70

President Donald Trump signed two executive orders on Tuesday aiming to change key policies in American higher education. The first order demands more transparency from universities about foreign donations. The second shifts admissions criteria back toward academic merit. These steps are part of a broader campaign to reduce outside influence and remove what the administration sees as political bias in college admissions. Elite schools like Harvard University are under scrutiny, especially for their resistance to earlier federal directives. Trump’s move marks a significant shift in education policy with major implications for how colleges operate and who gains admission.

Foreign Donations Face New Rules

The first executive order enforces stricter reporting of financial contributions from foreign sources. Universities must now disclose more detailed information about gifts and contracts from international entities.

The administration believes some elite schools may have failed to report all their overseas funding. Officials argue this lack of transparency could pose a risk to national security.

“We’re protecting American institutions from foreign influence,” a White House spokesperson said. “Transparency is the first step to accountability.”

These changes are meant to expose possible conflicts of interest and safeguard the independence of academic research and teaching.

Merit-Based Admissions Get Renewed Focus

The second order targets what the administration calls “ideologically driven” admissions practices. It calls for colleges to emphasize grades, test scores, and other academic metrics over personal background factors.

The move directly challenges race-conscious admissions policies that aim to boost campus diversity.

According to the White House, objective standards create fairer opportunities for all students. The administration claims that current practices often sideline high-achieving applicants in favor of identity-based preferences.

“We want every student to compete on equal footing,” said the Education Department in a statement. “Merit must come first.”

Harvard at the Center of the Debate

Harvard University has frequently clashed with Trump’s education agenda. It has resisted calls to change its diversity programs and refused cooperation with federal immigration authorities on campus.

In response, the administration froze a portion of Harvard’s federal funding. This has intensified tensions between the university and the federal government.

Critics say the funding freeze punishes schools for protecting student rights. Supporters argue it’s a justified response to noncompliance with national policies.

This standoff highlights the growing divide between conservative policymakers and progressive academic institutions.

Broader Impact on U.S. Higher Education

These executive orders are expected to have wide effects across the education system. Public universities, already under financial pressure, may find compliance costly. Private colleges face scrutiny over both admissions criteria and donor relationships.

Legal experts anticipate lawsuits from civil rights groups and education advocates, particularly over the merit-based admissions order.

Education analysts note that Trump’s approach reflects a deeper political divide over the role of universities in shaping American values.

“We’re seeing an effort to reframe higher education around traditional metrics and national loyalty,” said Michael Ruiz, a policy analyst at the Center for Higher Ed Reform.

Market and Political Reactions

Investor confidence in for-profit education firms rose after the announcement, with shares of several testing companies gaining slightly in after-hours trading.

Political reactions have followed party lines. Republican lawmakers praised the moves as necessary corrections. Democratic leaders warned that the changes could harm student diversity and weaken global competitiveness.

Trump’s new executive orders on foreign funding and merit-based admissions mark a turning point in U.S. higher education policy. As colleges adapt to these rules, the debate over fairness, transparency, and independence will likely grow more intense.