Governments worldwide are dramatically reshaping higher education, challenging long-held models and academic autonomy.
The landscape of higher education is undergoing immense transformation, with governments globally implementing significant policy changes that often face strong resistance from academic institutions themselves. This shift is arguably most pronounced in the United States, where the Trump administration has introduced policies that question the university model developed since the Second World War.
In early 2025, the US government significantly cut federal research grants and contracts by over $11 billion. This move suspended grant funding and capped indirect cost support at 15 percent of a grant’s value, severely hampering the research capacity of many higher education institutions. Additionally, the administration proposed a tiered tax regime on university endowment income, potentially increasing rates up to 21 percent for wealthier institutions, a notable change from the previous flat rate of 1.4 percent. If implemented, these changes would reduce funds available for scholarships, operations, and innovation. The most high-profile action was the revocation of Harvard University’s SEVP certification in May 2025, which temporarily barred it from enrolling international students. Although a federal court stayed the decision, it signals a broader policy trend against international student mobility.
Many other countries are also altering their university policies, with a clear emerging trend being the introduction of barriers to international student mobility. Restrictive measures have been deployed by governments in Australia, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and Canada. In 2023, the Dutch government announced plans to reduce the number of English-taught programmes at public universities and to prioritise Dutch and EU students in admissions. In July 2024, Australia increased international student visa fees from $710 to $1,600 and announced a cap of 270,000 tertiary student places. Canada followed suit with a cap on student permits and new restrictions on work eligibility. Meanwhile, the UK banned most students from bringing dependants as of January 2024, contributing to a 6.2 percent decline in granted visas. Despite national variations, the trajectory is clear: it is becoming harder for students to cross borders to pursue their studies.
Academic autonomy is also being challenged through direct political interventions and legislative measures aimed at controlling academic content and governance structures. In several countries, governments have taken steps to reduce academic freedom, such as Hungary’s 2018 reorganisation of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences and the forced relocation of Central European University. In the United States, recent state-level legislation has sought to restrict teaching on certain topics, particularly in public universities. Similar patterns are evident in India and Turkey, where political pressure has increasingly shaped university appointments and curricula.
While it is challenging to weave a single thread across all these policies, many of which respond to unique national circumstances, a common feature connects developments in higher education to broader policy domains such as trade and immigration. We are witnessing the fracturing of the international higher education landscape. Countries are moving towards a model that fosters less mobility, downplays the value of plurality in the classroom, and encourages institutions to define their societal contributions in narrower, nationally defined terms. In this sense, the growing questioning of globalisation and, more broadly, of interdependence, has now reached academia.
This process appears to contradict the aspirations of many young people. For example, the QS International Student Survey 2023 found that 87 percent of prospective students viewed international study as essential to personal growth and career success. This also aligns with the needs of employers; a 2021 Erasmus+ Impact Study found that two-thirds of employers valued international experience as a key asset when hiring. Education has also become a significant export: in the United States alone, higher education was projected to generate over $90 billion annually by 2025. Restricting international student flows, therefore, undermines institutional excellence and effectiveness.
Furthermore, actions that harm academic institutions, their budgets, or their autonomy appear to be highly destructive. Universities have long provided substantial value to society. They are central to knowledge production – over 60 percent of all basic research in the US, for instance, is conducted in higher education institutions. Economically, universities contribute significantly to local and national growth. The Association of American Universities reports that its member institutions alone generated over $289 billion in economic activity in 2021. The European University Association has highlighted that for every €1 invested in higher education, up to €4 is returned in broader economic benefits. Moreover, universities serve as engines of social mobility, cultural innovation, and democratic participation.
So, why are these invasive and revisionist policies being deployed? For centuries, universities have largely withstood existential threats due to their legitimacy in the eyes of key stakeholders. However, what once protected them from political interference now seems less certain. Today, their autonomy is challenged by a waning belief among large segments of society in their relevance and value. Legitimacy – not endowment size or legal might – must be the foundation of institutional resilience.
Institutions draw on numerous sources of legitimacy, with four arguably being particularly important. The first is holding widely shared and consistent values. Yet, universities are being attacked for perceived double standards – for defending freedom of speech for some but not for others, for example. A second source of legitimacy is procedural, emanating from institutions being run with justice and uniformity in the application of rules and norms. Here too, universities face challenges, being depicted as taking sides or deploying biased admissions criteria, particularly those favouring the privileged. A third source of legitimacy is output. Attending university and obtaining a degree should bring eminently positive returns. However, today’s economy is proving less generous for university graduates. The erosion of the salary economy, with income increasingly accruing to capital owners, does not bode well for institutions traditionally dedicated to training highly qualified labour income earners. Furthermore, the cost of university has risen markedly in many places, making the value-for-money equation of a university degree less attractive. Lastly, a final source of institutional legitimacy is input: that institutions are part of broader communities that have a say – even if small – in their governance. This is once more being challenged, with universities being depicted as elitist, aloof, detached from the societies in which they are embedded, and dedicated to perpetuating social and economic elites.
What can universities do to better address this new environment? First and foremost, there needs to be a recommitment to the values upon which academic institutions have been built over centuries. Most important among these are critical thinking and intellectual pluralism. Indeed, universities must be spaces where individuals learn how to think, not what to think. This implies they should not be built as safe intellectual spaces, but rather as highly crowded and diverse forums where varied points of view are welcomed.
Second, universities must develop deep connections with the world of practice. In an exponentially changing environment, there is a need for applied institutions that bridge the worlds of knowledge and practice. This also means being deeply connected to technology and embedding it in all they do. Hence, agility and a willingness to change will be key features of successful universities in the twenty-first century.
Third and lastly, universities must do a significantly better job of communicating the value they bring to their students and the societies where they operate. This must begin with adjustments to university leadership, which needs to be fully aware of the battle of ideas and perceptions in which their institutions are engaged. Universities should not become political actors, but they should understand they are being judged on their merits and should therefore be willing and ready to delineate their value at every opportunity.
As in other policy areas, a great deal of uncertainty has now arrived in higher education. We are entering a world of high regulatory and political risk. Universities remain the cornerstone of our knowledge economies and our societies, writ large. Protecting them means more than preserving old traditions – it means renewing the public’s understanding of their purpose and worth. In this moment of disruption, universities must speak more clearly and act more decisively.
This is a joint column with IPS Journal
Manuel Muniz is Provost of IE University and a Professor of Practice of International Relations.