What a Second Trump Presidency Could Mean for US Higher Education with Brendan Cantwell

Hi everyone.

I'm Alex Usher, and this is the
World of Higher Education Podcast.

This fall, much of the world's attention
is focused on the United States, where

Vice President Kamala Harris is squaring
off with former President Donald Trump in

the presidential election on November 5th.

Education was one piece of the
government apparatus where Trump 1.

0 was not actually all that radical.

Yes, he appointed Betsy DeVos, a
passionate advocate for private

education and voucher schemes,
to be his Secretary of Education.

But on the post-secondary file
as a whole, the administration

did not leave much of a legacy.

True, towards the end of the mandate,
there were emerging themes of trying

to force universities to be anti woke.

On the other hand, the Trump
administration did add a fair bit

of new funding to historically
black colleges and universities.

However, the world's changed a lot in
four years and few now expect a Trump 2.

0 administration to be
anywhere near as benign.

Today, my guest is Michigan State
University, professor of higher

education, Brendan Cantwell.

Faithful readers and listeners may
remember that Brendan came on the show

in the spring to argue, among other
things, that Conservative opposition

to higher education at the state level
was to a certain degree, performative.

Conservatives were largely happy
to fund education, but really,

they just wanted something to
fight about in the culture wars.

Not necessarily to win, just
to keep the fight going.

Over the summer though, Brendan wrote
a couple of pieces, pointing out

that a Trump win in 2024 might end
up being a lot less performative, and

do some real damage to the system.

Damage from which it might
have a hard time recovering.

He's focused not just on potential
Republican control of the White House

and Congress, he's also pointed to the
significant role that a Trump Supreme

Court could play in shaping higher
education policy, and indeed arguably has

done so over the past four years through
such cases as Students for Fair Admissions

that was decided in the summer of 2023.

Another Trump win might seal a right wing,
a right leaning court for a generation.

Very hard to come back from.

Anyways, this discussion is
lively and Brendan, as usual,

is thoughtful and provocative.

So let's turn it over to him.

So, Brendan, we're talking about
the potential effects of a second

Trump regime or administration.

Let's start off by being clear
about what it is that a federal

government can or can't do.

What is the federal role in higher
education in the United States?

Sure.

The Constitution of the United
States gives the states the authority

to supply and regulate education.

But over the, you know, the decades
and centuries, the federal government

has taken a much more active
role in, um, in higher education.

It's main role uh, is to run the
student financial aid system.

So the federal government runs
the large student loan system

that many, many students use to
participate in higher education.

It offers the largest need based
grant system, um, much larger than

the most state financial aid systems.

In addition to the financial
aid role, it is also the main,

supporter of research, right?

So funds about 60 percent of the academic
research that happens in the country.

And through those, um, those two
big roles, uh, organizing student

financial aid and funding research,
it also is able to regulate the

sector by attaching a lot of strings
to participation in those programs.

Um, the federal financial aid system
in particular has allowed enrollments

to grow quite rapidly, or allowed
enrollments to grow quite rapidly in

the second half of the 20th century.

And I think it's probably not really
conceivable to think of the scale

of the sector in the United States,
States today without the federal

government playing that pivotal
role of financing student access.

Um, so students could come
with the aid federal government

provided and pay tuition and that
money really fueled, fueled the

expansion of the, of the sector.

And so with the 2024 election cycle is
now underway, uh, normally we have, uh,

a dynamic at least for the last 30 or 40
years of the Democrats being, um, more

favorable to the higher education sector,
more favorable to students, um, I assume

that's happening again this time, but
how big a deal is higher education within

the, you know, the overall campaign?

It doesn't seem to me like it's
taking a lot of, um, of attention

the way it has in previous cycles.

Almost no attention to
higher education this cycle.

The last couple of cycles, you
saw both parties talking quite

a bit about higher education.

Both parties more or less
promised to make higher education,

um, cheaper for students.

So lowering the price, um, and to
try to focus on making credentials,

qualifications more economically relevant.

So improving the return.

Um, neither party was especially
specific about how they could

accomplish either of those things.

Um, but, but they both kind of talked
about how they wanted to do it, right?

Make higher education work,
make it cheaper, um, uh,

get students in, into jobs.

Democrats also, you know, in the— starting
in 2020 really took up the mantle of

reducing loan burdens for students.

So Biden promised to, um, forgive student
loans and also to expand, uh, uh, programs

that would modify the way that students
repay their student loans and maybe

provide, um, relief to people who, um,
participate in public service occupations.

Um, the courts have more or
less shut down the Democrats

student loan forgiveness plans.

Um, and so Democrats don't want to talk
about it and Republicans don't really

have any sort of appealing programs
for, for the public to, to latch on to.

So they're not explicitly talking
about higher education in the campaign.

Although I will say Trump's
website has some ideas about

higher education listed on it.

So far as I know, the Democrats
really have not advanced any specific

plans, but Trump is not really talking
about the plans that he claims to

have for higher education, which
is basically to establish a kind of

alternative credential National Academy.

Um, how that would work, kind of unclear.

Um, if people are interested or care
about that, also pretty unclear.

Um, so it's not a big issue.

So one of the things that you know,
you've written about recently is,

uh, the threat that a second Trump
administration would pose to, to

higher education and how the federal
government could kill higher education.

I think that was the title of one
of the, uh, your recent blogs.

You were on the show a few months
ago and you argued that conservatism

in, at least at the state level
was of— around higher education

issues was often very performative.

Clearly, you don't think that's
true at the federal level.

What's different?

Yeah, so I think the federal level,
there is the power and perhaps

the desire to really reshape the
sector and to end it as we know it.

And the clearest mechanism to do that
would be to cut off the federal financial

aid system and particularly the student
loan system to either bring that down

to zero or to dramatically reshape that.

I think that there are some indications in
the conservative, I would say the right,

the right wing, um, sort of intellectual
branch of the Republican party where,

um, they see the federal role and supp—
supplying higher education, basically,

through the loan system as contrary
to the constitution and very likely

contrary to their political interests
and would be quite interested in either

redesigning it or eliminating it.

Um, so I, I think that that is the
main tool that they could have,

which, which would be to, to rework
the, the loan and, um, grant system.

We can talk about how, how that
might, how might that might play out.

The other way that they can do it
would be to, um, uh, uh, to, to

dramatically reduce or change the
way science funding works, right?

So, um, the, uh, the federal government
could, um, uh, very much re— reduce

how much is spent on research.

They could direct research to be spent
in particular research funding to go in

particular ways, like no climate studies,
um, no, no, uh, no climate change studies.

They could put strings on the kind of,
um, uh, ways that grants support the

administrative overhead of universities.

One of their specific proposals
is to really cut down on the

amount of overhead support that
the federal government provides.

So those are the broad strokes
way that they could do this.

Well, okay, let's get to the means
in a second here, but I'm wondering

why the politics are different.

I mean, if I think, you know, uh, at
the state level, You know, there's

a lot of performative vitriol, but
at the end of the day, every, you

know, most, most, um, people in state
legislatures have got, um, you know,

post secondary education institutions
close to their, um, their institutions.

They don't really want them shut down.

They want them to keep having money.

Surely that's true in Congress, too.

I mean, if you stop putting money
into, um, uh, student financial

aid into the Pell Grant system that
would close a lot of institutions

and hurt a lot of Congress people.

So what would be the incentive of
Congress to go — even a Republican

Congress to go along with a move
like that by President Trump?

Good question.

And what you've described, I
think, definitely captures how

things have worked in the past.

Um, there has been bipartisan
support for expanding student

financial aid programs, for example.

Um, even if there were ideological
opposition by individual members

of Congress, they never wanted to
hurt the colleges in their district.

Always been the thing that they focus
on, and they've also always wanted to

provide college access to the constituents
in their district who have demanded it.

I think what's changed is the
nationalization of everything and

the, um, the effect on individual
districts, particularly in districts

where there's not, um, a chance of
the party flipping, so what really

matters is in the primary, ideological
adherence is so much more important.

And so, uh, you could see a Republican
Congress going along with, um, with some

pretty dramatic things that would hurt the
institutions in their district, because it

would be consistent with their ideological
program and they would perceive it as

in the interest of the Republican party.

Um, at the state level, sort of posturing
and exerting some control over the culture

of public higher education is really
important, but at the end of the day,

the governors and state legislatures
still are closer to the institutions

and to the constituents, who, um,
who, who may be angry at universities

but don't want to see them go away.

Okay, so you mentioned the possibility
that they might try to end or

curtail, um, student financial aid.

How would they do that?

I mean, that's is that I mean, again,
one of the issues or where the, the

Biden administration stumbled, I think,
on student loan forgiveness has been

overstepping its power with the power of
the presidency vis a vis Congress, right?

Like, who actually has the
power to make this policy?

So, um, you know, if you were part
of the Trump administration coming in

in January, how would you go about,
um, getting rid of student aid?

I think it would be challenging
to get rid of it completely.

I think that, um, there are
ways that an administration...

So, The courts have said
that the Biden administration

can't forgive student loans.

Um, the, there is an established
precedent that the administration, and

working with Congress can decide on
how student loans are administered.

And, one proposal that is in Project
2025 policy document that your

listeners may have may have heard of,
it's a, um, it's a sort of manifesto

from a right wing think tank.

That is, uh, many people believe
is a blueprint for the plans of the

administration, calls for a sort of
dramatic privatization of the student

loan system that would allow banks, not
only to issue the loans, the federally

guaranteed loans, which happened
under the Bush administration, right?

So this isn't— that part is
established uh conservative thought.

And this happened legally in the
United States before, but would

do a couple of other things.

It would shift the priority of the
student loan system to making money for

the federal government in the banks.

And right now, the student loan system
is supposed to primarily provide aid and

access and it, it says that, um, it calls
the federal interest in providing those

loans suspicious and, um, indicates that
only banks have the right information and

incentive to make the loans, which would
allow potentially banks to decide who um,

is, uh, receives federal financial aid
and, um, to what programs or institutions

they receive federal financial aid.

That kind of a move would, basically,
uh, has the potential to reshape or

dramatically reduce the aid system because
right now it's a quasi entitlement.

If you qualify, uh, if you attend college,
um, and you qualify for federal aid,

there's a formula that determines whether
you require financial aid to be able to

pay for college, then you are more or
less guaranteed access to a student loan.

It doesn't matter if, what program you're
going to, it doesn't matter um, whether

you're creditworthy or not, um, there's
no determination of creditworthiness,

you are entitled to a, to a loan.

Now, the backstop to that has
always been that the students

can't discharge that loan.

And that's where the loan
forgiveness stuff gets in.

So the idea is we're making this sort
of guaranteeing you the right to borrow

the money that you need to go to college
to participate in higher education, and

in exchange, you're going to have to
pay this back come hell or high water.

And what the new rule is saying,
uh, or what the, what the proposed

rule would, um, would do, would say,
umm actually, we're not really sure

if you're entitled to this loan.

Um, we're required to make some loans, but
we don't think that we're required to make

them to everybody under all circumstances.

Um, but it would keep the,
you've got to pay it back part.

Um, so.

It would, move it from, something like
an entitlement program, to a market

facilitated by the federal government,
but, um, but administered by, by banks.

Right.

So I think I'm hearing you, I think I'm
hearing you say that it's a, uh, it would

be relatively easy to cut back on loans.

You haven't talked about grants at all.

So Pell, is there a way that
Pell could be restricted?

Uh, only through, through Congress.

Uh, to get rid of Pell, there are
lots of possibilities that a Trump

administration could experiment with
and see if the courts let it fly.

Um, for example, saying institutions
are not eligible to receive, uh, um,

uh, Pell Grants or other forms of
federal aid if they violate ideological

balance tests or free speech tests.

Right.

Um, uh, and wh— so to individually,
kind of red line campuses.

It's not clear whether the
courts would go for that or not.

I think the idea that the courts
would apply the same standard of,

um, administrative restraint on
a Trump administration as they

have on a Biden administration is,
is, is, that's an open question.

Um, the courts have displayed
asymmetrical preferences, at least the

Supreme Court and many of the circuit
courts for Republican administrations.

And so Trump could be given
much more deference in terms of

administrative rulemaking and
steering money than Biden could.

Now, this is all kind of speculative
and admittedly, some of it verges

into conspiracy theory territory.

The reason that I think that that is not
beyond the pale right now is because we

have this, this document, this Project
2025 document that is sprawling in scope,

that is vague— that is hyper specific
at some points and enormously vague

in other points, and the points where
it's pretty vague when you read the the

recommendations for administrative action,
the recommendations for what Congress

should do, you know, Congress should do
this, if not, then the administration

should use its executive power to do that.

The possibilities of interpretation are
pretty wide, and I think they're wide

intentionally to provide a lot of latitude
for an administration to engage in a

sort of, um, uh, politics of punishment
through the higher education system.

Brendan, we've spoken a little bit
about the power of the presidency.

We've spoken about the power of Congress.

But there's a third branch
of government, right?

There's the Supreme Court.

And I, you know, you've mentioned in some
of your writing that, um, you know, maybe

it's the Supreme Court that could do
the, the real damage to higher education.

What could the Supreme Court do
beyond say what it's already done

on, on race conscious admissions?

And how likely is it that you think
the court will take such actions?

Yeah.

So, uh, I think that one distinct
possibility is that the court, if the

court could find that the Department
of Education is broadly inconsistent

with the Constitution, because the
Constitution, the Constitution does

explicitly give powers of things
like education to the states.

And so um, on— one thing would
be to challenge the authority

of the department to engage in
regulation that affects the states.

So can the department set rules that
interfere with the way that the states.

The states, um, administer,
uh, the provision of education.

The courts could also knock out,
in the same vein, sections of the

Higher Education Act, or the Civil
Rights Act, both of which limit,

um, the way that state universities
can, can, um, can operate.

So some specific things that you see
floated in conservative writing would

be getting rid of any kind of proactive
civil rights, um, policing through the

Department of Education, getting rid
of something called a Disparate Impact

Standard, so that if a policy or practice
at a state or an institution has a

disproportionately negative or positive
impact for a particular protected class.

So it benefits students of a particular
race disproportionately or harm students

of it of a race disproportionately.

The other area would be, uh, really
anything related to gender equity.

Um, and in particular, um, uh,
uh, any effort to, um, ensure, um,

protections for transgender students,
um, the court has shown, some

appetite to wade into those questions.

Those were definitely not things that
were specified in the, in, in the,

the various congressional acts, right?

So like Title Nine is used
to enforce gender equity.

Um, that's a fairly narrow provision that
has been uh, interpreted in a wide way.

And so the courts could say, no,
none of this and all of the kind of

efforts that the Biden administration
has made to ensure, um, gender equity

rights for transgender people, uh,
I think those will kind of be struck

down by the courts, no matter what.

Well, so that brings me to the question.

I mean, presumably the Supreme Court
could do most of this all of it, uh,

under a democratic administration, right?

Like, these are decisions that Kamala
Harris might have to deal with,

they're not predicated on Trump
coming back to power and Project

2025 being, uh, being enacted.

Like, what's.

I mean, how likely is it that it happens
under a Kamala Harris government and

what do you think would happen if
those kinds of decisions were made?

How would the, how would
the administration react?

Uh, well, the administration.

I don't know how the
administration would react.

I think that if there is a Kamala
Harris administration, you will

see more of the same of what you've
seen in recent years with the Biden

administration Department of Education.

I mean, the courts are in the
process of invalidating much of

the Title Nine guidance underway.

The courts have more or less eliminated
all of the loan, um, the loan forgiveness

programs that Biden wanted to enact and
are showing some level of skepticism about

existing public service programs, which
are congressionally authorized programs to

reduce student loan debt based on whether
you work in a public service occupation.

I think what you'll see in a, in a
Harris administration would be the

tussle between the states and the federal
government where the federal government

would be interested in ensuring, um,
using existing stat, you know, existing

statute to expand civil rights.

That's something that, uh, Democrats have
a track record of doing and something that

a Harris administration would seem likely
to want to do based on the campaign, the

courts, the states would be especially
Republican states would be especially

hostile to those, I think that opens
up the possibility for the court to make

narrow rulings, striking down particular
particular rules, and potentially much

broader rulings that hollow out some of
these landmark pieces of legislation, um,

like, like the Higher Ed Act, like the
Civil Rights Act, um, and that would be

consistent with what we've seen before.

Like when the Roberts Court
hollowed out the Voting Rights Act

during the Obama administration.

Right.

All right.

So another, I guess, route to
policy change that you've raised

as a possibility is the dismantling
of accreditation standards.

Um, you know, I mean, accreditation is
regional, but I guess there are some

kinds of national standards that I, um.

Um, that a president could mess with.

What are the methods of
policy change in this area?

And are there any checks and
balances to, to ensure that, uh,

you know, nothing too dire actually
happens to quality assurance?

The short answer is that I think that this
is an area where a Trump administration,

for example, could do quite a lot to
change the way that higher education

is governed in the United States.

Because the federal government is able
currently and historically to attach

conditions on eligibility of participating
in the federal financial aid program,

they have attached a sort of quality
assurance measure to that through

the form of regional accreditation.

Quality assurance in the U.S.

is decentralized.

It's highly critiqued.

I'm sure you could do a whole series
of, of quality assurance podcasts,

but basically it's, it's, um,
it's devolved to a set of regional

non for profit organizations that
engage in a kind of peer review of

institutions to get to certify that
it meets the standards of good quality

provision, you know, in in the region.

And those regional standards
are more or less nat— have more

or less nationalized, right?

But recently, conservatives have come out
against it as saying it's constraining

their ability in the states to, um, to
govern higher education the way that

they want to particularly govern the
curriculum and, um, have a stronger voice,

the state government have a stronger
voice in the curriculum, and it forces

institutions to participate in diversity,
equity and inclusion programs, because

that sort of thing, inclusive education
is one of the sort of quality standards.

So what, uh, what some conservative
groups have floated and what seems

like it could be a plausible plank
in a Trump administration higher

education policy would be to
allow states to self accreditate.

So rather than the accreditation coming
from these outside regional bodies,

states could establish their own quality
assurance boards that would do whatever

the state wanted it to do, and, that
would be good enough to participate

in the federal financial aid policies.

This could allow, um, deep red states
to really take control of their public

higher education systems in terms of
the curriculum and the way that it

handled gender equity, race equity and
things like that in ways that, um, would

would be, um, would not be possible
under the current accreditation system.

The potential is that state higher
education systems would have

very different quality standards
and very different standards

around cultural standards around
academic freedom around inclusion.

And that would be a big change, right?

That would be a huge change
in US higher education.

It's interesting because that's
actually how Canadian provinces do it.

They're, implicitly they're self
accrediting, but nobody's got

hugely varying views on what the
right things to accredit on, right?

On the substance.

So that's kind of interesting.

We had Simon Marginson on a couple of
weeks ago, and we were talking about

whether or not, um, institutions anywhere
in the world were very good at resisting,

uh, populist, or in some cases, fascist
governments, like, you know, what can

an institution do to protect itself?

And I think Simon's reaction
was not much, right?

Um, and you mentioned last time you were
on that, that, that higher education

just doesn't have many friends.

Um, in, you know, there's not many
champions outside their own sector.

Um, do you think that's likely to
change in the next six months or,

is the sector as exposed as it
looks, uh, is it, is it going to

be that exposed come January 20th?

Yeah, I think the sector
is pretty exposed.

Um, what has protected it so far
has been broad public support.

We know that's eroding, um, strong within
sector norms so that it was hard to

find many, um, institutions that were
willing to break the mold and go along

with ideas that were seen as, beyond, um,
you know, what was normal or acceptable

in higher education and politicians who
weren't really interested in challenging

those norms, at least not explicitly.

So, those conditions are eroding.

There are very few legal or formal
mechanisms, um, that protect institutions,

even private institutions, um, which
are exposed to, um, uh, to the federal

government through its, through its
ability to attach strings to, to, to aid

and grant and research grants and, um,
and so I think that, um, institutions

aren't practiced at this, and even if
they were to, to think very clearly about

how to defend themselves, there aren't
clear, um, there aren't clear avenues

to, to remedy, um, to, to remedy the
kind of, um, uh, overtures that, that the

federal or state governments might make.

Um, so.

The short answer is I think
Simon's basically right.

There's not much institutions can do.

To the extent that institutions can
protect themselves, I think it's

through direct appeals to people.

Um, and, uh, they are reluctant to
do that, um, because they're not

practiced at doing it, they might
be bad at it, and they might find

that people aren't on their side.

Right.

So you've laid out what I think is
a worst case scenario if Trump wins.

Is there a best case scenario or maybe
even just a better case scenario?

Uh, what, what's, what's the
best thing that could emerge

from a second Trump presidency?

Yeah, I think the best case scenario,
which is not an unlikely scenario, it's

a reasonably likely scenario, is that
Trump doesn't give much attention to,

um, the, uh, to higher education policy.

I think that they will almost
certainly do things around, um, Title

Nine and really try to, um, prevent
institutions from, um, allowing students

to change their, their gender for
federal reporting and other things.

I think that they will, um, revert
to the kind of Betsy DeVos guidance

on Title Nine, which gives, um, uh,
students who are accused of committing,

um, sexual assault in a relationship,
harassment and violence, a lot of

rights, um, uh, that sort of cultural
stuff will almost certainly happen.

They will almost certainly get rid of a
few of the accountability metrics in terms

of gainful employment and good outcomes
that Democrats have championed in part

because they are much more sympathetic to
the interests of for profit institutions

that have been gotten the, that have been
at the business end of those regulations.

So I think the best case scenario
is just kind of the flip flop that

we have in federal regulation, where
you get a new set of rules every

time you get a new party in power.

Um, and that's, you know, I'd say that
that's one of the likelier scenarios.

Um, but I think what's changed
is that that's not, like, um, the

certainty of that is much lower than
it would have been, than it would be

under, say, a Nikki Haley presidency.

We could imagine that's what
would happen if Nikki Haley

were to become the president.

Now, like, that's on the table.

Um, but so is like everything else.

And that kind of uncertainty is very
hard for the sector to prepare for.

Brandon Cantwell.

Thank you so much for joining us.

Thank you very much.

It was fun.

And it just remains for us to
thank our excellent producers,

Tiffany McLennan and Sam Pufek, and
you, our listeners for tuning in.

If you have any questions or
comments about today's episode

or suggestions for future ones,
please don't hesitate to contact

us at podcast@higheredstrategy.com.

Join us next week when
my guest will be Mary C.

Wright.

She's the author of Centres for
Teaching and Learning, The New

Landscape and Higher Education.

She's from Brown University
and we'll be talking to her

about this fascinating subject.

We'll be back in a week's time.

Bye for now.