From Harvard to UT: How politics are influencing education

The Slow Defunding of Public Education and Harvard’s Stand

Around the country, public schools, community colleges, and universities are beginning to feel the bite of sweeping cuts to education funding from the federal government. What once was a relatively stable (if always contested) partnership between Congress, the U.S. Department of Education, and state or local institutions is now fracturing fast.

What’s Being Cut and Who Suffers

In recent months, the administration has moved to slash or cancel federal education grants supporting teacher training, mental health services, minority-serving institutions (MSIs), K–12 enrichment programs, and more.

• Discretionary funding for several MSI programs has been eliminated, removing tens to hundreds of millions in support for institutions serving Hispanic, Black, Native American, and other underrepresented students.
• At the K–12 level, programs like after-school learning, summer enrichment, and wraparound support services have been proposed for full elimination.
• Many long-standing grants are being terminated or allowed to expire without renewal, putting institutions in crisis.

These cuts matter deeply for students from low-income or historically marginalized communities. When funding for tutoring, counseling, diversity programs, and student supports vanishes, so do pathways to retention and success.
At the same time, the Department of Education is shedding staff across critical offices (civil rights, special education oversight, Title I monitoring) weakening enforcement of existing protections.

States and localities are fighting back. A coalition of 24 states and D.C. has sued to force the release of roughly $7 billion in education funding withheld even though Congress had appropriated it. The core claim: the executive branch may not lawfully override congressional spending decisions.

Harvard’s Refusal: A Case Study in Institutional Defiance

Harvard has become one of the most visible symbols of resistance to federal overreach. In spring 2025, the administration presented Harvard with demands tied to its federal research funding: audits of academic units, oversight of faculty speech, constraints on hiring, among others. Harvard’s response was blunt: it would not comply with demands that it saw as undermining institutional autonomy and academic freedom.

In retaliation, the administration attempted to cut or freeze billions of dollars in Harvard’s research grants. Harvard pushed back legally, invoking First Amendment protections and challenging the government’s authority to impose such demands. In September 2025, a judge ruled that many of those grant terminations were unlawful, blocking further cuts.

Harvard’s stand sends a powerful message: strong institutions with influence and prestige may resist, but not all universities have that margin of safety.

UT Austin Under Pressure: Threats to Gender, Identity, and Departmental Survival

In Texas, the cuts and ideological pressures are playing out in particularly acute ways at the University of Texas at Austin.

State Cuts & Institutional Strain
The Texas Legislature recently passed a state budget bill that trims roughly $65 million from UT’s salary and wage allocations (excluding faculty) over the next two years. While the state portion is only a fraction of UT’s overall budget, it limits operational flexibility and places strain on staffing and support units.

Moreover, UT institutions have already lost significant research support under federal retrenchments. UT is reported to have lost $47 million in research grants following federal rescissions or freezes.

Federal “Compact” Offer & Ideological Strings
The Trump administration has offered preferential federal funding to select universities, UT Austin among them, on condition that they adopt a “compact” of operating principles. These include a stricter definition of gender, elimination of programs seen as “belittling conservative ideas,” prohibition on using race or gender in admissions or hiring, a freeze on tuition, and other mandates.

Some language in the compact explicitly raises the possibility that units devoted to gender, identity, or social justice studies might be targeted for downsizing or elimination. Critics warn that the compact could provide political cover for dismantling academic programs that fall outside a narrow, and state-approved, ideological framework.

Women’s & Gender Studies Under Review
Recent reporting confirms that courses in Women’s and Gender Studies at UT Austin are under institutional review in this tense environment. The signals are scary: under political pressure, programs concerned with identity, gender, and social justice are often first to be tagged as expendable or ideologically suspect.

Given the state’s ban on DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programming (Texas Senate Bill 17), UT Austin has already eliminated over 60 staff positions tied to DEI efforts, restructured or closed DEI offices, and reassigned their functions. In a climate where gender and identity courses may be framed as part of disfavored ideology, the institutional review of Women’s & Gender Studies may presage deeper cuts.

Taken together, UT Austin is squeezed between state budget reductions, federal conditional funding proposals laced with ideological controls, and legal mandates suppressing campus diversity programs. In that matrix, smaller, socially oriented academic departments, especially ones focused on gender, race, identity, or critical theory, are at high risk.

What It All Means

• The pattern across the U.S. is more than fiscal retrenchment… it’s a reshaping of intellectual and institutional autonomy.
• Smaller, socially oriented programs are vulnerable to narrative-driven budget cuts under the guise of “ideological neutrality.”
• UT Austin’s situation underscores how public universities in politically hostile states may be forced into alignment or submit to program eliminations.
• Harvard’s defiance is courageous, but most institutions lack the prestige or resources to withstand cuts or legal threats.

If academic freedom and the full scope of inquiry are to survive, resistance must come not only from large, elite institutions, but from faculty, students, and communities willing to push back locally.