Although 2025 is now in the past, the policy turmoil that defined the year has not dissipated with it. Higher education experts warn that more shocks are coming as the Trump administration continues to use a range of tools, from civil rights investigations to regulatory reforms, to reshape the higher education landscape.

College leaders should prepare for more federal pressure, including influence exerted through new avenues such as accreditation. At the same time, they should also anticipate continued attacks on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

Below, we have compiled the four major policy shifts worth watching in the coming year, along with experts' predictions on where they are headed.

Accreditors pushed into an unprecedented spotlight

During the campaign, President Donald Trump called college accreditors a "secret weapon" against a higher education system he portrayed as full of "Marxist maniacs"—an unprecedented level of attention for the sector.

"This is unusual not just for Trump, but for any presidential campaign, to devote an entire speech to accreditation," said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations at the American Council on Education. "This is usually a fairly quiet policy corner."

As president, Trump signed an executive order in April requiring the U.S. Department of Education to restart reviews of new accreditors, while also attacking existing accreditors' DEI standards. The order required accreditors to mandate that colleges use program-level data on student outcomes "without regard to race, ethnicity, or sex."

At the same time, the order also required faculty to demonstrate "intellectual diversity"—a term left undefined in the order but often used by the right as a code for hiring more conservatives.

The Education Department subsequently issued guidance aimed at making it easier for colleges to switch accreditors and planned to reshape accreditation regulations this spring.

Beyond policymaking, the Trump administration also occasionally sought to pressure colleges through accreditors. In July, two federal agencies notified Harvard University's accreditor that the Ivy League school might no longer meet its accreditation standards.

That determination was based on the government's claims that Harvard showed "deliberate indifference" to harassment of Jewish and Israeli students on its campus—claims a federal judge found insufficient to justify the government's freeze on funding meant to force policy changes at Harvard.

The government employed a similar strategy with Columbia University's accreditor before reaching a deal with the university to resolve its Title VI investigation.

Some accreditors have already made adjustments favored by the Trump administration. The WASC Senior College and University Commission, the New England Commission of Higher Education, and the American Psychological Association have permanently or temporarily removed DEI standards for colleges.

The stakes for institutional and academic independence are high. "They have been trying to force colleges to adopt policies and choices that align with their views, and that is a big problem," Fansmith said, adding that the U.S. has never used accreditors "as a tool to enforce the political views of the party in power."

More practical questions remain unanswered about the Trump administration's plans, including its push to recognize new accreditors.

"Will new accreditors be held to the same standards as existing ones? That is a huge unknown," asked Nasser Paydar, president of the Council for Higher Education Accreditation.

He noted that given the scale of higher education, accreditors welcome more competition. "There is room to accommodate."

Paydar also pointed to the government's emphasis on student and graduate outcomes. "The Department of Education has said it wants to ensure accreditors focus on student outcomes. That is good," he said. But he also noted that student outcomes vary across different types of institutions and programs. For example, the country needs teachers and social workers, but they often earn less.

The specific details of how the government plans to incorporate outcomes standards into accreditation remain unknown. "We want to understand how they intend to do this, because either way, it will affect how universities behave in the future," Paydar said.

More Title VI attacks expected

Title VI investigations have become a common tool for the Trump administration to extract funding and policy changes from universities in its second term. The law prohibits institutions that receive federal funding from discriminating based on race, color, or national origin.

The government has used Title VI to pursue allegations of antisemitism, many of which centered on colleges failing to respond strongly enough to pro-Palestinian protests and complaints from Jewish students.

The Trump administration has also used Title VI to wage an aggressive campaign against diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives.

Throughout 2025, six universities reached agreements with the Trump administration—most involving payments to the government and a series of policy changes—to resolve Title VI investigations initiated by one or, often, multiple federal agencies.

Facing similar allegations, Harvard fought back and sued the government. In September, a federal court ruled that the government's freeze on $2.2 billion in research funding was unlawful and failed to follow proper procedure.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the evidence in the case did not "suggest that combating antisemitism was the real purpose behind the defendants' actions against Harvard," adding, "Even so, combating antisemitism cannot come at the expense of the First Amendment."

On the other side of the country, another federal judge issued an even harsher rebuke of the government in a lawsuit filed by faculty groups and a union coalition over Title VI investigations into University of California system campuses.

In issuing a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin determined that the government could not withhold research funding due to investigations. She described the government's "playbook" as "launching civil rights investigations into prominent universities to justify cutting off federal funds," with the aim of "forcing them to change their ideological tone."

But even after setbacks in court, the government continued to reach deals with universities and showed no signs of easing its aggressive tactics.

"They clearly believe that targeted investigations and freezing research funds are effective tools, so we are likely to see more of these actions," Fansmith said. While he noted that the Education Department has significantly reduced its Office for Civil Rights, weakening its capacity to conduct Title VI investigations, Fansmith said "they do not seem too concerned about conducting thorough investigations that comply with the law." "Their interest seems more in generating headlines and scaring schools," he added.

What's next for federal research funding?

Calling federal research funding turbulent last year would be an understatement.

According to a January analysis by Nature, the National Institutes of Health and the National Science Foundation together canceled or paused more than 7,800 grants throughout 2025. Many of the affected grants were concentrated in topics opposed by the Trump administration, such as research related to DEI or vaccine hesitancy.

While federal judges in some cases ordered the Trump administration to restore canceled grants—and a few universities reached deals to regain frozen federal research funds—according to Nature's findings, about 2,600 grants remain unrestored. These grants represent $1.6 billion in unused federal research funding.

Additionally, the publication found that both NIH and NSF awarded about a quarter fewer grants in 2025 than their ten-year averages. The Trump administration also attempted—so far unsuccessfully—to cap reimbursement for research indirect costs at 15%, a move that would threaten tens of millions of dollars for many research universities.

Many well-funded universities have taken significant steps to adapt to the new environment. The University of Chicago, Georgetown University, the University of Michigan, Boston University, Harvard University, and others have said they will reduce the number of doctoral students they admit or pause admissions to some programs amid the uncertain funding environment.

"When we look back at 2025, it was a year of uncertainty, whether it was spending freezes, canceled funding, or canceled approved grants," said Travis York, director of the STEMM Education and Workforce Center at the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

However, some positive signs for research funding emerged early this year. Members of Congress have taken action to reject the Trump administration's proposals for steep cuts to research funding in fiscal year 2026. They advanced bipartisan bills proposing a total of $188.3 billion in research funding—21.3% more than the administration requested.

Additionally, York said the Trump administration has begun to clarify its funding priorities. "Even in science research and education funding, we have seen clearer signals about which areas the current administration truly wants to invest in." This includes interest in semiconductors, artificial intelligence, biotechnology, and quantum research, York said, encouraging researchers to look for these opportunities.

"During times of transition, it is crucial for researchers to submit proposals," York said. "We still need to work to leverage available funding, think innovatively, and consider how to use existing resources to strengthen the scientific community."

Justice Department's crackdown on in-state tuition for undocumented students

Trump made ending in-state tuition for undocumented students a priority in his second term, signing an executive order in April directing the head of the U.S. Department of Justice to take action against state laws that offer in-state tuition to noncitizens but not to out-of-state U.S. citizens.

Just over a month later, the Justice Department sued Texas—the first state in the country to offer in-state tuition to undocumented students.

The agency has since sued six other states whose policies allow certain undocumented students to qualify for in-state tuition: California, Illinois, Kentucky, Minnesota, Oklahoma, and Virginia. Given that at least a dozen more states offer similar benefits to undocumented students, more lawsuits could follow.

Although each policy has different eligibility requirements for undocumented students to receive in-state tuition, Justice Department leaders argue in each lawsuit that these states illegally provide undocumented students with benefits not available to all U.S. citizens.

State reactions have varied but are also predictable—officials in Republican stronghold states support the Trump administration, while officials in blue or purple states vow to fight the administration in court.

In Texas, Republican Attorney General Ken Paxton filed a joint motion with the Trump administration to end the policy, and a federal judge ruled the law invalid just hours after the lawsuit was filed.

But lawsuits in other states are less clear-cut.