At the crossroads of politics and pedagogy, the Department of Education has become a focal point of national controversy under the Trump Administration. Since 1867, the Department of Education has widely administered and funded state-run education in the United States. Along with this function, it also operates investigations on the grounds of racial preferences, and foreign student policy. The Department of Education’s website states that its official mission is “to promote student achievement and preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational excellence and ensuring equal access.” Along with their aim to eliminate DEI in educational institutions and restore “merit-based” positions, the Trump Administration has begun to eliminate the Department of Education altogether. Concurrently with these efforts are the investigations of and negotiations with numerous major universities across the United States, including UC Berkeley.
Idiosyncrasies arise from the Trump Administration’s actions. By eliminating the Department of Education, much of the power to regulate education is given back to the States. However, many of the schools the Trump Administration is negotiating with to reform DEI, student conduct and speech, and professor power are in liberal states that would undoubtedly halt these conservative demands. Additionally, it is the Department of Education itself that is responsible for investigating colleges and universities. Despite these anomalies, investigations and federal funding threats are rapidly attempting to push the Trump Administration’s agenda.
In Jan. 2021, President Biden issued what is known as the Biden DEI executive order, requiring that all government agencies “affirmatively advance equity, civil rights, racial justice, and equal opportunity [in] the whole of our government.” In Jan. 2025, President Trump issued a series of executive orders which, among other things, directly revoked and reversed the Biden DEI Order. From these “Trump Executive Orders,” DEI-related investigations rose amid allegations that universities had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by partnering with the Ph.D Project. This nonprofit organization was created to help underrepresented students obtain useful information and resources for their future educational and career aspirations, and limits eligibility solely to historically underrepresented students. UC Berkeley, among numerous other prestigious universities, was previously partnered with the Ph.D Project that furthered these laudable goals, but was forced to terminate the partnership amid the Trump Administration’s DEI investigations. The Department of Education deemed a partnership with the Ph.D Project in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act because it promoted “race-disclusionary practices.”
According to the U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, the Department of Education’s DEI investigations aim to “reorient civil rights enforcement to ensure all students are protected from illegal discrimination.” However, the sentiment and perhaps entire sweep of investigations fails to discern the contrasting concepts of discrimination and equitable consideration: Discrimination is defined as the unjust treatment of individuals or groups based on their identity, whereas equitable consideration is the practice of fairly accounting for unique circumstances to achieve justice. Through this astute lens, the grounds of the violation of Title VI are futile, as the discrimination of students based on race do not exist in today’s context, and rather universities such as UC Berkeley and nonprofit organizations such as the Ph.D Project promote equitable consideration in admissions, scholarships, and programs. The claim of the violation of Title VI also begs the question: Can discrimination extend to a demographic not historically oppressed in society? Consequential concerns accompanied by this question include why a university would discriminate against white students; who profits from this discrimination; who propagates the discrimination; and why DEI would have been not only accepted but celebrated by presidents and universities in the past.
UC Berkeley has also been investigated about antisemitism practices on campus and within the administration. The claim of antisemitism on campus in this investigation stems from speech regarding the Israel/Palestine conflict, which has become a point of contention on college campuses. Over 160 students and faculty members who have been identified as compliant in antisemitic practices have had their personal information turned over by UC Berkeley to the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights. Moreover, 19 UC Berkeley students and recent graduates have had their visas revoked by the Department of Homeland Security since President Trump has taken power. ABC News has reported that it’s “believed some students may have been targeted for their political activism involving pro-Palestinian demonstrations.” According to the Association of International Educators, those in the U.S. with student visas do have constitutionally-protected rights, including free speech.
In light of alleged antisemitic speech on campus, the U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio stated, “If you apply for a visa to enter the United States and be a student, and you tell us the reason you are coming to the United States is not just because you want to write op-eds, but because you want to participate in movements that are involved in doing things like vandalizing universities, harassing students, taking over buildings, creating a ruckus – we’re not going to give you a visa… Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visa.”
International students with a U.S. student visa are protected by the First Amendment right of Freedom of Speech. However, rules of conduct involving speech also exist and are upheld for all students. While there is no one set of rules set by the federal government, a university’s code of conduct is generally governed by Civil Rights legislation, campus safety laws, privacy laws, and constitutional rights. Most, if not all, of the 160 names turned over by UC Berkeley were not in violation of the school’s code of conduct and were instead targeted because of pressure UC Berkeley faced from the federal government. Many involved faculty agree on the sentiment that theantisemitic claims are a nonsensical fabrication of Palestinian versus Israeli demonstrations. Judith Butler, a feminist theorist, member of Jewish Voice for Peace, and UC Berkeley Faculty Member, told the San Francisco Chronicle that UC’s compliance has “echoes of McCarthyism” and “…may well subject a number of faculty, staff, or students named to widespread surveillance constitutes a breathtaking breach of trust, ethics, and justice.”
The issue of funding in light of these investigations has been a quintessential factor in universities’ cooperation with federal demands. A specific number is difficult to pinpoint in regard to UC Berkeley, however Berkeley-specific and University of California-wide funding threats pose a threat of over a billion dollars in funding cuts if the university administrations don’t comply with federal orders.
A nuance to the issue of federal funding has recently emerged in California with Governor Gavin Newsom’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which threatens state funding for any California university which complies with the Trump Administration’s demands. Caught in a Trump-Newsom crossfire, University of California schools now face funding threats from within the state and from the federal government, both contingent on their behavior in accordance with the other.
Since the initial launch of these investigations, courts have ruled that federal funding threats are in violation of the Constitution’s Spending Clause, which prohibits the federal government from coercing states or institutions through excessive financial pressure. Despite these rulings, the tension between federal authority, state authority, and institutional autonomy remains unresolved, leaving universities like UC Berkeley navigating a precarious balance between compliance and principle.
While pursuing its goal of decreasing federal oversight and dismantling the Department of Education, the Trump Administration is involving itself in every aspect of these educational institutions. Higher education is a keystone in American society, a haven to prepare rising working-aged citizens to operate and succeed in the working world. How will rolling back diversity, equity, and inclusion within universities affect the success of disadvantaged students and further perpetuate a cycle of higher education limitations to those without certain privileges? How will the revoking of student visas on the basis of the grey area between first-amendment protected speech and a violation of code of conduct affect student’s ability and willingness to exercise speech? How will a shift to privatized student loans and the decrease in forgiveness of them affect students who did not have access to education without a cost they would have to later pay?
Ultimately, the question extends beyond the trajectory of UC Berkeley to the broader direction of American higher education itself. As the tension between federal and state authority, and institutional autonomy, deepens, universities are confronted with the challenge of preserving their academic integrity amid politicized pressures. If education becomes subordinated to ideology rather than guided by societal growth, inquiry, and equity, the fundamental purpose of the university stands at risk. The path forward will reveal whether higher education in the United States remains a public trust committed to knowledge and justice, or a contested arena shaped by power and partisanship.
Featured Image Source: WTTW News
