions of privacy, unwarranted immigration action, and attacks on their constitutionally protected rights and freedoms,” it continues.
At this moment of national reckoning, Harvard must demonstrate that our values, integrity, and freedom are not for sale
Harvard alumni
The letter warns of the “chilling effect” that a settlement would have on the Harvard community and beyond.
Holding the line is critical for campuses across the US, for those that benefit from the research and scholarship of the university, and for the “foundational role that independent higher education plays in our democracy,” it argues.
“At this moment of national reckoning, Harvard must demonstrate that our values, integrity, and freedom are not for sale.”
Since mid-April, the Trump administration has launched multiple attacks on Harvard for allegedly failing to root out antisemitism on campus and failing to hand over international students’ records, among other accusations.
The university is fighting the government on multiple fronts in the courts, including defending its right to enrol international students, which the administration has repeatedly tried to revoke.
The university has publicly stood by its 7,000 international students, who make up over 27% of Harvard’s student body and come from nearly 150 different countries.
Amid broader attacks on higher education and severe visa challenges, colleges across the country are bracing for a major decline in international students this fall, with “conservative” estimates of a potential 30-40% decline.
President Donald Trump wants to collect more admissions data from colleges and universities to make sure they’re complying with a 2023 Supreme Court decision that ended race-conscious affirmative action. And he wants that data now.
But data experts and higher education scholars warn that any new admissions data is likely to be inaccurate, impossible to interpret and ultimately misused by policymakers. That’s because Trump’s own policies have left the statistics agency inside the Education Department with a skeleton staff and not enough money, expertise or time to create this new dataset.
The department already collects data on enrollment from every institution of higher education that participates in the federal student loan program. The results are reported through the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). But in an Aug. 7 memorandum, Trump directed the Education Department, which he sought to close in March, to expand that task andprovide “transparency” into how some 1,700 colleges that do not admit everyone are making their admissions decisions. And he gave Education Secretary Linda McMahon just 120 days to get it done.
Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.
Expanding data collection on applicants is not a new idea. The Biden administration had already ordered colleges to start reporting race and ethnicity data to the department this fall in order to track changes in diversity in postsecondary education. But in a separate memorandum to the head of the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), McMahon asked for even more information, including high school grades and college entrance exam scores, all broken down by race and gender.
Bryan Cook, director of higher education policy at the Urban Institute, a think tank in Washington, D.C., called the 120-day timeline “preposterous” because of the enormous technical challenges. For example, IPEDS has never collected high school GPAs. Some schools use a weighted 5.0 scale, giving extra points for advanced classes, and others use an unweighted 4.0 scale, which makes comparisons messy. Other issues are equally thorny. Many schools no longer require applicants to report standardized test scores and some no longer ask them about race so the data that Trump wants doesn’t exist for those colleges.
“You’ve got this effort to add these elements without a mechanism with which to vet the new variables, as well as a system for ensuring their proper implementation,” said Cook. “You would almost think that whoever implemented this didn’t know what they were doing.”
Cook has helped advise the Education Department on the IPEDS data collection for 20 years and served on technical review panels, which are normally convened first to recommend changes to the data collection. Those panels were disbanded earlier this year, and there isn’t one set up to vet Trump’s new admissions data proposal.
Cook and other data experts can’t figure out how a decimated education statistics agency could take on this task. All six NCES employees who were involved in IPEDS data collection were fired in March, and there are only three employees left out of 100 at NCES, which is run by an acting commissioner who also has several other jobs.
An Education Department official, who did not want to be named, denied that no one left inside the Education Department has IPEDS experience. The official said that staff inside the office of the chief data officer, which is separate from the statistics agency, have a “deep familiarity with IPEDS data, its collection and use.” Former Education Department employees told me that some of these employees have experience in analyzing the data, but not in collecting it.
In the past, there were as many as a dozen employees who worked closely with RTI International, a scientific research institute, which handles most of the IPEDS data collection work.
Technical review eliminated
Of particular concern is that RTI’s $10 million annual contract to conduct the data collection had been slashed approximately in half by the Department of Government Efficiency, also known as DOGE, according to two former employees, who asked to remain anonymous out of fear of retaliation. Those severe budget cuts eliminated the technical review panels that vet proposed changes to IPEDS, and ended training for colleges and universities to submit data properly, which helped with data quality. RTI did not respond to my request to confirm the cuts or answer questions about the challenges it will face in expanding its work on a reduced budget and staffing.
The Education Department did not deny that the IPEDS budget had been cut in half. “The RTI contract is focused on the most mission-critical IPEDS activities,” the Education Department official said. “The contract continues to include at least one task under which a technical review panel can be convened.”
Additional elements of the IPEDS data collection have also been reduced, including a contract to check data quality.
Last week, the scope of the new task became more apparent. On Aug. 13, the administration released more details about the new admissions data it wants, describing how the Education Department is attempting to add a whole new survey to IPEDS, called the Admissions and Consumer Transparency Supplement (ACTS), which will disaggregate all admissions data and most student outcome and financial aid data by race and gender. College will have to report on both undergraduate and graduate school admissions. The public has 60 days to comment, and the administration wants colleges to start reporting this data this fall.
Complex collection
Christine Keller, executive director of theAssociation for Institutional Research, a trade group of higher education officials who collect and analyze data, called the new survey “one of the most complex IPEDS collections ever attempted.”
Traditionally, it has taken years to make much smaller changes to IPEDS, and universities are given a year to start collecting the new data before they are required to submit it. (Roughly 6,000 colleges, universities and vocational schools are required to submit data to IPEDS as a condition for their students to take out federal student loans or receive federal Pell Grants. Failure to comply results in fines and the threat of losing access to federal student aid.)
Normally, the Education Department would reveal screenshots of data fields, showing what colleges would need to enter into the IPEDS computer system. But the department has not done that, and several of the data descriptions are ambiguous. For example, colleges will have to report test scores and GPA by quintile, broken down by race and ethnicity and gender. One interpretation is that a college would have to say how many Black male applicants, for example, scored above the 80th percentile on the SAT or the ACT. Another interpretation is that colleges would need to report the average SAT or ACT score of the top 20 percent of Black male applicants.
The Association for Institutional Research used to train college administrators on how to collect and submit data correctly and sort through confusing details — until DOGE eliminated that training. “The absence of comprehensive, federally funded training will only increase institutional burden and risk to data quality,” Keller said. Keller’s organization is now dipping into its own budget to offer a small amount of free IPEDS training to universities.
The Education Department is also requiring colleges to report five years of historical admissions data, broken down into numerous subcategories. Institutions have never been asked to keep data on applicants who didn’t enroll.
“It’s incredible they’re asking for five years of prior data,” said Jordan Matsudaira, an economist at American University who worked on education policy in the Biden and Obama administrations. “That will be square in the pandemic years when no one was reporting test scores.”
‘Misleading results’
Matsudaira explained that IPEDS had considered asking colleges for more academic data by race and ethnicity in the past and the Education Department ultimately rejected the proposal. One concern is that slicing and dicing the data into smaller and smaller buckets would mean that there would be too few students and the data would have to be suppressed to protect student privacy. For example, if there were two Native American men in the top 20 percent of SAT scores at one college, many people might be able to guess who they were. And a large amount of suppressed data would make the whole collection less useful.
Also, small numbers can lead to wacky results. For example, a small college could have only two Hispanic male applicants with very high SAT scores. If both were accepted, that’s a 100 percent admittance rate. If only 200 white women out of 400 with the same test scores were accepted, that would be only a 50 percent admittance rate. On the surface, that can look like both racial and gender discrimination. But it could have been a fluke. Perhaps both of those Hispanic men were athletes and musicians. The following year, the school might reject two different Hispanic male applicants with high test scores but without such impressive extracurriculars. The admissions rate for Hispanic males with high test scores would drop to zero. “You end up with misleading results,” said Matsudaira.
Reporting average test scores by race is another big worry. “It feels like a trap to me,” said Matsudaira. “That is mechanically going to give the administration the pretense of claiming that there’s lower standards of admission for Black students relative to white students when you know that’s not at all a correct inference.”
The statistical issue is that there are more Asian and white students at the very high end of the SAT score distribution, and all those perfect 1600s will pull the average up for these racial groups. (Just like a very tall person will skew the average height of a group.) Even if a college has a high test score threshold that it applies to all racial groups and no one below a 1400 is admitted, the average SAT score for Black students will still be lower than that of white students. (See graphic below.) The only way to avoid this is to purely admit by test score and take only the students with the highest scores. At some highly selective universities, there are enough applicants with a 1600 SAT to fill the entire class. But no institution fills its student body by test scores alone. That could mean overlooking applicants with the potential to be concert pianists, star soccer players or great writers.
The Average Score Trap
This graphic by Kirabo Jackson, an economist at Northwestern University, depicts the problem of measuring racial discrimination though average test scores. Even for a university that admits all students above a certain cut score, the average score of one racial group (red) will be higher than the average score of the other group (blue). Source: graphic posted on Bluesky Social by Josh Goodman
Admissions data is a highly charged political issue. The Biden administration originally spearheaded the collection of college admissions data by race and ethnicity. Democrats wanted to collect this data to show how the nation’s colleges and universities were becoming less diverse with the end of affirmative action. This data is slated to start this fall, following a full technical and procedural review.
Now the Trump administration is demanding what was already in the works, and adding a host of new data requirements — without following normal processes. And instead of tracking the declining diversity in higher education, Trump wants to use admissions data to threaten colleges and universities. If the new directive produces bad data that is easy to misinterpret, he may get his wish.
The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.
