The Trump administration is waging an unprecedented assault on higher education in the United States by leveraging both executive and legislative power. Since taking office in January 2025, the administration has frozen over $11 billion in university research funding and has targeted more than four thousand grants for termination across more than six hundred institutions, according to reports from NPR and the Center for American Progress (Bedekovics and Ragland Reference Bedekovics and Ragland2025; Higher Ed Dive 2025; Nadworny Reference Nadworny2025). Simultaneously, the US Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has opened investigations into dozens of institutions for their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and has placed roughly 60 colleges under investigation for antisemitism, threatening severe penalties (US Department of Education 2025b). Beyond these probes, the administration has disrupted international enrollment (Knox Reference Knox2025), increased the endowment tax (Levine Reference Levine2025a), and has drafted the Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education, a federal agreement linking funding to ideological, administrative, and curriculum reforms (US Department of Education 2025a). Finally, working with Congress, the administration passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which slashed federal funding and imposed strict borrowing caps, such as a $20,500 annual limit for graduate students starting in 2026; enforced new income-based accountability metrics; targeted elite institution endowments; reduced graduate loan access; and restricted student safety net access (National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities 2025; Unglesbee Reference Unglesbee2025).
The Trump administration’s targeting of colleges and universitiesFootnote 1 extends beyond recent Gaza-related unrest and cases of antisemitism. Influenced by Project 2025, the administration views higher education as a hub of liberal extremism that threatens American identity. Its goal is to dismantle academic independence and repurpose these institutions to serve a specific nationalist vision (Trump Reference Trump2023). By framing universities as the source of national decadence, the administration uses this conflict to mobilize its base, prioritizing the defeat of “liberal dominance” over legal or institutional norms (Bennhold et al. Reference Bennhold, Saul, Bender, Cohen, Stevis-Gridneff, Das, Wang, Dahir, Porter and Glanz2025; Dans and Groves Reference Dans and Groves2023). It aims to control institutions and weaken their accountability function as knowledge producers that could challenge the administration’s actions. Ultimately, it seeks to transform these institutions to serve an ideologically defined vision of the US, a vision defined in narrow racial, religious, and ethnic terms (Custer Reference Custer2025). Furthermore, unlike past challenges, this unprecedented crisis is a product of direct federal policy, not merely economic or demographic shifts. Last, the Trump administration is breaking the traditional “academic social contract” by undermining the partnership that grants universities autonomy in exchange for fostering national expertise and values (Cantwell Reference Cantwell2025; Knox and Alonso Reference Knox and Alonso2025; Zimmerman Reference Zimmerman2026).
These actions occur amid a significant, decade-long decline in trust in higher education. Trust is a foundational pillar underpinning the functioning of both organizations and society; as Covey (Reference Covey and Merrill2008) observes, it is both a social value and an economic driver—“the one thing that changes everything.” Moreover, the need for trust is most acute during periods of uncertainty, as it provides the mechanism for operating in unpredictable environments (Yamagishi Reference Yamagishi2011). Indeed, although some question whether trust is an academic value (Wilson Reference Wilson2026), as a recent Yale University report highlights, “public trust is particularly important for higher education to succeed” (Adams et al. Reference Adams, Gage, Bennett, Bozovic, Bromwich, Chevalier, Hockenberry, Leiserowitz, Natarajan and Sanga2026, 5). While there are many conceptualizations of trust, two are particularly relevant to higher education: epistemic trust (reliance on others as sources of information) and social trust (reliance on others to do the right thing as agents of action) (McBrayer Reference McBrayer2026). Scrutiny and trust are at the heart of academia; scholars must challenge one another, yet also trust other scholars, professors, and experts. And because university missions are explicitly tied to the discovery of truth and the production of knowledge, scholars need the public to have epistemic trust in them. Social trust is also essential: parents must trust that universities are educating their children, and students must trust that institutions will act to promote their long-term success. Public trust is also critical for sustaining the perceived value of degrees and justifying the investment of time and resources by students and society. As the Yale report notes, the enduring value of an academic credential hinges on its role as a proxy for intellectual and professional competence. A loss of public confidence in higher education’s ability to produce these outcomes will erode its foundation of support, as the success of universities requires widespread recognition of the value of the education they provide and the validity of the knowledge they create. In sum, trust is essential to academic integrity. Without it, scholarly function ceases, public expertise fails, and higher education’s covenant with students, families, and taxpayers collapses. Thus, maintaining this trust is imperative.
Unfortunately, Americans have become increasingly distrustful of the sector over the years. Its actions have eroded both social trust and epistemic trust (McBrayer Reference McBrayer2026). This is not a new phenomenon. The erosion of public trust has been a gradual process that has escalated rapidly into an acute crisis of institutional legitimacy: Gallup polls show trust has been declining for the last decade, from 57% in 2015 to 37% in 2026. Moreover, this erosion is largely driven by a sharp decline among Republicans: while 50% of Democrats say that they have confidence in higher education, only 23% of Republicans share this view (Jones Reference Jones2026). This data is confirmed by a Pew Research Center survey (Parker Reference Parker2025). This disparity reflects a growing partisan divide linked to educational attainment, which has increasingly politicized the public’s view of universities (Grossmann and Hopkins Reference Grossmann and Hopkins2024, 179–87).
This decline has been driven by an unsustainable tuition-dependent business model, an impending “demographic cliff,” and rising costs, as well as by mounting questions about value, return on investment, and relevance (Castillo and Welding Reference Castillo and Welding2025; US Census Bureau 2023). When the cultural debates over DEI and the perceived lack of ideological diversity and free speech combined with deteriorating economic outcomes (e.g., increasing debt and underemployment for millions of college graduates) and a surge in political polarization, the decline became inevitable and it gave the Trump administration the leverage to act.
The intensified scrutiny of higher education during the Trump administration’s second term may be interpreted as a consequence of a profound crisis of institutional legitimacy. By failing to proactively address the underlying causes of eroding public confidence, universities have remained structurally vulnerable to political attacks. The core argument of this essay is that higher education is facing a perfect storm of its own making. At a time when universities need public support to defend themselves against rising political hostility, they find themselves alienated from a society they have spent decades distancing themselves from. The current offensive extends beyond public “judgment”; it represents the strategic instrumentalization of public dissatisfaction by the federal government to mandate radical shifts in university governance. The administration has leveraged existing sector vulnerabilities to transition from the relatively “passive” critiques of its first term to an “active,” adversarial regulatory posture. This is manifested in a systematic effort to weaponize the loss of public trust into direct policy interventions aimed at compelling the academy to serve the administration’s vision for the US.
Higher education faces a credibility problem and addressing the catalysts of this mistrust is imperative. The American public often feel the sector has left them behind because it has traded affordability for an elitist culture they can no longer recognize, making it vulnerable to political attacks. Because legal battles are slow, risky, and uncertain—and collective action is difficult—higher education urgently needs public and civil society support to confront the Trump administration and resist efforts to reshape the sector according to a specific ideological vision. This reflective essay argues that universities can only effectively counter these political attacks and defend their missions by addressing the root causes of public distrust.
This essay provides a systematic synthesis of the structural causes behind the erosion of trust in higher education, offering actionable proposals focused on economic mobility and scholarly excellence. Rather than introducing entirely new arguments or interventions, this analysis weaves disparate media trends, polls, and institutional debates into a cohesive narrative grounded in political science frameworks like educational polarization and the “diploma divide.” By framing contemporary news and surveys within academic literature, the work moves beyond fragmented discourse to provide an evidence-backed synthesis. Its primary contribution lies in this coherence—connecting, for example, Republican distrust of universities to broader shifts in political identity. Ultimately, this integration offers a more nuanced interpretation of declining trust, moving from mere data observation to a deeper understanding of what these shifts mean for higher education in a democratic society. Last, while the focus of the political science literature has been largely on the causes and consequences of the diploma divide, this essay explores higher education–specific solutions to address the diploma divide and the culture gap.
This essay is structured into five sections. The first section outlines institutional responses from universities, while the second examines the evidence regarding the loss of trust in the sector. The third analyzes the factors contributing to the decline in public confidence, followed by an examination of the political causes of the crisis. Finally, the essay offers actionable recommendations to restore trust in the sector.
How Are Colleges and Universities Responding to the Attacks?
Confronted by the overwhelming power of the government, universities are employing a range of strategies (Blinder Reference Blinder2026). First, some universities like Brown University, Columbia University, Cornell University, Northwestern University, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Virginia have signed agreements with the Trump administration and, in some cases, have agreed to pay millions of dollars to restore research funds and end federal investigations (see Columbia University Board of Trustees and the US Government 2025). While some observers lauded such agreements for restoring normality and protecting academic freedom (Diep, Goldstein, and Kelderman Reference Diep, Goldstein and Kelderman2025), critics argue that they undermine university autonomy and set a dangerous precedent by codifying Trump-era tactics (Delandro Reference Delandro2025; Schwartz Reference Schwartz2025). Furthermore, this acquiescence risks encouraging further governmental intrusion into the sector. As political scientists such as Levitsky, Way, and Ziblatt (Reference Levitsky, Way and Ziblatt2025) have emphasized, if history has taught us anything, it is that “autocrats rarely entrench themselves in power through force alone; they are enabled by the accommodation and inaction of those who might have resisted.” Universities that are willing to compromise principles and values for political expediency may ultimately undermine both institutional integrity and public trust.
Other universities, notably Harvard University, and trade groups (like the Association of American Universities, the American Association of University Professors, and the American Federation of Teachers) representing universities and workers have decided to fight and are taking the Trump administration to court (Stoico Reference Stoico2025). They consider the Trump administration’s actions to be illegal, arbitrary, disproportionate, or in violation of detailed procedures for adjudicating issues such as civil rights violations or constitutional protections, particularly those around free speech (Blinder Reference Blinder2026; Olaniran Reference Olaniran2025; Schmidt and Blinder Reference Schmidt and Blinder2025). Universities are also uniting to resist administration interference in research and academic freedom. Key examples include a coalition of 10 selective institutions (Glazer, Belkin, and Chung Reference Glazer, Belkin and Chung2025), a Big Ten mutual support pact initiated by Rutgers University (Rutgers University Senate 2025), and a widely distributed American Association of Colleges and Universities (2025) letter from hundreds of leaders opposing undue government intrusion.
Yet as reasonable as these strategies may sound, they will not be enough. First, in confronting these threats, universities face a complex collective action problem: unity across the sector is difficult and can only go so far. Indeed, despite facing similar pressures, universities have diverse interests, missions, structures, and sensitivities to political influence, which hinder efforts to form a unified front. Some institutions, by virtue of their endowment, reputation, and selectivity, stand to fare better than others in the face of the Trump administration’s actions. This, combined with a fear of being singled out for retribution, concerns about free riders, and the risk of resisting publicly, has led most institutions to remain silent while waiting for others to lead. In this way, they can benefit from any successes without incurring the costs and risks of direct confrontation (Blinder Reference Blinder2025). Last, their ability to respond effectively to the current crisis is hindered by an organizational model based on a decentralized structure and shared governance that is ill suited to the current moment, which demands that they speak with one voice (Liebowitz Reference Liebowitz2026; Owen-Smith Reference Owen-Smith2025).
Moreover, the costs of opposing the government, which may include lost federal funding, litigation expenses, or reputational damage, can be prohibitively high. Given their fiduciary responsibility to protect their institutions, university leaders have incentives to stand aside or appease these actions rather than oppose them. This is particularly true because the Trump administration has proved to be ready to exact reprisals on its foes. In addition, many have observed that neither other universities nor those in power rushed to Columbia’s defense when it was initially targeted by the administration. There is also a risk that if universities join forces in a strategy of pure confrontation, the public may perceive it as a collective attempt to “hunker down” and “close ranks,” which may look like a self-interested attempt to protect the status quo during a crisis.
Finally, a judicial strategy is also perilous. Part of the Trump administration’s strategy is to create significant legal uncertainty by introducing a flurry of executive orders and administrative measures that universities must challenge in court. However, judicial outcomes are inherently unpredictable, regardless of how strong a legal case may appear; they are time consuming due to appeals and may eventually reach the Supreme Court, which has frequently favored the administration’s position. There is also the risk that civil inquiries can escalate into criminal matters, leaving universities vulnerable to new litigation. Ultimately, the Trump administration welcomes this uncertainty because it is highly problematic for universities operating on long-term cycles (Custer Reference Custer2025), threatening jobs, reputations, and planning, and making it difficult for them to recruit faculty or enroll students. Because universities must operate on fixed yearly budgets and comply with regulatory mandates, a purely judicial approach is fraught with risk. While institutions must defend themselves in court, they also face the responsibility of adhering to the law and accepting demands that do not exceed legitimate legal authority.
In sum, to survive these deplorable attacks, which hark back to the era of McCarthyism, the sector must bridge the gap with a skeptical public and civil society, as legal challenges and collective action are currently insufficient to protect its autonomy.
The Loss of Confidence in Higher Education
Over the last decade there has been a profound erosion of trust and confidenceFootnote 2 in higher education. Surveys conducted since 2015 have consistently showed that an increasing proportion of American adults report having little or no confidence in the sector. In a 2024 Gallup survey, only 36% of Americans expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence in the sector (Jones Reference Jones2024). The loss of trust is particularly acute for private universities (Vanderbilt University 2025). In itself, the problem of declining trust is not unique to higher education. This erosion of trust in higher education is consistent with the decline in trust in most institutions in American society, which began in 1973 during the Watergate scandal. Since 1993, Gallup has collected data on the public’s trust in different institutions (Congress, the press, the presidency, banks, churches, the military, etc.) and has found that public confidence in them has remained relatively low—particularly over the past 15 years, when the average has not risen above 36%. Of the 18 institutions surveyed in July 2025, just three earn majority-level confidence from Americans: small business, the military, and science (Brenan Reference Brenan2025). All the other institutions have faced reductions in their standing with the public, suggesting broader forces than just the actions or inactions of a particular institution are at work. Indeed, the widespread decline in public confidence across various sectors indicates a systemic, macrolevel societal shift, driven by factors such as economic anxiety, political polarization, misinformation, or failure to deliver, rather than specific failings in one sector.
Nonetheless, higher education’s loss of trust is particularly striking. According to Gallup, no other sector has seen a steeper decline in public confidence over the last decade. While that decline is part of a broader trend, in a democracy, the public’s judgment is the problem if it leads to a total collapse in support. Moreover, even if trust is falling everywhere, higher education has a unique mission that requires confidence, as noted in the introduction. If 70% of Americans believe the higher education system is heading in the wrong direction, as a Pew survey suggests, then it cannot function properly and succeed, regardless of whether other institutions are struggling too (Deane Reference Deane2024).
Confidence in higher education saw a brief increase in 2025, when 42% of adults expressed “a great deal” or “quite a lot” of confidence (up from 36% in 2024) (Jones Reference Jones2025; see also Cheche, Nguyen, and Sawyer Reference Cheche, Nguyen and Sawyer2025; Nguyen, Fishman, and Cheche Reference Nguyen, Fishman and Cheche2024; Quinnipiac University 2026). However, as we have seen, the latest 2026 Gallup survey again shows a slight decline (Jones Reference Jones2026). We should also not ignore the long-term decline in support for the sector. When Gallup first measured confidence in higher education in 2015, 57% had “a lot” or “quite a lot” of confidence, and 10% had “little” or “none.” Confidence has decreased across the political spectrum, but particularly among Republicans: according to Gallup, only 23% of Republicans expressed “confidence in U.S. higher education” in 2026, down from 56% in 2015, while 50% of Democrats shared this view, a new low for this group and a drop of 18 percentage points since 2015 (and 11 points since 2025) (Jones Reference Jones2026). Moreover, the 2025 Varying Degrees survey also shows that only 39% of Republicans “believe that institutions are creating a positive impact on the nation” (Cheche, Nguyen, and Sawyer Reference Cheche, Nguyen and Sawyer2025). The overall increase in support in 2025 may have just been a response to the Trump administration’s attacks on higher education.
Reasons for the Loss of Confidence in Higher Education
There are four main reasons for Americans’ low confidence in US colleges and universities: costs, the perception that they are partisan institutions, the adoption of diversity policies in their admissions and recruitment processes, and skepticism about the value of higher education degrees.
Costs
First, there is a strong perception that high, unsustainable college costs have caused a crisis in access to higher education. A study by J. P. Morgan Asset Management (2025) found that, on average, college tuition has surged by 5.6% per year since 1983, significantly outpacing other household expenses. According to US News, the average cost of tuition and other fees at the top-ranked private universities in the US has increased by about 41% since 2005, making access to a higher education unaffordable for millions of families and helping to perpetuate inequalities and resentment toward higher education (Wood Reference Wood2024).
The aforementioned 2026 Gallup survey shows that 30% of the people who lack confidence in higher education mention “the high cost of a college education” as reason for their view (Jones Reference Jones2026). This is supported by a Quinnipiac University (2026) poll, which found that 58% of those who regret their degree cite high college costs as a major reason; by Strada Education Foundation surveys (Clayton, Draeger, and Ward Reference Clayton, Draeger and Ward2025); and by a recent report from the latter institute, which shows that sticker prices and confusion about tuition discounting are hurting public trust and confidence in higher education (Blanchard and Ward Reference Blanchard and Ward2026). According to the most recent “State of Higher Education” report by the Lumina Foundation and Gallup (2026c), “[j]ust 25% of adults without a degree or credential say all or most people in the U.S. have access to quality, affordable education after high school, while the majority believe no more than half of Americans have such access.” This is the lowest level recorded since 2022, marking a 10-point drop in just two years. Even so, nearly three in four of these adults (73%) say earning a credential “is at least as important today as it was 20 years ago.” Meanwhile, most college alumni (71%) “strongly agree or agree their education was worth what they paid,” and an overwhelming 93% “would still obtain an undergraduate or associate degree.” Yet only 11% of these graduates believe colleges “charge fair prices” (Lumina Foundation and Gallup 2026a).
This problem is compounded by reductions in public funding: according to the Pell Institute, the national investment effort in 2022 was just three-quarters of what it had been in 2010, amounting to a reduction of $135.8 billion (Mortenson Reference Mortenson2024; Ordway Reference Ordway2025). These costs have contributed to an explosion in educational debt, which, according to data from the Education Data Initiative, now amounts to $1.693 trillion (Hanson Reference Hanson2025). To put this into perspective, the average student at a public college borrows $31,960 to earn a bachelor’s degree (Hanson Reference Hanson2025)—an unsustainable situation that explains much resentment toward higher education.
Partisanship
A second reason for the loss of public support is the widespread perception that colleges and universities are partisan institutions that have adopted a progressive liberal agenda and exclude conservative intellectual traditions. Universities’ support for diversity programs, transgender and LGBTQ+ rights, and progressive social and economic policies has placed them in the crosshairs of conservative politicians and activists. This has alienated universities from millions of American citizens who see them as radical institutions that are adopting, promoting, and indoctrinating students in policies and cultural values that are far removed from their own.
Several surveys confirm these negative perceptions. The Lumina Foundation and Gallup’s (2026b) “College Reality Check” survey shows that the 23% of Americans who express little or no confidence in higher education mention several reasons for their skepticism, “though three notably outpace the others: the politicization of campuses (38%); not focusing on ‘the right things,’ such as not learning job-relevant skills (32%); and cost and expenses, including high tuition prices and loan burdens (24%).” In a 2025 Gallup survey, respondents who said they lacked confidence in higher education “mentioned political stances or agendas, colleges not preparing students well for the workforce, and the cost of college as reasons for their view,” and compared with 2024, “more of those lacking confidence in higher education discuss[ed] political agendas (38%, up from 28%)” (Jones Reference Jones2025). Similarly, 79% of Republicans in a 2019 Pew survey said a major problem in higher education was that “professors are bringing their political and social views into the classroom” (Parker Reference Parker2019). These beliefs may be well founded. A University of California, Los Angeles survey revealed that liberal-leaning college freshmen outnumbered conservatives by a three-to-one ratio (Happel Reference Happel2017). Among faculty, this disparity is even more pronounced. With few exceptions, research shows that liberal, left-leaning professors outnumber conservative, right-leaning professors in academia, rising from a two-to-one liberal-to-conservative ratio in the mid-1990s to roughly five to one in the early 2010s (Abrams Reference Abrams2018; Tough Reference Tough2023; Zipp and Fenwick Reference Zipp and Fenwick2006).
Diversity Policies
A third key factor that has distanced universities from a large segment of society has been universities’ adoption of diversity policies in their admissions and recruitment processes. Polls show that Americans support racial diversity but do not believe racial preferences are the right way to achieve that goal (Gramlich Reference Gramlich2023). Moreover, a study from Chetty et al. (Reference Chetty, Dobbie, Goldman, Porter and Yang2024) shows that in recent years, the economic mobility gap by race has been narrowing while the class gap has widened, and elite universities have become racially integrated but economically segregated. The Supreme Court struck down the use of racial preferences in student recruitment in 2023, and many universities have responded by increasing their scholarship programs for lower-income families. This sense of unfairness is compounded by the admissions practices of many elite US schools: research reveals a trend of preferential treatment in elite college admissions for children from wealthy families, finding that these students are twice as likely to be admitted to Ivy Plus institutions (Chetty, Deming, and Friedman Reference Chetty, Deming and Friedman2023).
The Value of Degrees
Finally, the loss of trust in higher education is driven by growing skepticism about the value of a college degree. According to a Pell survey, “only 22% of U.S. adults say the cost of getting a four-year college degree today is worth it” (Fry, Braga, and Parker Reference Fry, Braga and Parker2024). These findings are supported by other surveys: a Wall Street Journal-NORC poll shows that more than half of Americans “don’t think a four-year college degree is worth the cost” (Belkin Reference Belkin2023); and a Quinnipiac University (2026) poll shows that 20% of Americans who earned an associate’s degree or higher say getting their degree “was not worth it.” There is empirical evidence to support this view: a study by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis shows that the college earnings premium remains positive but has declined for recent graduates, and that college and graduate education may be failing some recent graduates as a financial investment (Emmons, Kent, and Ricketts Reference Emmons, Kent and Ricketts2019; see also Resume Templates 2025).
At the same time, the public’s skepticism about the value of higher education degrees is compounded by other problematic outcomes. First, according to the National Center for Education Statistics (2022), the overall six-year graduation rate for undergraduates who began their studies in the fall of 2014 was only 64% in 2020. Second, according to a report by the Burning Glass Institute and the Strada Education Foundation (2024), 52% of four-year college graduates are underemployed one year after graduation. Third, a report from Preply shows that one in two Americans say their college major did not prepare them for the job market and only 5% reported feeling “adequately prepared” for life and the workplace (Miguelez Reference Miguelez2025). Fourth, according to Pew Research Center analysis, the gender gap is widening, with 47% of US women aged 25 to 34 completing a bachelor’s degree compared with 37% of men in the same age group (Hurst Reference Hurst2024; see also AP-NORC 2025b; 2025c).
Last, the skepticism about the value of higher education is fueled by growing concerns about the role of universities in promoting social mobility. Historically, universities have played a key role as agents of upward income mobility by providing access to education and opportunities that can lead to improved socioeconomic status (Custer Reference Custer2025). However, new studies show that inequality in access to colleges can limit or even reverse colleges’ ability to promote intergenerational mobility. Chetty et al. (Reference Chetty, Friedman, Saez, Turner and Yagan2017) show that rates of upward mobility differ substantially across colleges and that the colleges that channel the most children from low- or middle-income families to the top 1% are almost exclusively highly selective institutions. This is compounded by the perpetuation of the myth that higher education is the only path to prosperity because that leaves out the 55.5% of Americans who do not have bachelor’s degrees (US Census Bureau 2025), thus contributing to the working-class resentment toward the professional class (e.g., people with higher education degrees) that has been such a major factor in recent elections (Harting et al. Reference Harting, Keeter, Daniller and Green2025).
How the Crisis Arose
The erosion of trust in higher education is driven by a complex interplay of political polarization and socioeconomic pressures that have fundamentally altered the perceived value of a degree. Educational attainment has become a critical determinant of partisanship, and “educational polarization”—the growing political and cultural polarization between college graduates and those without degrees—has become a key driver in the erosion of trust in higher education, turning universities into symbols of a perceived “cultural elite” rather than engines of opportunity. Driven by the realignment of college-educated voters with the Democratic Party, a partisan divide has emerged regarding trust in higher education, with higher education linked to a more liberal outlook and increasing skepticism from populist conservatives (Dalton Reference Dalton2018). As we have seen, Americans’ confidence in higher education is falling, largely driven by a sharp decline among Republicans. This shift reflects a growing partisan divide linked to educational attainment, which has increasingly politicized the public’s view of universities. This development helps to explain how the current crisis arose (Grossmann and Hopkins Reference Grossmann and Hopkins2024).
Indeed, intensifying political divisions have transformed universities into ideological battlegrounds, leading to a significant partisan trust gap. These polarized attitudes are driven by diverging perceptions of the economic benefits of higher education, as measured by graduation rates. Recent research shows that the diploma divide—a growing partisan chasm between college-educated voters, who increasingly identify with the political Left, and non-college-educated voters, who increasingly identify with the Right—has become a primary driver of political polarization in the US over the last few decades, as college-educated voters have shifted toward the Democratic Party while non-college-educated voters have moved toward the Republican Party (Grossmann and Hopkins Reference Grossmann and Hopkins2024; see also Barber and Pope Reference Barber and Pope2024; Dalton Reference Dalton2018; Goldberg Reference Goldberg2023; Marble Reference Marble2024; Prinzing and Vazquez Reference Prinzing and Vazquez2026; Sukarieh and Tannock Reference Sukarieh and Tannock2026; Williams Reference Williams2025; Zingher Reference Zingher2022).
While the reasons for “educational polarization” are disputed, from self-selection to the universal viewpoint favored by college graduates versus the more particularist viewpoint of non-college-educated adults, the political effect is to “make difficult, divisive moral and cultural questions the subjects of more political debates, and the basis on which growing numbers of voters decide which candidates and parties to support” (Voegeli Reference Voegeli2024). This “cultural cleavage” is defined by issues such as immigration, LGBTQ+ rights, and environmentalism. Voters with higher levels of education are more likely to support progressive positions, while those with less education often lean toward conservative, anti-immigration, or nationalist positions (Dalton Reference Dalton2018). Furthermore, progressive college graduates have gradually taken over many institutions, gaining disproportionate power and fueling resentment among non-college-educated white voters who feel excluded (al-Gharbi Reference al-Gharbi2024). Some of these leaders have increasingly adopted progressive positions, particularly on social and cultural issues—ranging from immigration, to reproductive rights, to policing—and have pushed the Democratic Party to adopt platforms that emphasize these issues rather than its traditional economic ones (Judis and Teixeira Reference Judis and Teixeira2023). As these issues have come to dominate its discourse, the Democratic Party has gained strength among college graduates, whereas the Republican Party has increasingly consolidated support among those without a four-year degree (Grossmann and Hopkins Reference Grossmann and Hopkins2024). The backlash among those on the Right who view the Left as “an arrogant and privileged class of elites” (145) manifests in polarization and distrust of the leaders of these institutions, which helps to explain the growing erosion of confidence in the higher education sector among Republicans.
As the electorate becomes more polarized on educational lines, the diploma divide may—if it is not addressed through more inclusive engagement—solidify the erosion of trust in higher education with lasting political consequences. More than two decades ago, Judis and Teixeira (Reference Judis and Teixeira2002) anticipated that educated professionals would become so numerous and so supportive of the Democratic Party that they would eventually constitute a key component of a durable Democrat majority. By 2023, they were asking, “Where have all the Democrats gone?” and admitted that a Democratic victory was not inevitable because the college-educated population was not large enough to win elections. Driven by arrogance, many Democrats wrongly believed they could disregard working-class white voters without electoral consequences. As Judis and Teixeira (Reference Judis and Teixeira2023) argue, this condescension has hampered the party’s competitiveness over the last two decades. Zingher (Reference Zingher2022) confirms that the post-2000 realignment of US parties is driven by a diploma divide, where educational attainment has become a key predictor of both partisanship and voting behavior, with more highly educated counties shifting toward the Democrats and less well-educated counties moving toward the Republicans. Data from recent elections confirm this pattern: according to a Pew Research Center report, while Joe Biden improved on Hillary Clinton’s electoral performance among white non-college-educated voters when he received 33% of their in 2020, Trump still won the group by 65% (Igielnik, Keeter, and Hartig Reference Igielnik, Keeter and Hartig2021). And according to an NBC News (2024) exit poll, voters holding a bachelor’s degree or an advanced degree accounted for 43% of the electorate in the November 2024 elections. Of that group, 56% voted for Vice-President Kamala Harris, and 42% voted for Donald Trump (NBC News 2024; Royo Reference Royo2026). Finally, recent research also shows the impact of the educational divide on voter turnout as college-educated voters increasingly align with the Democratic Party: Goidel, Moreira, and Armstrong (Reference Goidel, Thiago and Armstrong2024) show that increases in turnout greatly benefited the Democratic Party in the pre-Trump era. However, this pattern has drastically changed and in three of the five most recent presidential and congressional elections (2016, 2018, and 2020), the Democratic Party has seen a much smaller gain in vote share as turnout increases. These findings suggest that educational realignment may permanently invert traditional turnout advantages, causing Democrats to lead in low-turnout contests while Republicans dominate high-turnout elections.
As a related point, it is also important to point out that due to the structure of American democracy, the same rural, right-leaning US populations that seem to have the most negative views of higher education hold disproportionate electoral power and thus have disproportionate sway over education policy. Recent elections in the US have also been characterized by a strong urban–rural divide, with rural voters being more likely to vote for the Republican Party while Democratic support is concentrated in large urban centers (Huijsmans and Rodden Reference Huijsmans and Rodden2025; Pautonnier et al. Reference Pautonnier, Dassonneville, Lewis-Beck and Nadeau2026). Driven by perceptions that higher education is too liberal and detached from the realities of employment, rural, right-leaning US populations use their disproportionate electoral influence in state legislatures and the US Senate to influence education policy by cutting public university funding, banning DEI initiatives, or restructuring university governance, while pushing for curricular changes, “viewpoint diversity” mandates, more vocational training, and reduced institutional autonomy. Examples include the Senate Bill 17 passed by the Texas state legislature, which banned DEI offices at public universities, and legislation introduced by several states (many with large rural populations) to restrict or eliminate curricula and teaching about critical race theory, gender studies, and intersectionality, as has occurred in Idaho, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Arizona, North Dakota, Florida, and Montana.
Finally, higher education has played a complex dual role in the rise of populism, acting both as a catalyst for resentment, due to its perceived elitism, and as a target of populist, anti-elite sentiment, which also contributes to the loss of trust in the sector. The rise of populism is partly a consequence of sweeping economic transformations—notably globalization and the shift toward knowledge-based economies—that have empowered a highly educated middle class while disenfranchising the working class; this shift is further compounded by a reaction from older, less-educated voters against the progressive values of that urban elite (Norris and Inglehart Reference Norris and Inglehart2019; Robertson and Nestore Reference Robertson and Nestore2022; Rodrik Reference Rodrik2012). Global populist movements are increasingly targeting higher education as a means to solidify nationalist and autocratic power. By undermining academic freedom and institutional governance, leaders like Viktor Orbán in Hungary—and his admirers in the US, such as J. D. Vance—seek to dismantle universities’ roles as engines of critical thinking and social mobility (Douglass Reference Douglass2021; Fischer Reference Fischer2025). This hostility is strategically rooted in a desire to maintain the “us versus them” dichotomy; because education empowers citizens and fosters pluralism, it threatens the dependency and ideological simplicity upon which populist control depends (Grigoriadis and Işık Canpolat Reference Grigoriadis and Canpolat2024; Turnbull, Wilson, and Agoston Reference Turnbull, Wilson and Agoston2024).
In sum, the realignment of college-educated voters with the Democratic Party has fostered a partisan trust gap in higher education. This shift, marked by rising skepticism among populists, helps to explain the political origins of the current crisis. We now turn to possible remedies.
How Can Higher Education Address the Diploma Divide to Restore the Public’s Trust?
So far, universities have taken their federal partnerships for granted, often failing to prioritize public engagement. This strategy has backfired. A major sector of society no longer trusts universities and resents the use of taxpayer dollars to fund them. Remaining passive and dismissing these criticisms as mere partisan fabrications is a recipe for disaster, especially given the current fragility of higher education.
Institutions must therefore look beyond the courtroom. While colleges should fight legal and procedural violations, they must also urgently address the missteps that created this toxic political climate. Legal battles against the Trump administration could take years to resolve. Because the administration is unlikely to back down, the true defense of higher education must happen in the court of public opinion. Only then will universities mobilize the large-scale public support they desperately need to halt these attacks. As Massachusetts Institute of Technology president Sally Kornbluth noted, “[t]he only thing that’s going to move the needle here is when the mass American public stands up and says that they see what’s happening and that they’re incredibly concerned about it” (quoted in Burns Reference Burns2025). A signed compact among 50 higher education organizations similarly acknowledges that “higher education can and must improve to earn and maintain the public’s trust” (American Council on Education 2025). To achieve this, the sector should work to bridge the diploma divide, repair its fractured relationship with non-college-educated voters, and better demonstrate its value to society at large. How can the sector restore the public’s trust in its work?
Avoiding Partisanship and Challenging the Narrative Surrounding Universities’ Perceived Liberal Bias
First, universities must convince the public that they are not partisan and “woke” institutions by ensuring ideological and viewpoint diversity on their campuses. As we have seen, millions of Americans believe that higher education writ large has not done a good job of fostering ideological diversity. To achieve this, it is essential that universities reaffirm a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and scholarly exploration on their campuses. Many university leaders, including Alan Garber, president of Harvard University, have already recognized that in recent years they have not lived up to their ideals and that many of their institutions have adopted an ideological orthodoxy that contradicts the universal openness evoked by universitatis, the Latin derivation of their name (Harvard University 2025; Inskeep, Manuel, and Advani Reference Inskeep, Manuel and Advani2025). Undoubtedly, universities must defend their independence and autonomy, but this should not be at odds with defending freedom of expression and ideological diversity. True freedom of expression is not a license to exclude dissenting voices or dominate shared academic spaces with a single ideology. Universities must move beyond echo chambers and prioritize a culture where all legitimate perspectives are heard and respected, rather than silenced.
To do so, universities must defend a culture that fosters open dialogue, respectful disagreement, and academic freedom, and promote programs aimed at bridging the cultural divide on their campuses. And to ensure they constantly question rather than follow ideologies or dogmas, students need to learn how to engage with each other and develop political self-awareness. Some possible initiatives that universities could adopt to achieve intellectual diversity and promote civic education while reaffirming to the public that they are not partisan institutions include strengthening curricula around Western civilization, economics, and history; creating entirely new programs; establishing independent centers or schools (like the School of Civic Leadership at the University of Texas at Austin, or the Salmon P. Chase Center for Civics, Culture, and Society at Ohio State University); establishing new endowed chairs, visiting fellowships, and programs through philanthropic efforts to attract conservative scholars to campuses; implementing initiatives that expose students to diverse perspectives through a focus on student engagement and experiential learning (like Unify America); documenting nonclassroom competencies; supporting student and faculty activism; building strong students clubs and chapters for organizations that include conservative ideas; or creating dedicated student groups (like the John Adams Society) to provide environments where conservative students feel comfortable engaging in intellectual debate.
Yet achieving ideological diversity in faculty hiring remains difficult. Research on political homophily suggests that social science and humanities departments—where “culture war” issues are prominent—are unlikely to hire individuals who resonate with populations that feel culturally alienated from modern higher education. Carlson and Settle (Reference Carlson and Settle2022) show how affiliational concerns are fundamental to the way Americans approach political discussion. They find that intense polarization leads people to avoid conversations with opposing political groups and “opt out of political discussions” (Settle and Carlson Reference Settle and Carlson2019). Consequently, it is not merely that incumbent faculty may be skeptical of conservative viewpoints or that that they likely share little common ground—ideological or otherwise—with such candidates; they are also reluctant to even engage in conversation with out-partisans. Addressing this will be a challenge that universities must tackle, not just to make their hiring processes more inclusive and open, but also to foster intellectual diversity on their campuses. To achieve this, universities should adopt a multipronged approach by developing structured, positive political discussions; training search committees to mitigate bias; and broadening candidate sourcing beyond traditional networks. Furthermore, revising application requirements to prioritize open-mindedness over ideological conformity will also help to create more inclusive and intellectually diverse environments.
At the same time, university leaders must prevent their institutions from publicly positioning themselves in support of political positions on issues that could be considered partisan and are not directly related to their missions and functions. This work has already begun. Many universities, in response to criticism of their institutional messaging on the war in Gaza, have adopted various versions of the institutional neutrality policy put forward in 1967 by the University of Chicago’s Kalven Committee to reaffirm their commitment to academic freedom and to a form of “institutional neutrality” on political and social issues (Kalven et al. Reference Kalven, Franklin, Kolb, Stigler, Getzels, Goldsmith and White1967). However, it is crucial to emphasize that a certain form of institutional neutrality is compatible with the defense of universities’ values, which they must still defend. Finally, universities should examine and address the widespread complaint that political aims have displaced the objective pursuit of knowledge. The Vanderbilt report that examines politization in the humanities and the humanistic social sciences is a good blueprint (Boghossian et al. Reference Boghossian, Appiah, Fine, Henrich, Fleming, Merchant, Morson, Rosen, Rubin and Wilentz2026).
Nonetheless, while academic introspection must begin with an honest appraisal of university failures in fostering a free and open exchange of ideas on their campuses, institutions must also work harder to challenge the narrative surrounding their perceived liberal bias. Indeed, a review of studies indicates that accusations of systemic liberal bias are rarely substantiated by data (Burmila Reference Burmila2021). In fact, several studies indicate that faculty ideology has little to no measurable effect on students’ political orientations, likely because students’ views are shaped more by peers and critical thinking skills. This suggests the “indoctrination” narrative is not well supported. Instead, students’ views tend to evolve in line with their general age group, and may lean in a liberal direction because more liberal individuals choose to attend college in the first place (Mariani and Hewitt Reference Mariani and Hewitt2008; Simon Reference Simon2022).
Furthermore, empirical studies demonstrate that academic involvement often encourages moderation rather than direct indoctrination (Dodson Reference Dodson, Gross and Simmons2014), and that variations in political party identification among students are independent of their instructors’ partisan views (Woessner and Kelly-Woessner Reference Woessner and Kelly-Woessner2009). There is also no evidence for liberal bias in grading (Musgrave and Rom Reference Musgrave and Rom2015), and students do not receive lower grades or negative evaluations as a result of their having a less liberal or more conservative appearance (Woodzicka, Boudreau, and Hayne Reference Woodzicka, Boudreau and Hayne2024).
In addition, just 2% of all college students, including 3% of Republicans, “say they feel they don’t belong on their campus due to their political views” according to polling by the Lumina Foundation and Gallup (2026b). A landmark University of California, Los Angeles study confirms that peers, not professors, cause college students to shift to the Left (Pope Reference Pope2008). Finally, some research disputes the existence of an extreme ideological imbalance: for instance, Zipp and Fenwick (Reference Zipp and Fenwick2006) find that while faculty in the humanities and social sciences are predominantly liberal, the academy is not a total “hegemony,” with conservative enclaves existing in fields like business and engineering.
Being Responsive to Citizens’ Needs and Generating a Tangible Societal Impact
Second, to restore public trust universities must also be more responsive to citizens’ needs. Long seen primarily as creators of abstract knowledge, academic institutions now face scrutiny for ignoring practical skills, career readiness, and societal engagement. Many citizens have lost faith in the ability of universities to provide relevant “truth” or practical solutions. Higher education must reconcile with this reality by shifting its focus from academic knowledge production alone to generating tangible societal impact. This requires engaging directly with global challenges, such as the ethical development of artificial intelligence (AI) and biotechnology. To demonstrate value in the twenty-first century, universities must move beyond ivory tower isolation to actively support global sustainability, social justice, and human development. In short, they must educate for truth, justice, and life (Habbal Reference Habbal2025).
Simultaneously, universities must work beyond their campus doors to collaborate with their surrounding communities, using their expertise to demonstrate the value of their work through action (Custer Reference Custer2025). They need to win over local communities by helping to address critical challenges, ranging from affordable housing to community health and income inequality. This community work offers a threefold benefit: it supports the community, offers students vital hands-on learning, and fosters dialogue between diverse educational groups to bridge social gaps and build mutual respect. By participating in projects that enhance community well-being, students can serve as bridges between the university and the public. Furthermore, institutions should bring college-level classes to underserved communities, such as those sponsored by the National Education Opportunity Network. The US faces a crisis of respect for those who feel forgotten, and only by expanding their reach can universities close this gap and rebuild trust.
To achieve this, universities should partner with local governments to create research and learning projects that improve community sustainability and resilience (like the University of Houston’s Stimulating Urban Renewal through Entrepreneurship program); open campus facilities like libraries for local residents, hosting public workshops and enabling community access to lectures, performances, and festivals to serve their local communities; support local businesses through mentorship and start-up workshops and by providing resources; and offer free or affordable education and skill-building programs to local residents.
Last, universities should build partnerships with community colleges and technical schools while ensuring better alignment between K–12 and higher education to strengthen the workforce. These initiatives help to bridge the diploma divide by shifting away from a strict “college-for-all” mentality toward blended “dual-mission” models. By utilizing tools such as internships, apprenticeships, “stackable” credentials, and dual-credit programs, students can seamlessly move from technical training to higher education. These aspirational pipelines, which include partnerships at Colorado Mountain College and Weber State University, not only empower students to build rewarding careers but also help to alleviate pressing labor shortages. Furthermore, university partnerships with state and local governments—such as Pennsylvania’s grant program for tuition-free dual credit or North Carolina’s transferable credit framework—are crucial for expanding these opportunities (Donadel Reference Donadel2026).
Demonstrating the Real-World Value of University Work and Changing the Narrative about the Value of Higher Education
Third, universities must reestablish the higher education–federal partnership and the “academic social contract.” Growing societal pressure demands that universities must be more accountable and demonstrate their return on investment. To achieve this, they must prioritize public and political outreach to demonstrate the real-world value of their work, highlighting both the practical benefits of science and its role as a powerful economic engine at every level. Part of higher education’s problem is ineffective communication, as universities are not “selling” what they do effectively. As 2018 Nobel laureate Frances Arnold noted at the Lindau Nobel Laureate Meeting, instead of being viewed as a foundation of prosperity, science is being portrayed as a burden on taxpayers. He added, “They pay the bills but do not necessarily understand the benefits [of science]—it is up to us to explain that better” (quoted in Grove Reference Grove2025). Yet according to a Pew Research Center report, 84% of Americans “say government investments in scientific research aimed at advancing knowledge are worthwhile” (Kennedy and Kikuchi Reference Kennedy and Kikuchi2026). Universities must therefore creatively reach the wider public to ensure it recognizes the contributions they make to scientific advancement—for instance, by using advertisements during college sporting events, where a large portion of the public (including many Republicans) engage with higher education, to relay the societal benefits of higher education. By sharing specific examples and data, universities can make the case for their positive impact and help to shape public opinion.
Furthermore, to address this communication problem, universities need to change the negative narrative about the value of higher education. Despite the growing skepticism described above, universities already have a strong case to demonstrate their value to society. For instance, according to a report from United for Medical Research (2025), over the past decade, research funding from the National Institutes of Health has helped to generate $787 billion for the American economy, has directly and indirectly supported 407,782 jobs, and has produced $94.58 billion in new economic activity nationwide. Every dollar of research funded by the National Institutes of Health generates a total of $2.56 in economic activity. Indeed, some of the most significant scientific and technological advances that have made the US the leading country in innovation—such as the development of the internet—have been heavily dependent on university-led research funded by the US government. Furthermore, universities train the employees of the Fortune 500 companies that maintain the US’s global dominance.
It is important to note that students have views about their college experiences that are very different from those of the general public. According to the Lumina Foundation and Gallup’s (2026b) “College Reality Check” survey, “roughly nine in 10 college students are confident that their coursework is teaching them career-relevant skills and that their degree will help them secure a job,” and 93% of bachelor’s degree students believe the investment “is worth it.” Additionally, three-quarters of graduates “say their degree has been ‘critical’ or ‘important’ to their career success,” and 80% of bachelor’s graduates secured a good job within one year of graduation, findings confirmed by the Strada Education Foundation (Clayton and Torpey-Saboe Reference Clayton and Torpey-Saboe2022).
The economic case for higher education’s return on investment also remains strong. Some economists (see Deming Reference Deming2023) have criticized the aforementioned findings by the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (Emmons, Kent, and Ricketts Reference Emmons, Kent and Ricketts2019) because these findings assume the college wage premium remains constant throughout a person’s life. However, data indicate that this premium grows more rapidly after the age of 40 as workers gain experience, with college graduates eventually earning nearly twice as much as those with only a high school diploma. Furthermore, the HEA Group (2024) reports that, while not universal, bachelor’s degree recipients on average earn over $1 million more than high school graduates over the course of their working lives. This is confirmed by a recent study from the New York Federal Reserve, which shows that in recent years, the typical college graduate had an annual income of approximately $80,000, compared with $47,000 for those with only a high school diploma—a 70% advantage (Abel and Deitz Reference Abel and Deitz2025; see also Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities 2025; Holtz-Eakin and Lee Reference Holtz-Eakin and Lee2019; Tough Reference Tough2023).
To address the negative narrative about the value of higher education, universities must also correct misconceptions about costs. While tuition costs have increased, there is a significant disconnect between public perceptions of the costs of tuition at colleges and universities and what many students actually pay. Surveys show that Americans overestimate the costs of colleges and universities: a survey conducted by the Association of American Universities (2023), for example, found that 48% of US adults surveyed mistakenly think that universities “charge all students the same tuition, regardless of family income.” In fact, the Aspen Economic Strategy Group shows that “only 26 percent of in-state students at public colleges and 16 percent of students at private, nonprofit colleges paid the full sticker price” as of the 2019–20 academic year, the latest year for which data were available (Levine Reference Levine2025b; see also Levine Reference Levine2022). In this regard, research has shown that students and their families struggle to understand the financial aid process, as well as the complexities of postsecondary pricing and institutional discounting. This confusion, along with cost opacity, is driving affordability concerns: a recent report from the Strada Education Foundation shows that “greater clarity and predictability around college pricing are among the most effective tools for restoring confidence in higher education” (Blanchard and Ward Reference Blanchard and Ward2026; see also College Board 2025; Taylor and Bicak Reference Taylor and Bicak2020). Nonetheless, rebuilding trust will also require significant structural reforms: universities need to simplify and improve transparency in college pricing (by following in the footsteps of Brandeis University, for example, which has created a cost calculator for college shoppers called Faye [Lieber Reference Lieber2026]) and streamline the financial aid processes to ensure that students are aware that the price of attendance is often much less than the sticker price. Relatedly, universities should articulate their admissions’ criteria, processes, and goals more clearly and transparently.
Correcting perceptions regarding the costs and outcomes of higher education is a critical task, as it reduces polarization and helps to restore trust in the sector. Indeed, the literature on partisan demand for government expenditure shows that polarized attitudes are driven by diverging perceptions of the returns on higher education. Consequently, state-level funding has dwindled as public perception of institutional returns on investment weakens. Hurst, Simon, and Ricks (Reference Hurst, Simon and Ricks2024) demonstrate that when taxpayers—particularly Republicans—perceive university spending to be high but graduation rates to be low, support for higher education funding collapses. Because correcting these misperceptions reduces partisan friction, the authors recommend that states tie their investment in the higher education sector to productivity metrics such as graduation rates and clearly communicate these returns to the public. This is all the more important since universities, according to New America, must leverage public support to secure additional funding from federal and state sources (Cheche, Nguyen, and Sawyer Reference Cheche, Nguyen and Sawyer2025).
Finally, to counter the prevailing skepticism regarding the utility of a college degree, it is crucial for universities to counter the narrative that equates higher education exclusively with return on investment. Such a viewpoint reduces the purpose of university to mere economic advancement, obscuring its essential role in fostering intellectual growth and societal well-being. Indeed, while the economic advantages of a degree are clear, universities must also highlight the broader rewards of higher education, such as improved personal health, stronger social bonds, deeper civic engagement and understanding of the world, better health, longer life expectancy, and higher overall happiness (Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities 2025; Jones Reference Jones2025).
Preparing Citizens for Democracy
Fourth, American democracy is in crisis, and the current climate of polarization and confrontation makes it even more urgent for universities to play a central role in preparing citizens for democracy. However, the prevalence of academic timidity, self-censorship, and intellectual conformity in higher education poses a significant threat to democratic deliberation. The 2025 Varying Degrees survey shows that both Democrats and Republicans believe higher education should “help students become informed citizens” (97% of Democrats; 89% of Republicans) (Cheche, Nguyen, and Sawyer Reference Cheche, Nguyen and Sawyer2025). “Democratic living” must be at the heart of undergraduate education (Zimmerman Reference Zimmerman2026), and universities must teach their students the intellectual and ethical foundations of democratic citizenship. They must empower students to build communities, connect self-interest with the public interest, interact effectively with others, accept legitimate disagreements, and overcome ideological and cultural divides to address public problems. Furthermore, cynicism and negativity about the US often reign on US campuses, while patriotism is a source of shame. The Archbridge Institute surveyed two thousand students across 130 US colleges to understand the relationship between national identity and higher education and found that only 56% of American college students reported feeling “very” or “somewhat” proud to be American (Routledge and Bitzan Reference Routledge and Bitzan2022), a figure significantly lower than the broader US public: according to a Gallup poll, 69% of Americans are “extremely proud” (43%) or “very proud” (26%) to be American (Jones Reference Jones2021). If colleges want to rebuild trust and reach those critical of higher education, universities need more optimistic discussions and analyses of the US that can help to bridge this gap. Finally, universities should develop new core courses that explore the history and the challenges of democratic government and launch new programs based around civic engagement and the establishment of “dialogue across difference,” such as the College Presidents for Civic Preparedness initiative.
Prioritizing Teaching
Fifth, and relatedly, universities must improve and prioritize teaching—long downgraded on most campuses—to equip students with essential skills for citizenship. As noted by Zimmerman (Reference Zimmerman2026), to better serve students in the US and US democracy, educators must be deeply committed to teaching, which requires students to be exposed to a diverse spectrum of ideas—the very core of the liberal tradition. It is essential that faculty encourage different political perspectives among students; they need to teach students how to engage across differences and focus on scholarly disagreements, rather than teaching in one-sided ways that employ predictable arguments and ideas. They should therefore receive rigorous training in pedagogy, and they should be rewarded and held accountable for the quality of their teaching. Effective teaching, like democracy, thrives on the free and open exchange of ideas, requiring an environment of transparent communication and intellectual freedom.
Improving Educational Attainment and Affordability
The prioritization of teaching ties in with the sixth way to restore trust in higher education: colleges and universities must work to address the diploma divide by improving educational attainment, increasing affordability, and reducing the cost of attendance to improve access while fostering social mobility. One of the original objectives of the partnership between higher education and the federal government was to boost college enrollment, based on the understanding that expanding access creates a more equal society (Zimmerman Reference Zimmerman2026). As previously noted in this article, skyrocketing costs have hampered this goal, and this trajectory must be reversed to address the effects of “educational polarization.” Higher education was built on scarcity. It has shifted to a privatized commodity that is seen by millions of Americans as unaffordable, selective, and out of reach, a shift directly related to the political divide in American society (Keese Reference Keese2026). To address this, universities should reduce costs by focusing on their core mission and abandoning investments that have little impact on student education. For instance, as noted by Zeppos (Reference Zeppos2026), administrative bloat is a major overlooked factor in the increase of university expenses. He shows that it is unchecked bureaucratic growth, lack of oversight, and low accountability—rather than teaching—that drive rising higher education costs, so universities must address this bloat and “demand scalability from the business side” if they are to control these costs.
Fostering a Broader Perspective on Diversity
Seventh, universities must not abandon their commitment to diversity and inclusion, as they play a critical role in fostering a thriving multiracial and multiethnic democracy. The 2025 Varying Degrees survey shows that an overwhelming majority of Americans agree that higher education should support students of all backgrounds, provide a platform for diverse ideas, and foster cross-cultural understanding (Cheche, Nguyen, and Sawyer Reference Cheche, Nguyen and Sawyer2025). However, to remain relevant, institutions must adopt a broader perspective on diversity to ensure that all groups are recognized and that social class, and not just identity, is also considered. To achieve this, universities should actively recruit working-class and rural applicants while providing financial support through philanthropy, bridge programs, or dual enrollment.
Other initiatives could include (re)establishing “American studies” departments that focus on rural issues to demonstrate real commitment to these populations. Additionally, universities could create study-away programs in rural areas—similar to the New York University campus in Tulsa, Oklahoma—that allow students from urban, elite campuses to engage with rural communities, thereby mitigating the perception that these areas are “provincial backwaters.” Such measures are crucial to prevent the growth of anti-university sentiment among the working class (Bunch Reference Bunch2022) and also address the widening urban–rural divide (Pautonnier et al. Reference Pautonnier, Dassonneville, Lewis-Beck and Nadeau2026). Ultimately, universities must ensure students learn not only about the structures of inequality, but also about how they can foster social inclusion and thus help to bridge the divisions between Americans.
Conclusion
Trust is built on promises kept. Because it is predicated on accountability, institutions must address the mistakes that have eroded public confidence. To address the diploma divide, fix the broken relationship between college-educated and non-college-educated voters, and regain strong public support, universities must refocus on their primary mission and deliver on core commitments. Specifically, they must improve educational access, change political messaging, demonstrate nonpartisanship, support vocational and technical programs, foster a broader perspective on diversity that includes social class, support their local communities, bridge the class cultural gap, show respect for the traditions of nonelites, and increase social interactions.
None of this will be easy; it will likely generate intense debate on university campuses. Meaningful change requires new coalitions willing to compromise—both within and outside their institutions—alongside exceptional leadership from university presidents, provosts, and deans. While many solutions focus on correcting misperceptions about costs, value, and ideological slant through better communication, rebuilding trust requires more than storytelling. To remain relevant, universities must restructure their operating models to align with market realities and public demands. Because the traditional business model is broken, universities must fundamentally rethink their approach to governance (Liebowitz Reference Liebowitz2026), pricing, value creation, and success measurement to drive real change.
Paradoxically, the Trump administration’s attacks are serving to unite university communities, which may make the task easier. The tide of public opinion also appears to be beginning to shift. Recent polls show that a majority of Americans disagree with the Trump administration’s punitive measures against universities (see AP-NORC 2025a; McKinley et al. Reference McKinley, Smith, Azem and Keirns2025; Vanderbilt University 2025; Yahoo News 2025).
Universities should capitalize on this momentum and continue to rebuild trust with the public. They must recognize that this is a defining moment. In the current political environment—with higher education in the political crosshairs—colleges must do more than fight attempts to undermine their academic freedom and institutional autonomy; it is imperative that they acknowledge the shortcomings that have eroded their standing. They must answer the most pressing moral and practical question they face: What is a university for? Only by answering that question can they address their shortcomings, fulfill their commitments, and embody their values. Furthermore, trust must not be rebuilt for political reasons, but through an inclusive, transparent, and accountable approach that aligns with their core missions. True reform should not be driven merely by a desire to placate a particular government or political group; rather, universities should support reforms because they are the right thing to do, even when they are not politically popular (Wilson Reference Wilson2026). At stake are not just culture war topics like DEI, but also the scope of federal involvement in the management of universities (see Garber Reference Garber2025; Mugler Reference Mugler2025). The outcome of this battle could shape the sector for decades to come.
Trumpism is a real threat to US universities. However, an even greater threat is internal: staying the course, doing nothing, and blaming Republicans while universities isolate themselves from society. To regain public support and remain relevant, universities must refocus on their core mission to create and disseminate knowledge. They must also contribute to solving humanity’s challenges and to prioritizing the health of its great, albeit imperfect, democracies. This requires a significant transformation—one that safeguards the missions and autonomy of universities while ensuring transparent stewardship of public funds. The past few years have plunged US universities into a deep crisis; they cannot afford to fail.
Open access
