Since Donald Trump’s victory, many have turned their attention toward his potential impact on higher education institutions, including Swarthmore. While it has been hard to distill exactly what Trump means for colleges and universities during the administration’s chaotic start, a handful of key impact areas are becoming clear.
With a flurry of cabinet picks, executive orders, and legislative goals, the federal executive branch has started an unprecedented attack on higher education. So far, the administration has begun massive cuts and restrictions to government-funded research and DEI efforts, and threatens further changes through a dismantling of the Department of Education. Crackdowns on social justice efforts and activism through law enforcement or legal challenges, as well as expansions of deportations and mass restructuring of immigration laws are feared. While the capacity of the administration to make these changes hinges on the courts, congress, and state and local cooperation, colleges and universities around the country are already feeling the changes.
After Phoenix communication with members of the administration, public details about the college’s response remain sparse, but a broad philosophy is starting to form. Last week, President Val Smith broke her silence on national politics since before the election in an email to the campus community. Her message built on what Vice President for Finance and Administration Rob Goldberg told The Phoenix: that the college would remain committed to defending the values of liberal arts education, and “doing everything within its power and to the fullest extent of the law to protect the safety and well-being of our community members.”
In email communication with The Phoenix after Smith’s email was sent, Goldberg shared that President Smith decided to share the note because of the ways the policy changes directly impacted the campus community.
Goldberg and Smith, along with other Swarthmore administrators, recently traveled to Washington, DC, to participate in the American Council on Education’s 2025 conference and meet with lawmakers. The gathering featured sessions on free speech, college education, mental health, research classifications, and discussions of higher education’s collective response to the Trump administration. Associate Professor of Political Science and Executive Director of the Lang Center for Social and Civic Responsibility Ben Berger emphasized the importance of higher education collaboration in email communication with The Phoenix: “I wouldn’t be surprised if we’re pooling resources with other colleges, information and ideas and political capital, because none of us should be going it alone.”
Institutions within higher education such as the Lang Center are particularly significant in this moment due to their non-federally dependent financial support of faculty research, and focus on social justice and civic engagement. While Berger said he can’t predict how government policies will play out on campus, “the Lang Center will continue to do what we’ve done since our inception: enhance liberal arts education and research, connect our campus to communities near and far, and provide a lot of resources to make the connections productive. Whether or not we do that with a relatively tighter belt, we’re going to do it and the results will be great.”
He continued, “Honestly, I could teach in a one- room schoolhouse and if the students were awesome, intense, and engaged, I’d be happy. The same goes for community partnerships.”
Smith wrote broadly about the college’s more immediate actions, but provided a resource page accessible only through Swarthmore credentials detailing administration recommendations for academic research. The resource outlines possible threats to faculty research coming from the federal executive branch, but perhaps more notably recommends that faculty members continue with general research activities unless funding agencies make that impossible, in which case they should work with the Grants Office on next steps.
Goldberg reinforced that Swarthmore’s administration was working on “a variety of fronts” to plan for and respond to policy changes and offered more details. “That includes, for instance, engaging with our state and national advocacy groups (such as the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities and the Association of Colleges and Universities of Pennsylvania), direct conversations with our elected officials and their staff members, and working with peers at other colleges and universities to collectively advocate for the interest of our respective institutions and higher education broadly.”
The threats to federally-sponsored research, which is conducted in large part at higher education institutions, are numerous. The Trump administration has cut the research budget of federal funding institutions by billions of dollars and imposed a cap on the portion of indirect research costs that the federal government will support of 15%, a huge drop from typical rates of 30-70%. Additionally, funding has been blocked from many kinds of projects that are within certain socially-conscious areas of research or use certain words, tens of thousands of federal employees crucial to the day-to-day operations of research have been fired, and many resources from the federal government’s websites and outreach have been removed.
While these are only the first steps of what will likely be four years of a federal administration hostile to the research efforts of a place like Swarthmore, it is possible that the financial structure of private institutions will provide some insulation. Due to its emphasis on faculty teaching, large endowment, and heavy institutional financial aid program, the regular activities of Swarthmore are likely less vulnerable to changes in federal funding than R1, research-heavy institutions like larger state or private universities that operate off of huge amounts of federal grants, or less well-endowed institutions that rely in large part on the federal Pell Grants and student loans for tuition assistance.
In the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2024, Swarthmore received $2.8 million in revenue from government grants (from all levels of government and all forms of government support), reflecting slightly more than 1% of its $234 million in revenue for the year. This lack of dependence, along with a particularly large endowment per student, might position Swarthmore to better survive the federal government’s changes than research-heavy institutions like nearby University of Pennsylvania, where 6.5% of the university’s FY 2022 operating budget comes from specifically federal-level sponsorship, and Drexel University, where federal government grants make up 12.3% of the operating revenues in FY 2024 and there is far less endowment money per student.
Smith also wrote that the Division of Student Affairs is in frequent contact with students whose immigration status might be dependent on changes in federal policy, and that the office of college General Counsel Sharmaine Lamar is working on providing educational resources on the college’s relationship to law enforcement. College protocol allows law enforcement officers access to college land that is open and accessible to the public and is to abide by legal requirements with regard to requests for information and access. However, protocol also encourages community members to confer with Public Safety in all cases and requires college compliance with The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) that restricts access to identifying student information in education records without the student’s consent.
Smith’s note came just days after a campus-wide email from the college’s Sanctuary Committee that shed more light on the college’s response to changes and possible changes to federal immigration policy and enforcement. The Committee was formed after President Trump’s first election to the presidency in 2016 as part of the college’s pledge to be a sanctuary campus that provides protection to undocumented students, referencing the college’s history of commitment to social justice.
The Sanctuary Committee’s email reminded students, faculty, and staff of the continued enforcement of FERPA and the rights protecting everyone, regardless of immigration status, against unreasonable search and seizure guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment. Additionally, the email clarified that while the college is required to abide by the law, “The only person on campus authorized to respond to requests from law enforcement or immigration enforcement is the Director of Public Safety, in consultation with the General Counsel.” This sole authority will potentially add weight to Public Safety Director Colin Quinn’s interim status and the search for a permanent replacement for former Director of Public Safety Michael Hill. Vice President for Campus Services Anthony Coschignano is set to lead that search. Vice President for Student Affairs Stephanie Ives couldn’t be reached by The Phoenix after several requests for comment on the division’s plans and approaches.
Smith’s email went on to praise the liberal arts education as “a beacon of light and possibility,” and advocate for a shared community commitment to “rise to this moment.” While the note offered hints at the college’s response to and philosophy surrounding Trump, many questions still remain, including how the college will approach ongoing disciplinary charges and protests under the backdrop of a federal administration threatening to crack down.
How the college envisions its role as a social justice-conscious liberal arts college under a Trump administration hostile to higher education and many of its social justice priorities might also inspire debate on campus. The college often advertises its history of institutional advocacy, highlighting numerous examples of Swarthmore leaders nationally taking stances against wars and militarism, for minorities and environmental protection, and as part of protest movements for racial justice. Whether Swarthmore’s administration will, either by itself or with other peer institutions, see part of its obligation as to participate in activism against certain Trump policies it deems particularly damaging remains to be seen. Or, will the protection offered by an operating budget almost entirely from tuition and returns from the endowment allow the college to continue its goals of teaching and social justice even under the new political environment?
Berger highlighted this question from a faculty perspective, saying, “I continue to think of my role as I always have: to provide education, experiences, training in critical thinking, and interpersonal connections so that students, faculty, and staff can collaborate with community partners, applying knowledge to needs. I know many faculty members who share similar visions, and in that regard I expect Swarthmore to keep being what it’s been. We’ve always provided logistical, moral, and civic-minded resources in addition to intellectual ones.”
He also encouraged students to not imagine their role as citizens or their obligations of civic action as dependent on election results. “We hold the beliefs that we hold, and we do what we can to convince other citizens and representatives to adopt policies and platforms that we prefer, and hopefully we reevaluate our beliefs and preferences periodically. Hopefully we do that in conversation with at least some people who don’t simply share all of our beliefs, because humanity is diverse. We get many bites at the apple. We can promote our views at the local, state, and federal levels, and almost always we’ll get at least some of what we value deeply in one or more of those spots.”
“For anyone feeling especially down or vulnerable, Swarthmore is here for you as it always has been. Institutions aren’t buildings; they’re comprised of people. And hopefully students know the many people here who have their backs,” Berger wrote.
