Recent actions by President Trump’s administration have sounded alarms among universities nationwide, including Brown University. With the federal government scrutinizing institutions over their handling of student protests against the occupation of Gaza and reports of critical research data being removed from government websites, the future of academic funding appears uncertain. These policy shifts could have major consequences for students and faculty who rely on federal funding for research, scholarships, and operational support.
Brown, like many other elite institutions, benefits from federal grants that support almost all financial commitments including research and financial aid. If funding is reduced or cut entirely, the impact could be widespread: research projects may lose critical resources, faculty positions could be eliminated, and students could see fewer financial aid opportunities.
But the concerns don’t stop there. A funding cut to one institution could create a ripple effect across higher education, setting a precedent that forces other schools to comply with shifting political priorities to avoid financial consequences. The fear of defunding could lead universities to curb student activism, limit certain research areas, or alter hiring decisions in ways that undermine academic freedom.
So, what’s really happening? And what does this mean for Brown in the short and long term?
The Federal Crackdown on Universities
The Trump administration has signaled a willingness to revoke federal funding from universities perceived to support anti-Israel sentiments. For example, Columbia University recently had $400 million in grants withdrawn amid scrutiny over alleged antisemitism linked to pro-Palestinian protests. Additionally, Palestinian activist and former Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil was arrested with threat of deportation by federal immigration authorities, with officials alleging his association with Hamas.
These developments suggest a broader federal effort to monitor and potentially penalize academic institutions where activism on sensitive geopolitical issues occurs. How does this uphold free speech? The issue is that it doesn’t; these federal actions raise serious concerns about First Amendment rights violations. The Supreme Court has upheld the principle that public institutions, including federally funded universities, cannot suppress speech based on political viewpoints. If the federal government contradicts this precedent it very well could be legally framed as government censorship.
The Removal of Research Data
In addition to targeting specific universities, the administration has overseen the removal of thousands of web pages and datasets from public websites. Notably, content related to diversity, equity, inclusion initiatives, gender identity, public health research, and environmental policy has been affected. For instance, public health information from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s website including contraception guidance and data relating to transgender and nonbinary identifying people have been eliminated. This systematic removal of information prevents researchers and academic institutions from accessing critical data necessary for studies in public health, environmental science, and social policy. The lack of access to such data could stifle innovation and hinder evidence-based policy development. The Leadership Conference on Human and Civil Rights claims that Trump’s data removal crusade is “a deliberate attempt to suppress visibility and recognition of underserved communities”.
What’s Next for Brown?
Brown University now finds itself among 60 institutions under federal investigation for alleged antisemitic discrimination and harassment. The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights has sent letters warning these universities of potential enforcement actions if they fail to protect Jewish students on campus.
In response to this heightened scrutiny and the uncertainty surrounding federal funding, Brown has implemented a staff-wide hiring freeze effective immediately. This measure, announced by university officials, aims to mitigate financial risks associated with potential reductions in federal support.
The implications of these developments should not be taken lightly. There is a broader message being sent to students, particularly those from underprivileged backgrounds, that they will not be protected. The rollback of DEI initiatives, the defunding of research, and now the federal pressure on universities all seem to be part of a larger effort to erode opportunities for those who have historically relied on institutions like Brown to uplift them. If federal funding is cut, financial aid could shrink, crucial research programs could disappear, and hiring freezes could limit the university’s ability to recruit diverse faculty members who reflect and support students from marginalized communities. This is a direct threat to the future of accessible and equitable education.
That’s why, in my opinion, Brown must not bend to the will of the presidential administration. Our university has a long history of academic independence, of standing firm in the face of political pressure. If we cave now and start making decisions based on fear rather than principle, it will set a dangerous precedent. Brown has an obligation to set an example for other institutions, to show that we will not be complicit or docile when faced with government overreach. Universities are meant to be places of free thought, debate, and inquiry—not institutions that silence themselves to secure federal dollars.