These are 4 of the most impactful cuts to higher ed in Trump's proposed budget
A partial budget proposal released on Friday from the Trump administration lays out a long list of impacts to higher education across the country, aiming to get rid of diversity, equity and inclusion and taper its involvement in education.
The 46-page 'skinny' budget isn't finalized for the 2025-2026 fiscal year but will be in the coming weeks. It is up to Congress to determine how the federal money is used. It calls for $163 billion in cuts across the government.
At the same time as Trump cuts back on education, the administration is increasing in some areas like defense spending, adding a proposed $1 trillion to its budget.
'President Trump's proposed budget puts students and parents above the bureaucracy,' said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in a statement.
'The President's Skinny Budget reflects funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities. It supports the President's vision of expanding school choice and ensuring every American has access to an excellent education,' she said.
Charter schools are one of the only educational initiatives the federal government plans to funnel more funding into, increasing by $60 million.
Here are a few of the ways higher education could be hit in the proposed budget:
Eliminating federal work study programs
The skinny budget calls federal work study programs a 'handout to woke universities and a subsidy from Federal taxpayers, who can pay for their own employees.'
The budget aims to have the remaining funding from federal work study redistributed to institutions that serve low-income students and provide a 'wage subsidy to gain career-oriented opportunities to improve long-term employment outcomes of students.'
Michael Hannigan, a Greenfield Community College student, mentioned during a hearing at the Joint Committee on Higher Education on Monday the importance of his federal work study to stay in school.
He returned to college at the age of 42 after years of working low-paying manual jobs, he said.
'Each week we read about new threats to students, especially those who have been historically shut out from higher education — students of color, first generation students, students with disabilities," said Hannigan, who is the student senate president at the community college.
'I myself am a first-generation student and I rely on SNAP benefits and the federal work-study program to stay enrolled. When I hear about possible cuts to these programs, it makes my path to feel a lot less secure,' he said.
Cuts to science and research
The budget plan proposes cutting $18 billion from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), more than one-third of its budget.
The cut comes in part due to NIH promoting 'radical gender ideology' by funding studies on transgender youth on hormones, according to the administration.
The administration aims to eliminate funding for the National Institute on Minority and Health Disparities, the Fogarty International Center, the National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health and the National Institute of Nursing Research.
It would also cease research on 'climate change, radical gender ideology and divisive racialism.'
'NIH has broken the trust of the American people with wasteful spending, misleading information, risky research, and the promotion of dangerous ideologies that undermine public health,' the administration said in the proposed budget.
On top of that, Trump proposed cutting around half of the funding from the National Science Foundation (NSF).
This week, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced that it was among 13 research universities and three organizations suing NSF, after the agency's efforts to slash indirect costs at grant-receiving institutions.
The lawsuit follows a Friday announcement from NSF stating that it would cut the rate of reimbursement to higher education institutions for 'indirect costs' or overhead costs for institutions that receive grants to 15%.
The 15% maximum rate applies only to new awards on or after May 5, 2025, according to the announcement.
On top of the cuts to reimbursement rates, NSF told staff members at the end of April to stop awarding funding until further notice. NSF has terminated approximately 1,425 grants, according to Nature.
'Besides its destructive impact on research and training, this latest effort violates longstanding federal laws and regulations that govern grantmaking. We are seeking to prevent implementation of this poorly conceived and short-sighted policy, which will only hurt the American people and weaken the country. We look forward to making our case,' the organizations suing said in a statement.
The National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the U.S. Department of Energy have similarly announced that they would cut 'indirect costs' or overhead costs for institutions that receive grants.
However, those were halted by federal judges following lawsuits against it.
Continuing the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education
The budget makes steps to begin eliminating the U.S. Department of Education by walking back much of its funding by $12 billion.
The federal administration wants to reduce the department by $127 million or 30% for program administration.
The budget comes after Trump signed an executive order that begins the efforts to dismantle the U.S. Department of Education.
Finalizing the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education is likely impossible without an act of Congress, which created the department in 1979.
However, despite needing Congressional intervention, Will Ragland at the Center for American Progress, a left-leaning think tank, told MassLive that the Trump administration can effectively shut the department down by stripping it back until it barely has anyone working there and can't operate.
The Trump administration has already been gutting the agency. Its workforce has been slashed in half and there have been deep cuts to the Office for Civil Rights and the Institute of Education Sciences, which gathers data on the nation's academic progress.
All those at the regional Boston office of the U.S. Education Department were fired.
As part of the new budget, Trump is proposing to reduce the Office for Civil Rights, which protects students from discrimination, by 35% or $49 million.
This is a broader effort to 'refocus away from DEI and Title IX transgender cases' and clear its backlog, according to the federal administration.
Trump also proposed to defund Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which offer students between $100 to $4,000 per year for undergraduate students with 'exceptional financial need,' according to the website.
The administration claims that the grants are given more frequently to families with higher incomes than lower incomes and are awarded more to private institutions than public colleges.
TRIO and Gear Up are also programs that are proposed to be cut, described as 'a relic of the past,' by the administration.
The two programs help students from low-income backgrounds, first-generation college students and individuals with disabilities prepare for higher education, according to the U.S. Department of Education website.
'Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means,' the administration said.
The federal government also proposes cutting funding to English language learning programs, adult education programs, migrant education, subsidizing child care for parents in college and teacher training on topics such as DEI.
Eliminating agencies that fund arts, humanities
Trump proposes in the skinny budget to eliminate funding to arts and humanities agencies, including the National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities. Each of these fund programs to help people participate in the humanities and the arts.
The administration said that the cuts are 'consistent with the President's efforts to decrease the size of the Federal Government to enhance accountability, reduce waste and reduce unnecessary governmental entities,' according to the document.
More
Higher Ed
Read the original article on MassLive.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Forbes
9 minutes ago
- Forbes
Is Donald Trump An Authentic Leader?
On the performative nature of authenticity, and why Trump exposes the paradoxical and unscientific meaning of the term. In a world obsessed with personal branding, real and deep fake influencers, and AI-fueled persuasion, 'authenticity' seems more valuable than ever, as the distinction between what's real and what isn't transcends everything and everyone. We no longer expect our leaders to be merely competent — a trait that, inconveniently, remains hard for most voters to identify. We want them to be 'real,' too, though no one can quite agree on what that entails in an era where even authenticity can be performative. From viral LinkedIn mantras to inspirational TED Talks, authenticity is praised as the antidote to crooked leaders, political doublespeak, and robotic managerialism, not to mention phony politicians. Indeed, research suggests that people rate 'authentic leaders' as more trustworthy, relatable, and morally grounded. And yet, despite its near-universal appeal, authenticity remains vague and elusive as a concept. We want, admire, demand it — but few can define it, especially in a sensible or cogent way, and even fewer appear to know how we would go about measuring it, at least with some degree of precision or objectivity. In the leadership literature, authenticity is generally associated with transparency, consistency, and self-awareness. In line, leaders who are seen as authentic inspire greater followership, because they appear more predictable and less manipulative. Employees trust them more, and citizens are more likely to forgive their mistakes. Consider why figures like Nelson Mandela or Angela Merkel continue to command admiration — not merely for their achievements, but for the perceived harmony between what they believed, said, and did. They were not just competent, but coherent. Conversely, politicians who appear to shapeshift with every poll are penalized — not always for their views, but for the whiff of inauthenticity. Voters would rather support someone they disagree with than someone they suspect of pandering. Indeed, perceptions of authenticity are less about ideological alignment and more about emotional resonance. People tend to see those they like as authentic — and label those they dislike as fake. Unsurprisingly, Trump supporters view him as the embodiment of authenticity, just as Obama's admirers did with him. Ask their detractors, however, and the verdict flips. In a way, the real litmus test of authenticity is whether even your critics concede that you are 'the real deal.' On that front, Trump may score higher than Obama, unless you deny the possibility that more authentic doesn't always equate to more effective… Therein lies the philosophical catch: authenticity, for all its cultural currency, is not a fixed trait. It is an attribution — something we project onto others. We can't scan a person's soul (Neuralink hasn't cracked that yet) to verify the alignment between their inner essence and their outer behavior. In truth, we struggle to verify even our own. As neuroscientist David Eagleman put it, 'The conscious mind is like a broom closet in the mansion of the brain.' Much of what drives us is hidden from ourselves, let alone others. What feels authentic might just be a well-rehearsed act — one we've repeated so often, we've come to believe it ourselves (which, admittedly, sounds great, except for the fact that the most brutal dictators in history were pretty good at it). That's why psychologists argue authenticity is socially constructed. It's not some universal signal — it's context-dependent. A CEO crying in a board meeting might be praised for vulnerability in Silicon Valley, and ridiculed as unfit in Frankfurt. Compare Obama's curated 'cool dad' persona with Merkel's austere pragmatism: both were labeled authentic, but by very different cultural standards. In the end, we judge authenticity not by some Platonic essence of the self, but by how well someone's performance matches our expectations of who they ought to be. Which brings us, inevitably, to Trump. The question is not whether he is authentic — we can't ever truly know — but why he seems authentic to so many. Trump checks all the cultural boxes of 'realness': he's blunt, unfiltered, often incoherent (even when not spontaneously so), and defiantly unrehearsed. He rants on social media at ungodly hours and insults opponents with the fervor of a WWE heel. These are not behaviors traditionally associated with leadership—but to many, that's the point. His refusal to play by the rules of political etiquette is precisely what makes him persuasive. Unlike the focus-grouped politician who triangulates every utterance, Trump performs spontaneity. And for a certain kind of voter, that performance is more persuasive than policy. So how do we assess authenticity more analytically? As I illustrate in my forthcoming book, we can determine this by examining Trump vis-à-vis the four mainstream tenets or mantras for examining authenticity in others (not just leaders), namely: (1) always be honest with yourself and others; (2) always be true to your values, no matter what; (3) don't worry about what people think of you; and (4) bring your whole self to work. 1. Is Trump brutally honest with himself and others? Trump is certainly honest with others — at least in the sense that he says what he thinks. Whether those thoughts are factually accurate is another matter entirely. Although there's little evidence of self-reflection or self-critique, we simply don't know whether his statements are improvised or calculated, even when they seem spontaneous. Furthermore, there's no way to know whether he truly believes some of the over-the-top comments he makes, for instance on his own capabilities. When he tells us that he is 'a very stable genius', does he truly believe it? It would be easier to prove or disprove whether such statements are factually correct than whether he actually believes them himself. Evolutionary psychology shows that truly believing such statements even when they are not factually correct (what psychologists refer to as self-deception) is rather common in humans because it helps us display convincing signs of confidence and be regarded as competent. In other words, the best way to fool others is to fool yourself first. This introduces an interesting paradox: your likelihood of being perceived as authentic increases when you are not honest with yourself. By the same token, if you are honest with yourself, and therefore aware of your limitations, you may not be perceived as confident and therefore competent! In this way, Trump's self-deception may be a powerful tool to come across as genuine and competent – people are more likely to believe you are a stable genius if they see that you truly believe it yourself when you make such statements. 2. Is Trump uncompromisingly true to his values? Trump's values are difficult to pin down ideologically, but he is consistent in tone and temperament. He prizes dominance, loyalty, and personal success — values that appear deeply ingrained across decades of business and political life. He doesn't pivot or play nice to broaden appeal. That may limit his coalition, but it boosts the perception that he 'sticks to his guns.' Also, his decisions seem consistently optimized to enhance self-interest (either at national, party, or individual level), and despite his self-presentation as master deal maker he seems quite transparent in the goals and outcomes he pursues. To be sure, those who don't share his values will not accept that he is acting authentically by 'following his values no matter what'. This is an important reminder of the fact that value-centricity is not inherently beneficial or effective in leaders: what matters is what your values are, whether they are shared by others, and how they impact others (not just your voters, but society at large). In fact, history is replete with examples of leaders who were clearly true to their values, and impressively executed against them, but without having much in the form of positive effects (and often many negative effects) on their followers. 3. Is Trump unbothered by what people think of him? This one seems tailor-made for Trump. He thrives on attention but is often indifferent — when not hostile — to criticism. Most politicians spin, apologize, or moderate. Trump doubles down. Whether it's calling opponents nicknames, attacking journalists, or airing grievances, he seems genuinely unconcerned with being liked by everyone. In the authenticity game, that's a powerful signal: he performs as someone who is beyond calculation. To be sure, breaking prosocial etiquette norms does not make you authentic, just like being controversial doesn't make you right. Still, given that overt and aggressive confrontation tends to be uncharacteristic in a typical politician (and even someone with traditional political skills), it can make you seem authentic regardless of whether this is a calculated self-presentational strategy. It's like being a social media troll: you offend, and some people will celebrate your radical candor! That said, this disregard for what people think of you is also emblematic of a narcissistic personality, whether in its clinical or sub-clinical (highly functioning) form. Research on vulnerable narcissism suggests that those who lash out or seem impervious to criticism may in fact be protecting a fragile ego—especially when rejection threatens their self-image. Trump's combative and adversarial style, far from indicating thick skin, may signal the opposite: a compulsive need to dominate the narrative to avoid feeling diminished. As a result, what looks like radical candor may actually be a meticulously constructed performance of invulnerability. 4. Does Trump bring his whole self to work? Unquestionably. Trump does not compartmentalize. The same persona that tweets 'covfefe' at midnight is the one addressing (and trying to dismantle) the UN General Assembly. His speeches, interviews, and online posts share the same syntax, cadences, and vocabulary. His business brand, political identity, and personal life blur into one. That's the very definition of bringing your whole self to work—for better or worse. In fact, applying one of the most common scientific and popular criteria for defining authenticity, namely consistency between what leaders say and do, there's no question that with Trump (at least his current iteration) what you see is what you get – after nearly 150 days of presidency, he has enacted most of his intended plans and promises. To be sure, unlike Melania, who also has access to the private or personal version of the president, we will never know whether the home version of Trump is radically different from his professional self, which is the norm with most leaders (and people). Conclusion: More Authentic, Less Effective? So, is Trump an authentic leader? From the perspective of public perception, probably yes — at least to those who admire him. Even many critics concede that his rawness makes him 'real.' He stands out precisely because he does not seem like a conventional politician. But here's the irony: the very traits that enhance his reputation for authenticity—lack of filter, abrasiveness, impulsivity — also limit his effectiveness as a leader, particularly in contexts that require diplomacy, coalition-building, and emotional intelligence. Indeed, if you were tasked with coaching Trump, the likely strategy would be to curb his most 'authentic' impulses: inject some tact, broaden his emotional bandwidth, tone down the narcissism, and embrace more perspective-taking. That might make him more effective — but also less 'himself.' Such is the paradox of authenticity in leadership: being too true to yourself can inhibit your leadership talents. Ultimately, the case of Donald Trump reminds us that authenticity is not an unqualified virtue. Like most traits, it is only beneficial in moderation and context. What followers experience as authenticity may simply be a refusal to conform. But in politics — as in life —there's a fine line between being genuine and being a jerk. The best leaders know how to walk that line without losing either their compass or their followers. In other words, they are clear about where their right to be themselves ends, and their obligation to others begins. Importantly, while people seem to genuinely love the concept of 'authenticity' (not just in leaders, but humans in general), we would do well to acknowledge that, alas, there is just no objective way to quantify how authentic someone is, or whether someone is acting in an authentic way or not. Rather, authenticity is retrofitted to affection: we tend to deem people authentic if we like them, and fake if we don't. In politics, this creates a curious paradox. Donald Trump is hailed as the very embodiment of authenticity — by his supporters. So too is Barack Obama — by his own. But ask the other side, and the verdict flips. Same goes for charisma: it is an attribution we make about people we like and admire, because they seem better able to influence and persuade us, because we share their beliefs, values, and personal attributes, to the point of embodying a part of who we are or want to be. In that sense, Freud was onto something when we noted that our connection with leaders is in itself narcissistic: we love people who represent who we are, and when they are also leaders who appear to love us, our love is a subliminal and socially legitimate way of loving ourselves. In the end, authenticity may be less a moral virtue than a psychological illusion —comforting, relatable, and occasionally dangerous. We crave it in leaders because it reassures us that someone, somewhere, is being 'real' in a world that often feels fake. But the paradox is hard to escape: the more someone tries to prove their authenticity, the less authentic they seem. Perhaps the lesson is this: in leadership, as in life, being true to yourself only matters if your 'self' is worth following.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Reporter Gets Hit By Rubber Bullet At L.A. Protest, Sparking Shock Allegation
A journalist covering the protests in Los Angeles was blasted by a rubber bullet during her report, prompting allegations that she was purposely targeted by an LAPD officer. (Watch the video below.) As demonstrations against the Trump administration's ICE raids and deployment of the National Guard intensified, 9 News Australia reporter Lauren Tomasi said, 'This situation has now rapidly deteriorated. The LAPD moving in on horseback firing rubber bullets at protesters, moving them on through the heart of L.A.' She is then hit by an apparent rubber bullet in the leg, screaming 'whaa!' as he jumps in pain. Video showed an officer taking aim in her direction, and Australian politicians alleged the attack was deliberate. 'The first thing he [Prime Minister Anthony Albanese] must tell [President Donald Trump] is to stop shooting at our journalists,' Senator Sarah Hanson-Young said, per the Guardian. 'Freedom of the press is a fundamental pillar of a strong, functioning democracy.' Senator Matt Canavan told the outlet 'it looks like there was a targeting there' but didn't want to jump to conclusions. U.S. Correspondent Lauren Tomasi has been caught in the crossfire as the LAPD fired rubber bullets at protesters in the heart of Los Angeles. #9NewsLATEST: — 9News Australia (@9NewsAUS) June 9, 2025 Reporting that Tomasi was indeed struck by a rubber bullet, News 9 said in a statement to the Daily Beast: 'Lauren and her camera operator are safe and will continue their essential work covering these events. This incident serves as a stark reminder of the inherent dangers journalists can face while reporting from the frontlines of protests, underscoring the importance of their role in providing vital information.' The LAPD told the Daily Beast it was not aware of the incident. The BBC reported that British photographer Nick Stern sustained a leg wound from a rubber bullet amid the protests. He required emergency surgery to remove the projectile. Protests Intensify In Los Angeles After Trump Deploys Hundreds Of National Guard Troops Republicans Offer Cowardly Lack Of Pushback To Hegseth Suggesting Marines Could Quell Protests National Guard Troops Ordered To Los Angeles By Trump Find Quiet Streets And Few Protests
Business Insider
12 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Travel ban: 10 exceptions that allow citizens from restricted countries to enter the U.S.
Some select groups of people from the 12 countries affected by President Trump's travel ban may still be allowed entry into the United States. President Trump's travel ban affects citizens from 12 countries, imposing restrictions due to national security concerns. Certain exceptions allow entry based on humanitarian grounds, national interest, or specific visa classifications. Critics argue the travel restrictions disproportionately affect vulnerable populations and strain international relations. Despite the travel ban in place, there are specific exceptions that allow citizens from the affected or restricted countries to enter the United States. These exceptions are typically based on humanitarian grounds, national interest, or specific visa classifications and are designed to accommodate urgent or essential travel needs that align with U.S. policy considerations. The travel ban which takes effect from today, bars nationals from Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, Congo-Brazzaville, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen from entering the U.S. Additionally, nationals from seven other countries - Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela, face partial travel restrictions. The U.S. government justifies these measures on national security grounds, citing concerns over terrorism, insufficient passport controls, and high visa overstay rates in the affected countries. However, exceptions exist that allow certain individuals from these nations to enter the U.S. These exemptions reflect the government's recognition of humanitarian, diplomatic, and strategic factors that require flexibility beyond the broad restrictions. Here are 10 exceptions to Trump's travel restrictions According to the BBC, the travel restrictions do not apply to specific categories of individuals, as detailed in the list below. "Lawful permanent" US residents Their immediate family members who hold immigrant visas US government employees with Special Immigrant Visas Adoptions Dual nationals when the individual is not travelling on a passport from one of the affected countries Afghan nationals holding Special Immigrant Visas Holders of "immigrant visas for ethnic and religious minorities facing persecution in Iran" Foreign nationals travelling with certain non-immigrant visas Athletes, their teams (including coaches and supporting staff), and their immediate family when travelling for major sporting events, such as the men's football World Cup in 2026 and the Summer 2028 Olympics in Los Angeles In addition, the US Secretary of State may grant exemptions to individuals on a "case-by-case" basis, if "the individual would serve a United States national interest". Trump's travel restrictions criticized President Trump's travel restrictions have sparked widespread criticism both internationally and domestically. Numerous countries and organizations have voiced dissent, arguing that the ban unfairly targets certain nations and exacerbates existing geopolitical tensions. The African Union was among the first to publicly condemn the policy, urging the United States to engage in meaningful dialogue with the affected countries rather than impose broad restrictions. The group emphasized that cooperation and diplomatic engagement would better address security concerns without harming innocent civilians. In a notable response, the President of Mali took retaliatory measures by limiting visa issuance to U.S. citizens hoping to travel to Mali.
