By Dr. Marc Smithers, Grants Development Associate, Higher Education
Within the first nine months of the Trump administration, federal funding for higher education grant programs has undergone massive changes. In the midst of some of the most high-profile shifts, such as the cancellation of previously awarded programs or the increased scrutiny of international student enrollment practices, the Secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, has detailed seven priorities she is directing the agency to consider in their discretionary grant programs. This is a common practice of new administrations, with the previous administration naming six priorities they considered in their funding decisions, which included addressing learning losses from COVID-19, equitable learning environments, and increasing access and completion of postsecondary education. While there may be additional priorities released in the future, the announced priorities provide a window into how the Trump administration will continue to shape federal funding for colleges and universities over the next several years. To better understand these priorities and their impacts, this article will dive into each of which has impacts on higher education funding, how these priorities are already beginning to affect existing grant programs, and how they may shape future opportunities.
Priorities for Discretionary Grant Programs
Priority One: Evidence-Based Literacy
In her first priority announcement, McMahon highlighted the need to “promote literacy instruction based on evidence to ensure that proven methods based in the science of reading will be used to help our students learn to read.” While an emphasis on literacy may directly impact funding for K-12 institutions, there will likely be opportunities for institutions of higher education to fund literacy education activities and training programs for educators. This has already been seen in the most recent announcement of the Education and Innovation Research Program (EIR), a program that many institutions of higher education have won to address elementary and high-school learning advancements in fields such as mathematics and science, but also for social-emotional learning and disciplinary interventions. In its most recent iteration, evidence-based literacy was the only absolute priority named, meaning that most, if not all, awarded projects will have a strong emphasis on literacy programming. As the first priority named under McMahon’s direction, literacy will continue to be a strong component in federal funding options due to it being “the foundation of all learning,” as the EIR funding announcement reads.
Priority Two: Expanding Education Choice Priority
In addition to literacy, McMahon also named expanding educational choice as a priority of the new administration. The proposed broadening of charter school options and opening avenues for funding private K-12 education has been the main focus that critics of this priority have highlighted, but there are additional factors that higher education stakeholders must consider. In addition to these K-12 impacts, this priority also aims to expand “concurrent enrollment programs, career preparation programs, postsecondary distance education, skills-based education, apprenticeships, and work-based learning.” Though they have since retracted most of the announcements for programs funded through Title V of the Higher Education Act, this priority can be seen in the invitational priorities the agency had included in these announcements, such as the Developing Hispanic Serving Institutions Program and the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Program. Each of these programs included invitational priorities that “expanded access to distance education, workforce-based options, or shortened time-to-degree models” as a way of promoting education choice. While not yet an absolute priority in grant program options for higher education institutions, educational choice will likely appear as an important piece of future funding announcements.
Priority Three: Returning Education to the States
Perhaps the most controversial priority McMahon has named is the third priority, returning education to the states. In identifying this priority as having the “broadest applicability across grant programs,” this is also the least well-defined, both in terms of how it will be instituted into funding decisions and also what it may mean for the future of the Department of Education (ED) as an agency. The only stated impact this priority will have on grant programs is the prioritization of “state applicants in competitions where they qualify as eligible applicants,” though it has not yet been implemented in grant postings. During her tour to all fifty states to promote Returning Education to the States, McMahon repeatedly criticized the bureaucratic nature of federal oversight of education, such as restrictive Perkins funding procedures and removing barriers to increase cross-sector partnerships with industries. At one stop on her nationwide tour, the university president introduced her as perhaps “the last Secretary of Education,” hinting that this priority may lay the groundwork for a stated goal of the Trump administration to dismantle the Department of Education. The agency has said that this priority’s relation to the future functions and funding of the ED is “outside the scope of this priority.” Due to its broad nature, it is not yet clear how this priority will influence funding opportunities for higher education, though it will certainly affect conversations around Title IV funding used for tuition assistance and loan programs such as Pell Grants and Stafford Loans, which the agency oversees.
Priority Four: Advancing Artificial Intelligence in Education
Artificial intelligence is playing an increasingly large role in many agencies within the federal government, in large part due to the emphasis Executive Order 14179 and Executive Order 14277 signed by the Trump administration placed on ensuring American “global leadership in artificial intelligence.” The ED took up this call by naming advancing AI in education as its fourth priority and sending a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL) to grantees, encouraging them to utilize AI in program budgets for instructional materials, AI-enhanced tutoring, and career coaching. The priority “encourages the use of AI technologies to enhance classroom efficiency, reduce administrative burdens, and improve teacher training and evaluation,” and it has appeared as an invitational priority in both the Asian American and Native American Pacific Islander-Serving Institutions Program and the Alaska Native and Native Hawaiian-Serving Institutions Program. Additionally, the agency is documenting AI-use cases in its many program offices. In all these steps, the agency is showing the importance they see AI playing in higher education and how it may shape upcoming funding opportunities.
Priority Five: Prioritizing Patriotic Education
One of the ways the new administration has sought to distance itself from the priorities of the previous administration has been issuing direct criticisms of the emphasis the Biden administration placed on equity and inclusion, and the fifth priority McMahon released is the most direct challenge to these previous areas of focus. Seeking to “promote a civic education that teaches American history, values, and geography with an unbiased approach,” the Prioritizing Patriotic Education priority had already appeared to be a significant point of focus even before the September 17th press release of her fifth-named priority. In addition to the agency including their interest in expanding access to charter schools, which focus on “patriotic education” in Priority Two among other areas of focus, the agency also announced funding for the American History and Civics Education National Activities—Seminars for America’s Semi-quincentennial Program on June 23rd. This offering differed substantially from previous cycles both in its total funding amount awarded, which had been $18 million in 2023 but grew substantially to $153 million this year, and in its removal of any emphasis on equity or increased access for underserved students. Awards for this program were announced soon after this fifth priority was released, with the majority going to institutions of higher education “with independent civics centers and non-profit organizations focused on American History and civics education,” with the agency saying the awards furthered their efforts to instill informed and patriotic citizenship. By including this as a separate priority rather than as a portion of their focus on expanding educational choice, it can be expected that patriotic education will be more of a widespread focus of the agency than just a connection to the semi-quincentennial and offered as a priority area in upcoming programs, or may even justify the creation of new grant programs solely focused on its aims.
Priority Six: Meaningful Learning
Though first mentioned in the announcement of her first three priorities as an area of focus, Meaningful Learning was named as the sixth priority of the new secretary. This priority is also set up as a shift away from the previous administration’s focus on what the announcement refers to as “ideological programming” and one which focuses on “designing meaningful learning experiences that promote strong core instruction, personalized and relevant learning opportunities, and support deep understanding of foundational subject areas.” Much of the proposed language for the priority emphasized learning in mathematics while also touching on staffing, school scheduling, and tutoring at the K-12 level. Any opportunities institutions of higher education will have related to this priority will likely be through dual-credit enrollment opportunities in mathematics and computer science or teacher training programs, though these opportunities have not yet been announced as they await feedback on the proposed priority.
Priority Seven: Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness
The most recent priority announced has direct relevance to higher education institutions. Career Pathways and Workforce Readiness builds on Priority Three by emphasizing state priorities for workforce development programs and “promoting industry-led sector partnerships.” The desire to expand an educational focus on employability aligns with previous announcements made by the agency, such as giving the Department of Labor (DOL) more oversight of career and technical education programs funded through the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act. The Trump administration signaled its desire to have a coordinated federal education and workforce system in Executive Order 14278, and this partnership announced between the DOL and ED enabled them to take an “employment first perspective, which places employers at the forefront of workforce development programs.” Through this interagency agreement and the overall aims of the seventh priority, institutions of higher education should expect to see more emphasis placed on job-placement outcomes and industry partnerships in future funding announcements.
Finalizing These Priorities and Impacts on Future Grant Programs
While these priorities have all been announced by the department, only the first three priorities that Secretary McMahon named have gone through their public comment period and been finalized, as published in their Final Priorities and Definitions announcement. The final four priorities have not yet been finalized and are either in their public comment period or undergoing revisions based on public feedback. Based on the lack of any substantive changes made from the first priority comment periods, though, it is likely that the final four priorities will be published with few, if any, alterations from their first proposed forms.
Regardless of how drastically they change, these named priorities give us a window into the areas of focus the Department of Education has for higher education for the next several years. In addition to these priorities, the agency has also sent a letter to nine research universities offering them a chance to sign a “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” which would ensure them priority access to federal funds, though this has not been well-defined in the offer. The compact echoes many of the same priorities McMahon had stated, such as universities being expected to display financial responsibility both as a way to reduce administrative costs as a way of prudently spending federal funds which echoes some of the reasoning behind returning education to the states and also to give students a realistic understanding of a particular major’s earning potential, mirroring the agency’s emphasis on employability in Priority Seven.
In considering both the agency’s priorities and the recently released compact, the ED can be expected to steer much of its focus on higher education into these areas:
- Learning, particularly in mathematics, science, and technology, as a way of boosting a student’s employability and earning potential;
- Cost-effectiveness, both as it relates to tuition paid by the student as a form of worthwhile investment in their career and as an investment the federal government makes in institutions to form patriotic citizens and an advanced workforce; and
- Reshaping higher education’s relationship to the federal government, both in terms of giving more power to states to shape its governance, structure, and funding, and by reducing reliance on agency dollars to fund college and university initiatives.
The first two areas are likely to result in numerous opportunities for higher education to pursue federal funding for institutional initiatives, such as incorporating AI into learning and advising, or by developing new programs in emerging technology fields. The last area in which the agency is rethinking its role in higher education in America more broadly is less certain and is understandably worrisome. In the release of the compact, for instance, the agency offered institutions the opportunity to “develop models and values” other than what was outlined in the document, but doing so would cause them to “forego federal benefits.” This option is unlikely to lead to a mass exodus of colleges and universities from receiving federal dollars from student tuition and research, but it does show the agency’s willingness to reduce its investment in American higher education if they do not see a direct benefit for itself and its priorities. In waiting to see what the priorities from the administration look like in their final form, institutions should take this time to carefully consider how closely they can align with the aims of the Trump administration in the areas of learning and cost-effectiveness, given that they appear to be important concerns of McMahon and her staff. Institutions that can position themselves as highly sensitive to a student’s workforce readiness and fiscal responsibility will likely be more competitive for federal funding over the next several years.