Federal Funding Cuts Threaten Higher Education: Columbia University and Beyond

In a series of moves sending shockwaves through institutions of  higher education, the Trump administration has begun reshaping higher ed in America by dictating what is taught and to whom. Recently, the Trump Administration, according to papers filed by Harvard University, “abruptly revoked Harvard’s  international certification without due process or cause, to immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders.” Harvard’s complaint states that “The revocation is a blatant violation of the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, and the Administrative Procedure Act. It is the latest act by the government in clear retaliation for Harvard exercising its First Amendment rights to reject the government’s demands to control Harvard’s governance, curriculum, and the “ideology” of its faculty and students. The government’s actions are unlawful for other equally clear and pernicious reasons.” Filed on May 23, 2025, this is Harvard’s second lawsuit in response to the Trump Administration’s attempt to control higher education in America. 

Trump’s weapon is money-the withholding of federal funds that were appropriated and  designated for various programs and research. While Harvard has sued, Columbia University has not. While students, alumni and faculty have spoken out against the government’s actions against Columbia, no lawsuit has been initiated by the University to challenge the Administration’s actions. 

The funding review for Columbia University, jointly announced by the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Education, and General Services Administration, marked  a significant escalation in Washington’s response to campus protests related to the Israel-Gaza conflict. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education (March 4, 2025),   the administration cited alleged violations of civil rights law, with officials claiming Columbia failed to address antisemitism on campus, specifically, based on the premise that  “Institutions that receive federal funds have a responsibility to protect all students from discrimination,” the review states that  “Columbia’s apparent failure to uphold their end of this basic agreement raises very serious questions about the institution’s fitness to continue doing business with the United States government.”

At stake is more than $5 billion in federal grant commitments, with $51.4 million in federal contracts immediately subject to potential stop-work orders. For Columbia University, where more than a quarter of its $6.6 billion annual operating revenue comes from federal sources, these cuts would be “calamitous,” according to Michael Thaddeus, a Professor at Columbia University, as reported in The New York Times (2025).

The Columbia situation represents just one front in a wider effort to reshape federal education funding. In February, the Department of Education announced the termination of over $600 million in grants to institutions and nonprofits that were allegedly “using taxpayer funds to train teachers and education agencies on divisive ideologies.” The Department specifically targeted programs addressing topics such as Critical Race Theory, Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI), and anti-racism training.

The cuts affected teacher preparation programs nationwide, eliminating funding for initiatives that included professional development on “Building Cultural Competence,” “Dismantling Racial Bias,” and “Centering Equity in the Classroom.” The uncertainty around these and other potential federal actions has prompted universities across the country to implement emergency measures to protect their financial stability.

For example, Stanford University and MIT have instituted hiring freezes on most non-faculty positions, while the University of Pennsylvania is modeling different financial scenarios and preparing “cost containment measures” (Washington Post). Cornell University, according to Forbes, has implemented a four-month hiring freeze, directing campus administrators to “trim budgets through mechanisms such as strategic restructuring for efficiency and reducing expenses.”

The impact extends beyond administrative positions to the future of academic research itself. Several universities are reducing admissions to Ph.D. programs, with the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine instructing departments to reduce doctoral admissions by approximately 35% (Forbes). At the University of California San Diego, the biological sciences graduate program has cut admissions by more than 30% due to funding concerns.

Adding to the uncertainty is a projected $2.7 billion budget shortfall in the Pell Grant program by the end of the 2025 fiscal year, according to a Congressional Budget Office report. (U.S. News) This cornerstone federal aid program helps millions of low-income undergraduate students afford college.

“Pell Grants are the cornerstone of federal financial aid,” says Wesley Whistle, project director for student success and affordability at New America, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank. “If you look back in the ’70s, the maximum Pell Grant used to cover over three quarters of the cost of attendance of a four-year public college, where today it only covers about a quarter” (U.S. News).

Experts warn that the current funding crisis could have far-reaching consequences for American higher education and scientific leadership.  While “we talk a lot about being in this intense competition with China for technology and science,” said L. Rafael Reif, president emeritus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. “Is this a way in which we can compete? This is a very difficult time to create such a mess” (Washington Post).

The impacts may be particularly severe for early-career researchers. As Annika Barber, a Biology Professor at Rutgers University, noted: “We need doctoral students and funding to get tenure. I like to think that we baby professors are the future of science: We’re the ones who are hopefully still going to be here in 20 and 30 years moving things forward. But [currently] we don’t have a lot of cushion” (Washington Post).

As captured by Ian Bogost in The Atlantic, “Because grad school trains the next generation of academics – those who will be teaching students, discovering knowledge, and translating science into practice – this means the future of the university itself is in trouble.”.

For students considering higher education and universities planning for the future, these developments represent a critical moment of uncertainty, with implications that could reshape American academia for years to come. In the end, what does this all come down to?