The War On Critical Thinking And Expertise: How Trump’s Anti-Intellectualism Is Reshaping America

Trump’s America: Where Ignorance Is A Virtue & Knowledge Is An Enemy

In 1965, straight out of high school, I wasn’t very “political” but I was very popular and I was elected freshman class president at Stony Brook. Sandy Pearlman was the head of the student government and he persuaded me— the only freshman he had met— to run. He commenced re-educating me about issues like the Vietnam War, the Civil Rights movement, the free speech movement, class warfare— especially as it was impacted by rising tuition— and the whole dynamic between the counterculture and authority (and the rejection off traditional values of the older generation). When the election began, it looked like a 70-30 race in my favor. By the time the campaign was over, I had become so radicalized that I barely won. But I did and I soon became a bane on the existence of University President John Toll and Dean of Students David Tilley. How much did they hate me? I think even more than I hated them… and they were able to do something about it. For one thing, they banned me from living on campus. Living off campus worked out well for me and moved me along the path of radicalization.

After my freshman year, Toll and Tilley thought they would be rid of me. Instead I was elected chairman of the Student Activities Board, a position I used to help turn Stony Brook into “the Berkeley of the East Coast.” They cooperated with Harry O’Brien, the county district attorney, a closet case and right-wing Democrat, in his never-ending quest to put me in prison. Here’s a photo I snapped in his face as he said “Fuck You” to me.

At Stony Brook about a third of the students slept through the turbulent politics of the 60’s and a little of a third were ready for the revolution while a little under a third were, basically, pre-MAGA. Our bone with the university administration is that they refused to allow the university to become a vehicle for radical social change. This is how they wanted to world— Albany, Washington, Riverhead— to see Stony Brook:

We had a very different goal, particularly when it came to the draft, the Vietnam war and the loosening of sexual mores. Trump, a student at Fordham, was part of that third of students disinterested in politics at the time. His fight with universities is now— and he’s winning that fight. Sunday night Maggie Severns reported that across the country, “University leaders, pinned between liberal faculty and the Trump administration, are quietly trying to make friends in Washington amid widespread concerns about research budgets, student aid and the White House’s quest to push academia to the right. During his election campaign, Trump vowed ‘to reclaim our once great educational institutions from the radical Left,’ and he has moved quickly to target diversity, equity and inclusion programs, alleged antisemitism and anything perceived as ‘woke.’ He has threatened to pull funding from universities that don’t comply. Columbia University, which came under scrutiny for its handling of pro-Palestinian protests last year, gave in on Friday to a far-reaching list of Trump’s demands after he revoked $400 million in federal funding. Other schools closely watched the days of tense negotiations. Behind the scenes, Columbia officials have had a presence in D.C. in recent weeks, too, often asking lawmakers how to restore confidence in the university, according to people familiar with the meetings... More than 50 colleges and universities, including big-name institutions like Harvard, Columbia and Yale, have hired new lobbyists since Trump was re-elected, disclosures show. Stanford University tapped former Republican Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, among others. Duke University and Wake Forest University have hired Richard Burr, a former Republican Senator. Harvard and Nashville-based Vanderbilt University have sought out Ballard Partners, whose principal Brian Ballard is known for his close connections to Trump’s circle.”

The day after Trump was elected to chair the board of Washington’s John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts, hundreds of higher education leaders gathered in an auditorium there for a briefing from a leading trade group, the American Council on Education. The group’s president, Ted Mitchell vowed a fight, saying, “We will not cower,” according to trade industry reports and people who saw the speech. But speakers also acknowledged the speed of Trump’s actions have caused fear and overwhelmed the sector.

“This is just the beginning,” Jonathan Fansmith, the group’s senior vice president for government relations, warned from the stage. 

Critics say universities had this crackdown coming after failing to hold up their end of a longtime social contract. Faculty enjoy billions of dollars in government funding, tenure protections and academic autonomy, and detractors accuse them of indoctrinating young people with left-wing ideology rather than creating productive, patriotic citizens.

Lawmakers are expected to announce multiple hearings in the coming weeks on antisemitism. The move alarms universities still haunted by the combative 2023 hearing on the same subject, when the presidents of Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology dodged lawmaker questions and struggled to defend their institutions’ approach to campus protests following the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel. Two of the three resigned within weeks.

Proposed tax and loan changes—  such as raising and expanding a tax on college and university endowments that currently applies to only the wealthiest institutions— could also upend schools’ financial model. Yale Law School alumnus JD Vance has proposed increasing the tax on endowment income from its current 1.4% to 35%, and expanding the universities affected to include Columbia. 

Harvard alumnus Sen. Tom Cotton (R-AR) has sponsored two bills targeting the endowment tax, one of which would raise an estimated $16.6 billion through a one-time tax on the biggest endowments.

Michigan Republican Tim Walberg, chairman of the House Education and the Workforce Committee, is among the proponents of a particularly controversial idea: Making institutions whose graduates don’t repay federal student loans pay for a portion of the money lost to the federal government.

Higher education officials say the moves would lead to less financial aid and reduced access to higher education. At least some of the proposals have a shot at becoming law, given they can pass via Congress’s reconciliation process, which allows lawmakers to pass bills related to taxes and spending with a simple majority of votes in the Senate, sidestepping the usual 60-vote threshold.

Trump allies hope the changes could raise revenue for the federal government and help bring down the cost of college over time. But many make no secret that their primary goal is to use punitive policies to make universities less progressive. 

“There’s got to be course correction,” said Lindsey Burke, director at the center for education policy at the conservative think tank Heritage Foundation and the author of a chapter on education in the Project 2025 agenda. 

In the past, colleges and universities have largely enjoyed a cozy relationship with Washington. Universities are economic engines in many congressional districts— and they can offer perks like football tickets and honorary degrees in exchange for their hometown lawmakers’ ears. 

Now few House lawmakers— and virtually no Republicans— are interested in going to bat for higher education, lobbyists, trade groups and officials said. 

…While many faculty members argue universities shouldn’t yield to Trump, they are in a tricky spot. It isn’t uncommon for a quarter or more of the operating budget of a large university to come from federal sources in the forms of student loans, Pell Grants and research funding— research that supporters say goes on to produce innovations and fuel the broader economy.

On campus, many faculty and staff still embrace the things Trump is trying to change. Many higher-education institutions still have senior-level officials focused on diversity, equity and inclusion. One lobbyist recalled a video call with university clients who listed their pronouns under their names, a practice many who work with the federal government quickly abandoned after Trump’s November victory.

Lobbyists say they are advising schools to keep their lobbying secret to avoid winding up a target.

“There is a lot of fear. I’ve never seen anything like it,” said the president of Wesleyan University in Connecticut, Michael Roth. “People are afraid to speak out.”

Roth— whose university is in a state with entirely Democratic representation— is one of few making the case to lawmakers that they have a moral obligation to stand up to the Trump administration. Trump’s actions constitute a “war on civil society,” Roth has told Connecticut lawmakers. He’s also spoken with Sens. John Hickenlooper and Michael Bennet of Colorado— both Wesleyan alumni. Colleges and universities are the first line of defense, he said.

Many university leaders in blue states are hoping their red-state counterparts will persuade their representatives to spare research funding and avert taxes.

Vanderbilt University and Washington University in St. Louis— which is known to have a friendly relationship with Missouri Republican Jason Smith, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee— is sponsoring ads in Politico newsletters linking to a joint statement that pledges to avoid “political ideology” or “a particular vision of social change.” 

Earlier this month, chief research officers from top universities met with Rep. Brian Babin (R-TX) and Rep. Zoe Lofgren (D-CA), leaders of the House science committee. They pleaded against funding cuts at major science agencies and discussed keeping highly skilled foreign workers, who staff many research labs, in science and technology. 

Trump’s hostility— and Republicans’ hostility— toward higher education isn’t just about policy; it’s an expression of their deep-seated contempt for knowledge, expertise and intellectual rigor. Señor Trumpanzyy has always despised institutions that promote critical thinking, viewing them as obstacles to his authoritarian ambitions rather than essential pillars of democracy. His war on universities is part of a broader strategy to undermine any institution that fosters dissent, historical awareness or scientific advancement. The irony, of course, is that the same universities he attacks are the ones that produced the technological and economic advancements that make America globally competitive.

But Trump’s disdain for education runs deeper than just attacking universities. It is personal. This is a man who spent his academic years skirting by, whose own professors at Fordham and Wharton described him as utterly disinterested in learning. Unlike many of his wealthy peers, who at least feigned an appreciation for academia, Trump saw no value in education beyond its usefulness as a status symbol. He has never read a book that wasn’t about himself, has never engaged in an intellectual debate he couldn’t escape with bluster, and has built a career on celebrating ignorance as a virtue.

His base, largely hostile to elites and intellectualism, sees Trump’s attacks on universities as a populist crusade against the so-called ‘woke agenda.’ But this isn’t about free speech or fairness— it’s about crippling institutions that foster independent thought and challenge his power. His administration’s efforts to defund and defang universities, punish educators, and drive intellectuals out of public life are not just about controlling education; they are about controlling the future.

Throughout history, authoritarians have recognized that knowledge is the greatest threat to their rule. The suppression of intellectuals, the rewriting of history, and the persecution of educators have been hallmarks of every repressive regime. Trump, in his war on universities, is following this well-worn path. If he is allowed to continue, America’s institutions of higher learning will be reduced to little more than ideological training grounds for a reactionary agenda— places where knowledge is feared, expertise is demonized, and history is rewritten to serve the whims of the powerful.

One core aspect of the fight against Trump is a fight for the survival of knowledge itself. Universities, scholars and students must recognize that they are on the frontlines of this battle. The question is whether they will stand firm or allow themselves to be bullied into submission. Because if Trump wins, the war on education won’t just be a policy dispute— it will be a death knell for intellectual freedom in America.