Emerging From a Collective Silence, Universities Organize to Fight Trump

The Trump administration’s rapid issuance of executive orders aimed at exerting more control over universities initially left the higher education community in shock. In February, wary of provoking a president known for retaliating against critics, most university leaders chose to remain silent.

However, after several weeks marked by federal funding freezes, demands for policy changes, and the launch of new investigations into various university activities, resistance among academic leaders has begun to solidify. A major sign of this growing opposition emerged last week, when over 400 college and university leaders signed a public statement decrying what they viewed as unprecedented governmental interference in academia.

Typically, academic associations hold meetings addressing a range of topics, but the recent statement issued by the American Association of Colleges and Universities stood out for the breadth of its signatories. Representing institutions from the Ivy League to community colleges, from state flagship universities to Jesuit institutions, and from historically Black colleges to regional universities, the signers reflected an unusually wide-ranging alliance.

“We are united in speaking out against the extraordinary overreach and political meddling now threatening American higher education,” the statement declared.

Though the statement did not lay out specific plans for action, its collective tone conveyed a new spirit of defiance. University leaders appeared more resolved than ever to resist federal encroachments.

Richard K. Lyons, the chancellor of the University of California, Berkeley, emphasized the significance of the broad coalition. “When we unite across the entire higher education spectrum, it’s no longer just about the elites,” he said in an interview. “Seeing this remarkably diverse and inspiring group come together gives me real hope.”

Brian Sandoval, president of the University of Nevada, Reno — and notably, a former Republican governor — also endorsed the statement. He insisted that his support was not politically motivated. “This isn’t about politics for me,” Sandoval said. “It’s about the troubling patterns we’re seeing and experiencing.”

The public letter came at a time when some universities and higher education associations had already begun taking legal action, challenging the administration’s decisions to slash funding from agencies like the National Institutes of Health and the Department of Energy. Meanwhile, conversations among university leaders intensified, both virtually and in person, at a level unseen since the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic. Many of these discussions centered around strategies for responding to the administration’s growing pressure.

This week, the Association of American Universities — an exclusive organization representing 71 of the nation’s top research universities — convened its first in-person meeting since Trump’s inauguration. While the meeting was closed to the public, there was widespread speculation that it could evolve into a strategy session for addressing the administration’s ongoing investigations into issues such as campus antisemitism, diversity and inclusion programs, admissions policies, and even course curricula.

These actions, critics argue, reflect the administration’s intention to penalize institutions it believes have failed to adequately address antisemitism or have purportedly indoctrinated students with liberal ideologies.

Within the major education organizations, communication has ramped up considerably.

“Hardly a day goes by without an important email being sent around,” noted Sandoval, who sits on the board of the Association of Public and Land-grant Universities. “There’s an incredible amount of dialogue happening.”

One private university president, requesting anonymity to discuss sensitive strategies, remarked that university leaders were now spending significantly more time on Capitol Hill, advocating for their institutions’ interests.

Asked whether more lawsuits might be filed as the administration approached its 100th day in office, several university presidents contacted by The New York Times chose not to speculate, hinting instead at confidential contingency plans being developed behind the scenes.

According to Lynn C. Pasquerella, the president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities and one of the main organizers of the joint statement, the initiative grew out of conversations among university presidents and administrators concerned that there had been too little public resistance to the White House’s policies.

“We wanted to test the waters and see if there was an appetite for collective action,” Pasquerella explained.

Pasquerella, a former president of Mount Holyoke College, noted that many leaders were facing pressure from their campus communities — students, faculty, and staff alike — to take a public stand.

To assess interest, the association organized two virtual listening sessions, drawing participation from 193 college and university leaders. From these discussions emerged a consensus to issue a collective statement, even if the language was deliberately moderate.

The final version emphasized opposition to “undue government interference in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.” Though far from radical, the statement was nonetheless significant for the remarkable consensus it achieved among such a wide and varied group of institutions.

Initially, the statement garnered about 100 signatures. However, as momentum built and more university leaders perceived strength in numbers, additional signatories came forward. Pasquerella mentioned that one university president signed on but later asked to have their name removed after facing backlash at home.

While most of the signatories represented institutions in traditionally Democratic-leaning states, a number hailed from Republican strongholds as well — including Millsaps College in Mississippi, the University of the South in Tennessee, and Talladega College in Alabama.

Nonetheless, many other university presidents in Republican-led states refrained from participating.

One leader of a private university in a red state, speaking anonymously, explained the decision not to sign: “I saw no upside whatsoever,” the official said, expressing skepticism that one more signature would influence policymakers. “A petition isn’t going to change the minds of the president, his administration, or anyone in Congress.”

Moreover, the official cited a real fear of retaliation from the White House, suggesting that taking a public stand could provoke harmful consequences for their institution.

Wesleyan University president Michael S. Roth, another signatory, acknowledged that fear. Roth, a vocal critic of the Trump administration’s education policies, had recently participated in a protest titled “Hands Off” near Wesleyan’s campus in Middletown, Connecticut. He said he understood why some university leaders opted to stay silent.

“This administration doesn’t hesitate to retaliate against perceived enemies,” Roth said. “I reached out to a lot of colleagues, and many told me, ‘I just can’t risk it.’”

Despite the risks, the coalition of university leaders now appears more unified and determined than at any previous point in the Trump presidency. Whether their newfound solidarity can translate into meaningful action remains to be seen — but for now, they have made it clear that American higher education is prepared to push back.