American conservatives have long been skeptical of higher education. In 1951, William F. Buckley Jr., the founder of the conservative movement, launched his career by writing God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of ‘Academic Freedom,’ a book about his alma mater’s drift from its religious origins and toward socialism and atheism. In 1987, Allan Bloom, another conservative hero, wrote The Closing of the American Mind: How Higher Education Has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Students, a widely celebrated book about the descent of the American university into moral relativism. Buckley, Bloom, and countless other conservatives since have taken issue with the leftward tilt of academia.
Today’s Republican Party has taken this discontent and run with it. The Trump administration’s higher education policy—which, before it was eclipsed by ICE’s immigration enforcement tactics and the Iran war, was perhaps the most visible area of activity in this very active second presidency—is designed to put colleges in their place. Trump has frozen billions of dollars in federal research grants directed toward universities. In the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, Trump’s signature piece of legislation thus far, Congress increased the endowment tax on private universities, targeting institutions such as Harvard with its nearly $60 billion endowment. In a short-lived (but maybe not so short!) move late last year, the Trump administration disseminated its Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, a document containing a list of priorities including ending race-based affirmative action and curbing grade inflation. A facially voluntary agreement, which university leaders were encouraged to sign in order to receive preferential consideration for federal funding, the compact nonetheless contained an ominous warning: “Institutions of higher education are free to develop models and values other than those below, if the institution elects to forego federal benefits.”
That’s only a smattering of the higher education moves of the second Trump administration and its Republican allies in Congress. College leaders have faced a firehose of threats, investigations, and funding freezes over the past year, far more than they did during Trump’s first term. Which raises the question: What accounts for this shift?
Trump launched his war on universities before his second presidency even began.
In the hours, days, weeks, and months after October 7, 2023, when militants paraglided into Israel and slaughtered 1,200 Israelis, a disturbing number of individuals and organizations in the U.S. gushed about Hamas’ righteous resistance, denounced Israel’s “settler colonialism,” denied Israeli children’s innocence, and said Israeli oppression of the Palestinians justified the deadliest day for Jews since the Holocaust.
Rhetoric like this was most audible on college campuses. Across the country, groups of students, professors, and outside agitators set up tent cities on campus lawns in support of Hamas. They chanted slogans like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free”—often viewed as a call to wipe out the state of Israel. They blocked walkways and entrances to libraries. They broke into and occupied university buildings.
University leaders, especially in the first few months of this activity, seemed oddly passive about it all. Even when encampments took up large chunks of campus space directly on walking paths, college presidents remained aloof. Given their history of vocal denunciations of racism, these leaders seemed logically bound to denounce these protests, especially as reports piled up about Jewish students being targeted for their background. For a while, though, college administrators did very little to stop these demonstrations, citing students’ free speech rights.
To many on the right, that last bit felt especially galling. After all, over the past decade American colleges had been hotbeds of cancel culture. Professors were routinely investigated and even demoted for allegedly committing “microaggressions” against aggrieved minorities. Speakers with views slightly to the right of the median voter were shouted down or had their invitations rescinded. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, which was founded to protect free speech on college campuses, documented hundreds of efforts to get professors punished for expressing their opinions in their personal or professional capacities, most of them from the left, between 2000 and 2020.
It was only a matter of time for the discontent that had been simmering on the right for so long to break out. All it took was a horrific event of terrorism on an American ally—and a Republican champion with a platform.
That’s where Rep. Elise Stefanik of New York comes in. Initially elected as a moderate Republican representing upstate New York in 2014, Stefanik has drifted steadily to the right, becoming one of Trump’s most ardent defenders in Congress. She also gained recognition on the right for a bombshell congressional hearing in December 2023 in which she grilled three elite university presidents about their responses to antisemitism on their campuses.
“Does calling for the genocide of Jews violate your university’s code of conduct?” Stefanik asked Harvard then-President Claudine Gay, the University of Pennsylvania then-President Liz Magill, and MIT President Sally Kornbluth. They answered the same way: “It depends on the context.” They stuck to this answer even as Stefanik repeated her question several times.
The presidents were giving very legalistic answers. They all noted that if “calling for the genocide of Jews” crossed over into the territory of “conduct,” and if it was directed at individuals, then it was considered bullying and harassment. That answer tracks Harvard’s definition of bullying as laid out in its nondiscrimination policy (effective September 1, 2023), which states that “harmful interpersonal aggression … must be sufficiently severe or pervasive, and objectively offensive, that it creates a work, educational, or living environment that a reasonable person would consider intimidating, hostile, or abusive and denies the individual an equal opportunity to participate in the benefits of the workplace or the institution’s programs and activities.”
But it wasn’t enough for Stefanik. “It does not depend on the context,” she insisted. “The answer is yes, and this is why you should resign. These are unacceptable answers across the board.”
The reason I’m bringing this up now, two and a half years after that hearing, is that Stefanik has a new book out. Poisoned Ivies: The Inside Account of the Academic and Moral Rot at America’s Elite Universities is a 265-page takedown of elite higher education in America. As you might expect from a politician’s book, there’s nothing profound or even all that interesting about Poisoned Ivies, though there are some amusingly self-aggrandizing (“At this point in the hearing, nearly every Republican member was saving their remaining time to yield to me for additional questions since I had done so much preparation, and my questions were particularly revealing and effective”) and hackish (“Despite Democrat members of Congress objecting to the election certification of every Republican president in my lifetime, the cancel culture perpetrated from the Left and the media against Trump supporters during that particular political chapter [specifically, the period after the 2020 election, in which many Republicans, including Stefanik, questioned the validity of the results] was lightning-swift and venomous”) quotations, along with a long and melodramatic account of a flu-ridden, Kleenex-wielding Stefanik delivering “the most viewed congressional testimony in United States history.” (She cites no source for this claim.)
Despite these limitations, the book is an important resource for understanding the shift in Republican policy toward universities over the past few years—the shift from the vague if impassioned annoyance that defined the Buckley and Bloom eras to the zealous infliction of punishment that defines the second Trump administration. Stefanik begins her account this way:
America’s higher education system is in the midst of a historic reckoning. The compact that existed for generations between our republic, the American people, and our institutions of higher learning has irrevocably broken down. Universities once dedicated to the pursuit of truth and academic excellence have become centers of radical political indoctrination—all while being generously subsidized by hardworking American taxpayers.
Stefanik documents several instances of the aforementioned October 7, 2023, campus protests. “Across the country,” she writes, “American Jewish students and faculty were threatened, harassed, bullied, assaulted, and worse.” (One wonders what “worse” could mean in this context.) She spends a lengthy chapter discussing antisemitic events at Harvard, where she herself went to college (a fact she mentions at least nine times throughout the book), and even longer talking about the scenes at Columbia, including the infamous occupation of Hamilton Hall in 2024.
Stefanik reserves her sharpest attacks for the “cowardly” university presidents who “responded [to antisemitism] with academically lazy moral bankruptcy.” She believes they are hypocrites—after all, “no one thinks that Harvard would tolerate a Ku Klux Klan rally on Harvard Yard.” Yet Gay and her colleagues allowed the pro-Palestinian encampments, which were often home to protesters chanting arguably antisemitic phrases, to continue. It is this double standard that irks Stefanik so much: “It struck me that the only time Harvard had so vociferously and passionately defended freedom of speech was when it was calling for the genocide of Jews.” She points out a similar double standard when university presidents released only tepid denunciations of the Hamas attack, despite forcefully denouncing events as far afield from their campus activities as the Russian invasion of Ukraine and the killing of George Floyd.
This perceived double standard is what finally broke the decades-long detente between conservatives and their Ivory Tower-residing enemies.
Stefanik’s congressional hearing marked the beginning of a new era in higher education. For one thing, two of the presidents facing Stefanik, Liz Magill and Claudine Gay, were forced to resign (Gay initially hung onto her position until conservative journalists and activists unearthed evidence that she was guilty of plagiarism in her academic work; Sally Kornbluth of MIT retained her position, much to Stefanik’s chagrin). Others soon followed.
But that was only the tip of the iceberg. Other colleges, fearing similar backlash, began cracking down on pro-Palestinian protests. Red states, including Texas and Florida, accelerated their efforts to scrub curricular materials of “divisive content,” including critical race theory and its many cousins, at their public universities. Billionaire donors, most prominently the Harvard alumnus Bill Ackman, vocally urged reform after decades of laissez-faire giving.
Many university leaders, recognizing they had lost public trust, started to make changes on their own. Several colleges established new centers for civic thought to welcome conservative scholars and students. University leaders acknowledged the problems with academia and began emphasizing their belief in intellectual diversity. It turns out a lot of internal change is possible when the threat of a significant loss of revenue looms over the higher education system.
Many observers—on both the right and, perhaps surprisingly, the left—are happy with some of these changes, if not with the heavy-handed approach to achieving them. They never liked it when college students swarmed the quad at the drop of a hat, ready to protest the left-wing cause du jour. Plus, their hard-earned tax dollars were funding these organizations to the tune of billions of dollars per year—a pill that was especially hard to swallow at the most prestigious universities with the largest endowments, which themselves were often the scenes of the most outlandish protests.
Two questions remain. The first is simple: How long will these changes last?
The cultural changes are especially susceptible to reversal. Universities are facing unprecedented legal actions from the Trump administration, so they have every incentive to change their policies while he is in office. But once a Democrat is elected president, college leaders may ease back a bit on their reforms, knowing that they’re unlikely to face retaliation from a friendly administration. Moreover, most of Trump’s actions toward universities are rendered via executive orders or other unilateral measures, meaning they will only be in place as long as he’s in office. Lots of them have even been ruled illegal, casting doubt on their staying power. If a Republican wins in 2028 and continues applying pressure to universities, then maybe Trump’s reforms will outlast his presidency. But given how unpopular Trump is with American voters, his boosters shouldn’t hold their breath.
The other question is thornier: What do Republicans think free speech should look like on college campuses? If you asked a Republican in, say, 2020, he would almost certainly have been a free-speech absolutist, or close to it. He would have said that the First Amendment makes no exception for hate speech or racism, so public institutions (along with private universities that model their speech policies on the First Amendment) ought to tolerate speech that some groups view as hateful.
But if you asked a Republican now, it’s not so clear what he would say. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s Scholars Under Fire database, mentioned above, tracks which direction the cancellation attempts came from. For a while, more attempts came from the left than the right. But starting in 2020, and ballooning in 2025, there were far more coming from the right. The most visible of these was when Martin Peterson, a philosophy professor at Texas A&M University, ran afoul of his university’s new rules restricting courses that could be seen as advocating “race or gender ideology” or similar topics by assigning readings on Plato. Peterson resigned last week, citing Texas A&M’s “new censorship policy” that he regards as “an outright violation of one of the most basic principles of academic freedom.”
Stefanik et al. may claim that cracking down on antisemitism isn’t the same as restricting free speech—that what red states and the Trump administration are doing is simply protecting Jewish students from discrimination. But as Eugene Volokh, a legal expert at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution, wrote in December 2023, “There’s no ‘advocacy of genocide’ exception to the First Amendment, or to the contractual promises of student free speech that many private universities rightly implement.” In other words, as vile as such speech may be, it’s still protected by the First Amendment. That fact appears nowhere in Stefanik’s book, nor did it come up in the congressional testimony (recall that she insisted “calling for the genocide of Jews” should be considered harassment per Harvard’s code of conduct).
Consider how Stefanik treats the actions of Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia graduate student of Algerian citizenship who was detained in 2025 for supporting Hamas. Stefanik praises Trump for the arrest, suggesting that Khalil’s actions were “obviously illegal.” What were those actions? “He participated directly in the violation of American Jewish students’ civil rights” by “act[ing] as a spokesperson and negotiator for the encamped students as they petitioned Columbia’s administration,” “leading chants in demonstrations in the days immediately following October 7th,” being involved in an organization calling for the “total eradication of Western Civilization,” speaking at a “Palestine 101” event on campus, and “play[ing] a leading role in the ‘Al-Aqsa Flood [Hamas’ name for the October 7 attack] Walkout’” where “protesters chanted, ‘Resistance is glorious! We will be victorious!’”
I’m no legal scholar, and I understand there’s a legal dispute about whether Khalil, who is an Algerian citizen, has the same free speech rights as an American citizen (an appeals court recently ruled that Khalil’s deportation case can move forward). But it’s unclear to me that any of the described activities are “obviously illegal.” It may be disturbing, disgusting even, but that’s the thing about the First Amendment—it protects disturbing and disgusting speech.
So what does Stefanik—and by extension Trump, and others who sympathize with them—really think about the First Amendment? From the outside, it’s hard to shake the impression that it’s a simple matter of expediency for them—that they only really believe in free speech when it helps their right-wing projects.
Right-wing projects that are, as a matter of fact, still underway. Just last week, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced the Defense Department would end military education partnerships with Harvard, Princeton, and other elite schools in favor of the more ideologically conservative Hillsdale College and Liberty University. See also the conservative takeover of New College of Florida, an effort led by right-wing activist Christopher Rufo to remake the liberal arts school into a “Hillsdale of the South.” There’s also the University of Austin, the putatively heterodox, Bari Weiss-affiliated college that is looking more and more like a right-wing project.
Will these and other efforts to realign higher education outlast the Trump administration? Only time will tell. But even if they don’t, the effects of the Stefanik-led assault will be felt for years to come.