On April 22, over 150 American university and college presidents signed a public statement opposing federal interference in U.S. postsecondary institutions. Titled “A Call for Constructive Engagement,” the document was published following meetings convened by the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the American Academy of Arts & Sciences. While some institution presidents had previously criticized the Trump administration individually, this statement marked the first coordinated, public pushback against executive orders from the U.S. higher education community.
The signatories include presidents from small liberal arts colleges like Vassar and Carleton and Ivy League universities such as Harvard, Princeton, and Brown. While Harvard has dominated headlines amid proposed budget cuts and ongoing legal scrutiny, the statement places all participating institutions in the federal spotlight—potentially inviting financial retaliation.
Released on May 2, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget submitted a letter to U.S. Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins (R-ME) outlining Trump’s fiscal year 2026 recommendations. The proposal includes a reduction of at least $163 billion in non-defense federal funding, targeting many programs that support higher education students. These cuts would take effect beginning Oct. 1.
“We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight. However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses,” the educators declared in the joint statement.
“This moment invites us as educators, students, and institutional leaders to reaffirm our shared responsibility to foster learning environments where diverse perspectives, respectful dialogue, and the pursuit of knowledge can thrive,” said Lindsay Currie, CEO of the Council on Undergraduate Research, in a statement to the Independent.
In FY 2024, Brown University received $253.56 million in federally sponsored grants and contracts, amounting to roughly 19% of its total operating revenue. Yet on April 3, the Trump administration moved to freeze $510 million in federal support following a review of the University’s response to campus antisemitism. Princeton faces similar threats: in FY 2024, the University received more than $455 million in federal research funding. However, on April 1, the White House announced plans to suspend many of those grants, citing noncompliance with federal anti-discrimination policies.
“A lot of these federal funds that were affected have to do with things that are actually priorities not only for Princeton University, but for the American government and indeed for this administration,” Princeton’s President Christopher Eisgruber said in an interview with NPR following the announcement.
Currie emphasized that the stakes go far beyond institutional budgets. “We believe that undergraduate research equips students with the skills, confidence, and curiosity they need to contribute meaningfully to their communities and careers,” she said. “Especially in times of uncertainty, the research enterprise serves as a foundation for evidence-based decision making, civic engagement, and a future shaped by inquiry and innovation.”
Public universities are likewise in jeopardy. For instance, the University of California, Los Angeles, received approximately $900 million in federal grants and contracts in FY 2024, in addition to $200 million for overhead subsidies.
Still, leaders like Brown University President Christina Paxson, UCLA Chancellor Julio Frenk, and Eisgruber made clear that, despite their institutions’ reliance on federal dollars, they will not sacrifice their academic values.
“We will always seek effective and fair financial practices,” the statement read, “but we must reject the coercive use of public research funding.”
The names of certain other colleges and universities stood out among the 150. Although Columbia University capitulated with federal directives on March 21 after facing proposed funding cuts of $400 million, Acting President Claire Shipman affirmed the University’s commitment to academic freedom by signing the call. Michigan State University President Kevin M. Guskiewicz—whose institution ranked fourth nationally in USAID funding in FY 2024—also signed, despite the financial risks.
“Most fundamentally, America’s colleges and universities prepare an educated citizenry to sustain our democracy,” the statement continued. “The price of abridging the defining freedoms of American higher education will be paid by our students and our society.”
“I chose to sign the Call for Constructive Engagement because the Council on Undergraduate Research remains steadfast in its commitment to our mission, vision, and values,” Currie wrote—the mentioned principles can be found here. “These guiding principles support the advancement of inclusive, high-quality undergraduate research and affirm the importance of academic freedom, civic responsibility, and collaboration in addressing complex challenges,” she continued.
Other signatures, however, were notably absent. Johns Hopkins University’s President Ronald Daniels did not sign, despite Hopkins receiving a record $3.4 billion in federal research funding in FY 2022—more than $1.6 billion ahead of the University of Pennsylvania, which was the next-highest institution. Such fiscal allocations account for around 88% of the University’s total sponsored research revenue. Receiving more than $100 million monthly in federal funding, Georgia Tech also declined to participate.
President Trump has not directly responded to this letter. However, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon recently sent a letter to Harvard President Garber confirming that the school will no longer receive new federal grants—claiming that “Harvard University has made a mockery of this country’s higher education system.” Amidst this stark adjustment in the institution’s fiscal allocations and as the larger slimmed proposed budget of FY 2026 arrives in a few months, onlookers are watching these 150 institutions and organizations to see whether their words bear the brunt of executive fiscal repercussions.
The call ends with a firm commitment to academic liberty and its association with intellectual excellence.
“On behalf of our current and future students, and all who work at and benefit from our institutions, we call for constructive engagement that improves our institutions and serves our republic,” the statement concluded.
Student engagement in such activism is similarly encouraged. “The voices of students and educators across the country matter deeply,” Currie said. “Their dedication to asking thoughtful questions, applying rigorous methods, and engaging with the world around them represents both the promise and power of research.”
“In that work, there is great hope for the future.”
Sara Kumar ’27 (sjkumar@college.harvard.edu) is the News Editor for the Independent.