How HBCUs are thinking about Trump 2.0
Graduates celebrate their achievements during the Florida A&M University commencement ceremony on May 3 in Tallahassee, Florida. Glenn Beil/Florida A&M University via Getty Images
Universities are having a tough time under the second Trump administration.
From elite private schools like Harvard and Columbia to state schools and community colleges, the nation's institutions of higher learning are on high alert about cuts to federal funding and grants and even, in the case of Columbia, threats of stripping the university's accreditation status.
Historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) are no exception. These approximately 107 schools — public and private schools, big research institutions, and small liberal arts colleges — make up only 3 percent of the country's colleges and universities, but they enroll 10 percent of all Black students and produce almost 20 percent of all Black graduates.
President Donald Trump pledged 'to promote excellence and innovation' at HBCUs in an April executive order, as he did in his first term. But soon after issuing his executive order, the White House announced funding cuts to Howard University, the nation's second-ranked HBCU.
Against the backdrop of the Trump administration's assault on the Department of Education and diversity initiatives across the government (and private sector), the move has prompted concern among many Black academic leaders about the sustainability of their schools.
Mark Brown, president of Tuskegee University in Alabama, joined Today, Explained guest host Jonquilyn Hill to share his perspective on how Black universities — especially those in Republican-controlled states — can navigate the uncertainty of this administration.
The university was founded by Booker T. Washington in 1881. US News & World Report ranked it No. 3 among HBCUs overall, tied with Florida A&M University.
Below is an excerpt of the conversation, edited for length and clarity. There's much more in the full podcast, so listen to Today, Explained wherever you get podcasts, including Apple Podcasts, Pandora, and Spotify.
In his first term, Trump touted his support of HBCUs. This term, he's been leading the crusade against DEI practices and cutting federal funding to education. Do things feel dramatically different for you in terms of policy on HBCUs this time around?
So you used the term 'feel.' Some measurable things would be the White House initiative on HBCUs. We've not seen all of the execution of that, but that's where I think you'll find measurable results. The president has publicly said, as has the secretary of education, that they are supportive of historically Black colleges and universities.
We have done quite a bit to make sure everybody understands something. HBCUs are not diversity, equity, and inclusion universities, nor have we ever been. We are merit-based schools. Anybody can apply to come to Tuskegee, and if they qualify, they can come. And so it is confusion if we are associated with the pattern of diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Having said that, if someone wrote in the federal government a grant, and that grant said that we are specifically looking at a particular subgroup under the category of diversity, equity, and inclusion, and the decision is that across not just HBCUs but the educational spectrum, those grants have to be pulled back, then HBCUs would be impacted.
Let me give you an example. We have work that we do with University of Alabama at Birmingham. And it is on cancer research — cervical, prostate, those kinds of cancers, specifically. It deals with the genealogy of it. In other words, the grant provides the payroll, or a good portion of the payroll, so that we can hire the best researchers to come to Tuskegee and do that research using samples. And it's important because the morbidity rates of certain cancers are far greater in our region and our area than they are in others.
So if the person writing the grant specifically targeted an area under the category DEI, It wouldn't matter if we were UAB, which is a PWI [predominantly white institution], or if you're the partner, Tuskegee, on the other end. If you had that broad category swath, you would impact us both, and it does.
I want to make sure — is it a matter of policy, or is it a matter of just pure confusion? We have to work all of that out.
Is there a consensus among Black academic leaders right now? Are you at all anxious about the future of HBCUs? Or are you feeling more optimistic because of Trump's statements of support right now?
Let me reframe it in my way of looking at this. Here's what people in higher education ought to be concerned about, and I believe they are. There is a budget, and the House of Representatives has submitted it to the Senate for action. There are reductions in things like [student] loans. There are reductions in the way that you use Pell Grants — people who would be eligible, income levels, those kinds of things. There are policies like risk sharing as it relates to defaulted loans over time that ought to concern schools that service students in need.
And here's what I mean: Nine out of 10 students at historically Black colleges and universities have some form of federally assisted financial aid. Access to education will be impacted by that legislation. Anybody paying attention, though, would be concerned.
But I want to be careful about one thing. What is the issue? Is the issue that we're at HBCUs? Or is the issue poverty? In other words, I want to make sure we frame it the right way. Because if I'm at Georgia Tech, depending on a Pell Grant and a Parent PLUS loan to go to grad school to get a doctorate in engineering, I'm just as impacted if I'm down here trying to get a doctorate in engineering at Tuskegee.
Like you said, most students at HBCUs rely on Pell Grants or some form of federal aid. What happens if access to those resources changes? What happens to the students? What happens to the universities?
Here's what happens. In 2011, the policy was to change access to what we typically call the Parent PLUS loan across the country, not just to any particular demographic — 3 to 4 percent immediate reduction in enrollment across HBCUs. Access went down. That's evidence. At the same time, across the country, enrollment went up. I'm not saying it was targeted. I'm talking about the outcome.
So if you reduce access to those programs, you're going to reduce access to students' ability to go to college. And I'll take that just a little bit further. So, how do we fill the gap?
One way is to get an endowed scholarship. The wealth of a university is based on the endowment to some degree. If you take the HBCU endowments, and you add them all up — all of 'em — you will have less of an endowment than if you added up Brown University.
Now this is not a criticism. I'm happy for the students at Brown University. I'm just trying to tell you the difference in the wealth that makes the impact far greater for a portion of society.
A lot of HBCUs, including yours, are in states where Republicans hold the purse strings. I'm curious how you navigate that.
Education is politically neutral. I believe that. Education should be politically neutral, and I think statesmen would see it that way.
Here is my point. We produce chemical engineers. We produce electrical engineers. We have an aviation science program. The nation is short on aviators. The plane doesn't know if you're Republican or Democrat. The plane just knows that a qualified person has filled that need, which has an economic impact to this state.
I take what you mean that a lot of this education stuff should be neutral, should be gender-neutral, should be race-neutral. But I often wonder if it is that way in practice. The disparities come from somewhere. I wonder how you navigate that.
I navigate that by making sure the framework of our discussions are the same: What is the economic impact of our state? Because I can have that discussion with anybody. The way you navigate this is in capability — capability, outcome, and performance. That is what I want to drill into everybody at Tuskegee University. Did the student get an internship? Did they get experience? Did they graduate?
Dr. Brown, you strike me as — I think a word I would use to describe you is very pragmatic, the way you approach things. And I think a lot of higher education institutions are trying to figure out the best approach to securing funds under this particular presidential administration. How do you think about these things and approach it?
I would suggest, the approach we ought take with this administration, any other administration, is that we are an economic engine that creates social and economic mobility for this country. And we take greater risk in doing so, and that should be recognized. That's the approach that we take.
And I don't think the approach is unique to Tuskegee, you know. I could say that my friends in Huntsville, Alabama, are doing the same thing, at Alabama A&M. My friends at the Morehouse School of Medicine — everybody should want the Morehouse School of Medicine to be successful. Everybody should want the Howard University School of Medicine to be a success. Everybody should want Claflin to be successful, not just South Carolinians, but everybody.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time Magazine
35 minutes ago
- Time Magazine
Trump's Public Rebuke of Tulsi Gabbard's Statement on Iran
President Donald Trump has said that his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard, was "wrong" to say that Iran is not currently building a nuclear weapon. When asked about the claims made by his intelligence community, specifically Gabbard, Trump was clear, telling reporters on Friday: 'She's wrong.' In March, Gabbard testified in front of Congress that the intelligence community [IC] 'continues to assess that Iran is not building a nuclear weapon, and Supreme Leader [Ali] Khamenei has not authorized the nuclear weapons program that he suspended in 2003. The IC continues to monitor, closely, if Tehran decides to reauthorize its nuclear weapons program." The testimony has resurfaced as Trump weighs his options regarding a potential U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict, as the Middle Eastern countries trade deadly missiles after Israel launched an operation against Iranian military targets and nuclear facilities on June 13. Read More: Iran Issues New Grave Warning, Says U.S. Involvement in Israel Conflict Would Be 'Very Dangerous for Everybody' Trump's latest comments echo those he made to reporters on Air Force One on June 17, when he said he did not 'care' about what Gabbard had testified earlier in the year. 'I don't care what she said, I think they were very close to having one,' Trump said of his belief that Iran was inching towards having a nuclear weapon. Central to Trump's stance regarding Israel's initial assault on Iran is his belief that Iran has been moving closer to nuclear capability. He has plainly said that 'Iran cannot have a nuclear weapon.' Trump's stance, bolstered by a May 31 International Atomic Energy Agency report (that stated Iran had accumulated roughly 120 kg of uranium enriched to 60%, dangerously close to weapons-grade levels of 90%), undermines previous reports by U.S. intelligence, including that of Gabbard, a former Democrat. Read More: How Netanyahu Pushed Trump Toward War In response to Trump's new assertion that she was 'wrong' in her previous testimony, Gabbard took to social media on Friday, stating that her words had been taken out of context by "dishonest media." Gabbard maintains that she and Trump are on the same page. "The dishonest media is intentionally taking my testimony out of context and spreading fake news as a way to manufacture division," Gabbard said. "America has intelligence that Iran is at the point that it can produce a nuclear weapon within weeks to months, if they decide to finalize the assembly. President Trump has been clear that can't happen, and I agree." Attached to the post was a longer video of her testimony, which also included her claims that 'Iran's enriched uranium stockpile is at its highest levels and is unprecedented for a state without nuclear weapons.' Read More: The 5 Groups Hoping to Sway Trump on Iran Trump reportedly still has 'full confidence' in his intelligence team, according to White House communications director Steven Cheung, but the open disagreements between Trump and members of his Administration signal splinters over the Israel-Iran conflict. The President is facing questions from both within and outside the Republican party, as he weighs up his options during a self-imposed two-week deadline about whether the U.S. will intervene, despite him campaigning on staying out of wars overseas. Republican lawmakers Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia and Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky have both openly disapproved of any potential U.S. military intervention. Read More: Breaking Down the Feud Between Trump and Tucker Carlson Amid Divide Over Israel-Iran Conflict Meanwhile, former Fox News host Tucker Carlson—a long-time ally of Trump, who even hit the campaign trail with him in 2024—has also spoken out against any U.S. involvement in the Israel-Iran conflict. Carlson's initial comments prompted a blistering response from Trump, and their disagreement soon took a personal turn as the feud escalated. While the situation appears to have since settled—Trump said Carlson called and apologized for his 'strong' words—it's clear that the subject of the Israel-Iran conflict and how the U.S. should move forward is proving to be a divisive one.
The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
US moving B-2 bombers as Trump weighs Iran response: Reports
Department of Defense (DOD) officials are moving B-2 bombers across the Pacific as President Trump weighs intervening in Israel's war on Iran. Reports from Reuters say the 30,000-pound 'bunker buster bombs' will be stored on the island of Guam while Trump considers the possibility of striking Iran. The DOD referred The Hill's request for comment to the White House, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Flight tracking data shows several aircraft leaving Travis Air Force Base with B-2s following the president's statement allotting a two-week deadline for a decision on U.S. intervention in Iran. The bombers were originally being held in Missouri and would likely be used to damage the Fordo nuclear fuel enrichment plant in Iran. Fordo is Iran's second nuclear enrichment facility after Natanz, which was hit by Israeli forces on Friday. The attacks damaged the facility and furthered the Israeli objective to obliterate Iran's efforts to develop nuclear weapons of war. Israel on Saturday said it struck an Iranian nuclear facility in Isfahan and killed two additional top commanders as the clash between the two Middle Eastern countries expands. Israeli Air Force fighter jets later in the day also moved to strike military infrastructure in southwestern Iran, according to an Israeli military statement. Ahead of Saturday's strikes, Iran fired 40 drones overnight on Friday that were intercepted by Israel, according to the IDF. 'We've been able to take out a large amount of their launchers, creating a bottleneck — we're making it harder for them to fire toward Israel,' an Israeli military official told AP on the condition of anonymity. 'Having said all that, I want to say the Iranian regime obviously still has capabilities.' Earlier this week, Israel Defense Forces said they'd killed multiple top commanders and nine engineers working on Iran's nuclear projects. Trump said the conflict would continue until an 'UNCONDITIONAL SURRENDER' was supported by Iran. However, the Iranian Supreme Leader said they would continue to defend themselves amidst the rubble. 'I would like to tell our dear nation that if the enemy senses that you fear them, they won't let go of you. Continue the very behavior that you have had up to this day; continue this behavior with strength,' Ali Khamenei wrote in a post on X.
CNBC
36 minutes ago
- CNBC
Columbia student Mahmoud Khalil returns home to New York area
NEWARK, N.J. —After more than three months in ICE detention, Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil returned to the New York area where his harrowing ordeal first began. Immigration authorities had arrested Khalil, 30, in March at the university housing complex where he lived in New York City. He was quickly transported thousands of miles away to a detention center in Louisiana, where he spent the last few months. Khalil remained defiant as he spoke to reporters and supporters on Saturday afternoon upon his arrival at Newark International Airport. "Your messages have kept me going. Still the fight is far from over, the genocide is still happening in Gaza, Israel is still waging a full war against Palestine," said Khalil, who was flanked by his wife Dr. Noor Abdalla and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. "The U.S. government is funding this genocide and Columbia University is investing in this genocide. This is why I was protesting, this is why I will continue protesting with every one of you, not only if they threaten me with detention. Even if they would kill me, I would still speak up for Gaza." When asked what his message would be to the Trump administration, Khalil said, "Just the fact that I'm here sends a message." "The fact that all of these attempts to suppress pro-Palestine voices have failed now," he said. "This is the message. My existence is a message." Ocasio-Cortez said Khalil's imprisonment for politically motivated. "Everybody agrees that persecution based on political speech is wrong and is a violation of all of our First Amendment rights, not just Mahmoud's," she said. His unprecedented detention has sparked national outrage. Further fueling the controversy, Abdalla, an American, gave birth to the couple's first son in April while he remained behind bars. Upon his release in Louisiana on Friday, Khalil addressed reporters briefly, saying he was excited to return to New York City and see his family. "Although justice prevailed," he said upon his release, "it's long, very long overdue. And this shouldn't have taken three months." "Trump and his administration, they chose the wrong person for this," he added. "That doesn't mean that there is a right person for this. There's no right person who should be detained for actually protesting a genocide, for protesting their university, Columbia University." Assistant Homeland Security Secretary Tricia McLaughlin on Friday denounced the judicial order freeing Khalil and the judge who issued it. "This is yet another example of how out of control members of the judicial branch are undermining national security," McLaughlin said in a statement. "Their conduct not only denies the result of the 2024 election, it also does great harm to our constitutional system by undermining public confidence in the courts." The Trump administration claimed it had the authority to detain and deport the pro-Palestinian student activist, arguing that his presence in the U.S. threatened national security. Another charge against Khalil alleges that he omitted details about his work history and membership in organizations on his permanent residency application. The government cited an obscure provision in the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 that gives Secretary of State Marco Rubio authority to "personally determine" whether a foreign national can remain in the U.S. on national security grounds. An NBC News review of more than 100 pages of court filings found that prosecutors relied on unverified tabloid reports and anecdotal claims, raising doubts about the strength of their case for deporting Khalil. Less than 10 minutes after Khalil, who has no criminal history, was released from the detention center in Jena, Louisiana, the Trump administration filed a notice of appeal. A lawyer representing Khalil vowed to fight the appeal. Khalil helped lead student protests over the war in Gaza, where more than 55,000 people have been killed since Israel launched its war against Hamas. He also participated in negotiations with university officials at Columbia last year, when protests at the Ivy League school gripped national headlines for weeks and inspired similar demonstrations at universities around the world. Some Jewish students at universities across the U.S. reported antisemitic incidents as the protest movement gained traction. Khalil was the first of several foreign academics apprehended by immigration authorities in the first months of Trump's second term. Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk, a doctoral candidate from Turkey, was arrested outside her home in Somerville, Massachusetts, by immigration authorities on March 25. Viral street footage of her arrest showed Department of Homeland Security officials dressed in plain clothes surrounding Öztürk, grabbing her by the wrists and escorting her into an unmarked vehicle. Mohsen Mahdawi, a 34-year-old graduate student at Columbia who was born in the West Bank, was apprehended by immigration authorities during his naturalization interview in Vermont. Federal judges also ordered the release of both Öztürk and Mahdawi in recent weeks. Other notable cases include a Georgetown University professor who was detained by ICE and later released after a judicial order, and a Brown University professor who was deported to Lebanon.
