The Mirage of Academic Freedom

Trump's $400 million game of chicken with Columbia University can't fix the larger problem in higher education.

The Trump administration announced earlier this month that it would revoke $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University, punishing the school for allegedly allowing antisemitism to flourish on campus and failing to protect Jewish students.

The administration sent a letter to the university’s interim president outlining actions the university must take “as a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.” The demands included banning masks that conceal identity and empowering law enforcement to deal with agitators on campus.

Columbia’s decision to cave to Trump’s demands, which some described as an attempt to “destroy” the school, sparked campus protests. But it earned a pat on the head from federal authorities who, on Tuesday, described Columbia’s compliance as a “positive first step” toward rehabilitating its relationship with the government.

Columbia isn’t the only university scrambling to placate the U.S. government.

This month, the Guardian reported that the U.S. had cut research funding for seven Australian universities. The Australian government urged university leaders to comply with Trump’s demands, which included filling out a 36-point questionnaire designed to root out DEI, gender ideology, and other programs or activities deemed anti-American.

Trump’s critics have described the president’s efforts as an overt attack on academic freedom, but this is not true. Columbia and other universities are free to pursue whatever academic activities they wish, free of federal interference. They’ll simply lose federal funding if those activities transgress the White House’s directives.

This situation may not be pleasing to university faculty, but it should hardly be surprising. It’s long been understood that “he who pays the piper calls the tune,” meaning that the person (or institution) who provides the resources has the power to make decisions and dictate how things are done.

The idiom helps explain why the U.S. government is funding so many activities and programs, including universities in other countries. It wants to call the tune.

When news broke that Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese was calling an emergency session in response to Trump’s proposal to cut spending to seven of Australia’s universities, many asked, “Why are U.S. taxpayers funding Australian universities?”

It’s a fair question, but we should also be asking why U.S. taxpayers are sending $400 million to Columbia University, a private Ivy League institution that had a $15 billion endowment as of 2024.