What Higher Education Leaders Need to Now About the First Hundred Days

In President Trump’s first 100 days in office, his administration has moved at a frenetic pace. He has already issued 141 executive orders, more than any other president in the first 100 days, putting him on pace to eclipse former president Joe Biden’s four-year total of 162 in a matter of weeks. Matching this record number of directives has been a similarly momentous number of lawsuits, with over 300 cases filed. Though this strategy of “flooding the zone” with numerous, consequential dictates makes it difficult to keep up with proposed, pending, and in-progress policy changes, college and university trustees cannot afford to be overwhelmed. As new policies and regulations shift the higher education landscape, trustees will need to monitor vigilantly the following trends as they steer their institutions through these unprecedented times.

Changes at the Department of Education

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon brings a unique perspective to the department, as she served as a longtime trustee at Sacred Heart University. The priorities she outlined in her first statement include cutting red tape and bureaucracy, returning educational oversight to the states, focusing on educational over ideological outcomes, and ensuring graduates finish college with the skills they need to secure well-paying careers. The most visible action taken by the department has been a dramatic reduction in staffing, aligning with President Trump’s executive orders aimed at closing the department.

This reduction may make it difficult for institutions to rely on the Department of Education for timely assistance. With 80% of the Institute for Education Sciences’ staff laid off, it is unlikely that the remaining employees will be able to devote the same amount of time to helping institutions collect data for the yearly surveys conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics. Despite these challenges, data collection and reporting remain a pivotal element of public accountability, so trustees should begin building internal expertise rather than relying on federal assistance.

Title IX Enforcement

One of the first actions taken by the administration was to roll back several Biden-era regulations and guidance regarding Title IX enforcement. Previous guidelines contained definitions of “sex-based harassment” and “sex discrimination” designed to expand Title IX’s protections to include discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, as well as greater demands on how and when institutions conduct investigations into potential harassment. The new administration effectively reverted to standards applied in President Trump’s first term while also issuing new guidance that ties the definition of male and female to “immutable biological classification[s].” Under this standard, as well as the administration’s directive on women’s sports, the Departments of Education and Justice have launched a number of investigations into institutions reported for noncompliance.

Title IX enforcement remains among the most frustratingly malleable areas of higher education policy. Many of these directives are currently being challenged in the courts, and it will likely be some time before we have much-needed clarity. Though the past several presidential administrations have seen fit to reinterpret these statutes, trustees’ responsibility has not changed: Trustees have a legal responsibility to ensure that their institutions are complying with state and federal laws and regulations. Boards need to ensure that their offices in charge ensuring compliance with federal civil rights legislation are adequately staffed and have the resources and training needed to keep abreast of these changes. Trustees should not hesitate to request a presentation from on-the-ground administrators if they are concerned about the campus’s current approach to Title IX issues.

Title VI, Anti-Discrimination, and DEI

While former president Biden signaled early on that “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility [were] priorities,” President Trump has issued a number of executive orders rescinding previous guidance and directing his administration to “end ‘equity’ mandates, terminate DEI, and protect civil rights.” On this last point, the administration has sought to expand the standard established by the Supreme Court in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard (SFFA).

Though the court’s decision was narrowly tailored to address race-based admissions systems only, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) noted in a Dear Colleague Letter that SFFA applies to “hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life.” The letter also warns institutions against using other non-racial criteria as “proxies” for race. The OCR has already opened dozens of investigations into institutions for offering (or even partnering with organizations that offer) educational programs, activities, grants, or scholarships to students on the basis of race, ethnicity, or sex. The Department of Education has threatened to revoke all federal funding for institutions it deems noncompliant.

The administration is also experiencing legal challenges with these new Title IV guidelines. Here again, boards must remain attentive, nimble, and diligent. Ensure that the institution’s general counsel monitors all relevant cases and provides regular updates to the board. Request reports on programs that may be impacted by these orders, and seek recommendations from several campus constituencies. Above all, use this time to begin planning your institution’s responses. Passivity cannot be the order of the day.

Antisemitism

Although it is technically an element of Title VI enforcement, the administration’s focus on combating antisemitism warrants its own analysis. In his first term, President Trump made a commitment to combat “the rise of anti-Semitism and anti-Semitic incidents in the United States and around the world,” with a particular focus on “anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on university and college campuses.” In his second term, the administration is tackling this issue with even more zeal, calling on the Department of Justice to “quell pro-Hamas vandalism and intimidation, and investigate and punish anti-Jewish racism in leftist, anti-American colleges and universities.” The OCR has warned over 60 institutions of potential enforcement actions for their failure to “protect Jewish students on campus.” In addition, hundreds of international students have had their student visas revoked; some due to minor traffic violations and others due to President Trump’s call to deport “all Hamas sympathizers on college campuses.”

Boards must act on the issue of antisemitism on campus. This goes beyond mere legal responsibilities. Trustees have an ethical duty to protect their students. Every committee, every task force, every listening group formed to address potential prejudice on campus needs to be attended by at least one trustee. Unannounced campus visits—a valuable tool that helps board members become familiar with the day-to-day campus climate—should be common. Has your campus had lingering protests or encampments? If so, plan to visit sites of these disruptions to gain a firsthand understanding of what your students are experiencing.

Funding Freezes

Similar to his first term, President Trump has again pledged to reduce the national debt, which has grown to $36.8 trillion. The administration has made historic spending cuts to multiple federal agencies through its Department of Government Efficiency, but higher education will be more impacted by the reduction or elimination of federal grants. From cuts to federal work study programs and educational opportunity grants for low-income students, to deep reductions in research grants offered by the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation, to attempts to cap indirect research costs, to reforming and reducing access to student loans, federal funding is set to decrease dramatically under President Trump. This financial instability has already led Moody’s to downgrade its outlook for higher education from stable to negative.

The administration is targeting these cuts at programs and institutions that are not in compliance with new Title VI and IX guidelines or are promoting “dangerous ideologies.” Over $5 billion in federal grants and contracts have been withheld from a number of elite private institutions, including Cornell, Columbia, Princeton, and Harvard, the last of which is also being threatened with removal of its tax-exempt status.

In addition to staying up to date with any changes to federal regulations or litigation, governing boards should study how vulnerable their institutions are to sudden losses in grant funding and aim to diversify and strengthen their revenue streams. Explore forming a subcommittee and working with the office of institutional research to audit the university’s financial health.

Conclusion

President Trump made it clear during his campaign that higher education would be a priority for his administration, and his first 100 days have proved his sincerity. However, his executive-focused approach has led to controversy, confusion, litigation, and few durable legislative changes as of yet. In uncertain times, colleges and universities need steady leadership. As the caretakers of their institutions’ missions, boards need to partner with their president and senior administrators to develop thoughtful, effective responses to new federal policies. There are many projects trustees can explore, including examining new revenue streams, sharing resources with peer institutions, surveying the campus climate, and consulting legal experts to minimize exposure litigation. Boards must look to the future, prioritizing actionable policy changes over empty public statements to secure their institutions’ continued excellence. In times of chaos, inaction is unacceptable.