Shared governance, the traditional balance of power between university boards and faculty, has come under unprecedented strain in the wake of the Trump administration. From federal funding threats to sweeping state mandates on curricula and inclusion programs, institutional autonomy and academic freedom now hang in the balance.

Insight Into Academia examines how federal pressure, state-level mandates, and DEI rollbacks are reshaping the landscape of higher education governance.

A New Era of Federal Leverage

In 2025, the Trump administration paused more than $9 billion in federal funding for leading universities, including Columbia University, Harvard University, Cornell University, Northwestern University, University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, Princeton University, and others, purportedly to address campus antisemitism and policy compliance. Harvard alone saw a freeze of roughly $2.3 billion in federal grants, alongside threats to revoke its tax-exempt status and visa restrictions on international students.

In April, PBS detailed how Harvard filed suit in U.S. District Court, arguing that the government’s actions represented unconstitutional overreach, aimed at coercing changes in governance, hiring, and admissions policies. The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) also initiated a separate lawsuit, accusing the Trump administration of wielding federal funding as leverage to undermine academic freedom.

In July, a federal hearing in Boston saw Judge Allison Burroughs express concern about the legality of the funding freeze. Harvard presented in its case that the cuts were retaliatory, “leveraging federal grants to control academic decisions.” The government defended the move as necessary to combat antisemitic discrimination. The judge also granted an injunction stopping the enforcement of the visa ban against international students—a decision that reaffirmed concerns about free speech and institutional autonomy.

These legal maneuvers, while focused on elite institutions, set the stage for broader implications. The underlying question: Can the federal government reshape higher education policy by threatening access to its largest funding pipelines?

Governance Under Siege at the State Level

Beyond Harvard, state governments have advanced their own efforts to reform campus governance—often more aggressively and with fewer checks.

Numerous conservative-led state legislatures and boards have also imposed new governance restrictions. Recently, Iowa’s Board of Regents has proposed barring universities from requiring courses with “substantial content” related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion), critical race theory, or gender theory—marking a significant shift in what faculty can teach. This legislation, effective July 1, follows the passage of Iowa Senate File 418, which eliminates state protections related to gender identity and expands executive authority over postsecondary education.

Nearly two dozen states are advancing similar measures to restrict how DEI is integrated into campus governance, altering boards’ traditional role in academic matters. According to AP News, many of these new laws are giving politically appointed trustees unprecedented authority over curricula, hiring, and academic requirements.

The Washington Post reported that Columbia reached a $221 million settlement to restore $400 million in withheld funding. The agreement included federal oversight on hiring, admissions, and DEI policies, prompting warnings of a dangerous precedent for governmental influence over campus governance. The AAUP argued in a recent statement that Columbia’s agreement sets a precedent for political interference across all of higher ed, fueling what they call an “authoritarian appetite” for control.

What the AAUP Says Is at Stake:

• Academic Freedom: The settlement allows federal oversight in hiring and admissions, threatening institutional autonomy.
• Free Speech: Seen as part of a broader pattern to suppress expression on campuses.
• Democratic Institutions: The AAUP warns the move emboldens attempts to ideologically control schools nationwide.
• Broader Implications: Wolfson claims this is not isolated—Trump has already reached into community colleges, state schools, and MSIs.

“This settlement subverts our democracy and capitulates to the Trump plan to target the pillars of our democracy: the judiciary, the free press, and our education systems.”

Todd Wolfson, AAUP President

Who Decides What to Teach?

What began as financial maneuvering has evolved into a high-stakes question of academic control. The push to eliminate or rewrite DEI-focused coursework, revise degree requirements and offerings, and direct what can and cannot be included in Western civics content reflects a growing ideological battle over the very purpose of higher education.

The Washington Post charted how red states are removing race and gender criteria from degree programs and promoting Western civics curricula—framing these mandates as efforts to realign public education with conservative values.

These changes signal a broader shift in power from faculty-driven academic decisions to politically appointed boards and governors, raising urgent questions about the future of shared governance and the role of public universities in a pluralistic society.

Legal Lines: When Oversight Becomes Overreach

As governance tensions escalate, constitutional scholars and legal experts are sounding the alarm. UC Berkeley Law School Dean Erwin Chemerinsky warns that using federal funding as a coercive tool violates the principle of institutional autonomy. Courts, he argues, will need to assess whether governmental demands cross into unconstitutional encroachment on free inquiry.

Richard Chait, a professor emeritus and governance expert at Harvard, notes that trustees’ increasing activism—especially in red states—risks politicizing academic decision-making at scale.

Recent legal rulings suggest the courts may be more receptive to these concerns. Judge Burroughs’s injunction in Harvard’s case demonstrated a willingness to intervene when the court finds that political pressure eclipses constitutional boundaries.

A Collective Stand—or Quiet Retreat?

In response to the growing threats, universities are organizing collective legal opposition. The AAUP, alongside 150 university presidents, condemned the Trump administration’s funding tactics as “unprecedented government overreach.” Several faculty senates, including those at Big Ten campuses, have adopted mutual defense agreements to resist external interference.

Yet not all responses are public—or resistant. Columbia’s financial settlement, while restoring critical funding, came with oversight concessions. Other institutions have quietly restructured administrative roles or phased out DEI offices, aiming to preempt potential political retribution.

Critics warn that these actions amount to institutional acquiescence—ceding academic and governance autonomy under political pressure.

The Future of Shared Governance

The Trump landscape of higher education governance is being redrawn by competing forces: federal actors leveraging grants and visas, state leaders rewriting curricula and board authority, and institutions caught between legal resistance and political compromise.

Whether shared governance survives this moment depends not only on court decisions, but also on how boldly universities choose to defend their missions. Will they band together in active resistance—or drift, one by one, into passive compliance?

As Chemerinsky and other scholars suggest, the next chapter will determine whether academic autonomy remains intact—or crumbles under the weight of escalating governmental control.