As someone who has spent over three decades in higher education, as both faculty and institutional leader, I’ve witnessed firsthand how political currents shape policy, funding, and strategic direction. The 2024 U.S. presidential election has reactivated those dynamics with urgency. With Donald Trump returning to the White House and a Republican-controlled Congress, we are entering a new chapter, one that carries deep implications for colleges and universities, particularly those with international reach.
For international educators, this is not a time to wait and see, despite the unknowns. Policy shifts, public rhetoric, and institutional autonomy are all in motion. As a faculty of organizational change, how we react is not about a moment in time, but adapting to change that is permanent, stemming from a new crossroads. While we could return to what was, that could take decades if not generations. The decisions we make now will define how global engagement adapts—and endures—through disruption.
Federal Realignment: Enrollment, Economics, and a New Center of Gravity
Federal priorities are shifting. Proposed policies suggest a redirection of research funding and institutional investment away from elite, research-intensive universities and toward technical, vocational, and workforce-aligned programs. This isn’t just ideological; it’s a recalibration of higher education’s economic role—and a redefinition of who higher education is meant to serve.
What makes this moment particularly significant is the mechanism: federal dollars are now more explicitly tied to institutional compliance than at any point in recent memory. Grants, aid, and operational funding are being positioned as tools of enforcement, linked not only to educational outcomes but to cultural alignment, governance choices, and institutional messaging.
While Harvard has drawn headlines, it is just one institution in a much broader and more vulnerable landscape. For other R1 universities, the cumulative effect of losing both federal research support and student aid eligibility could result in annual losses exceeding $1 billion. These are not abstract threats, they strike at the foundation of the U.S. research enterprise and its global influence.
At the same time, this realignment creates an opportunity for institutions historically outside the spotlight. Regional public universities, community colleges, and workforce-aligned campuses may gain prominence and new streams of federal support. For international educators, this means recalibrating strategies to reflect a more diverse mix of institutional partners—ones aligned with domestic workforce priorities and more insulated from ideological scrutiny.
Importantly, this is not limited to higher education. The dismantling of DEI programs and disruption to federally funded research is now reverberating through corporate America. Companies that rely on inclusive talent pipelines, federally supported innovation, or university partnerships are experiencing similar tensions. The cultural and economic shifts being driven at the federal level are shaping not just academic policy but the entire corporate and innovation ecosystem.
This isn’t just a redistribution of resources—it’s a reframing of purpose, power, and public trust. As institutions reassess their missions in response, international strategy must evolve in parallel—more agile, more diversified, and more attuned to compliance as a strategic terrain, not just a legal obligation.
The DEI Paradox: Growing Diversity, Shrinking Support
One of the clearest contradictions in this political moment is the simultaneous rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives at a time when the U.S. population is becoming more diverse than ever. Federal and state policies are targeting DEI offices, identity-based centers, and cultural training programs, particularly at publicly funded institutions. What’s new is how federal funding is now explicitly conditioned on DEI withdrawal, placing institutions in a position where failure to comply may result in the loss of operating dollars or research grants.
This paradox is not lost on faculty and students, especially those from underrepresented or historically marginalized backgrounds. For many, inclusive campus environments are not extras; they are essential to deciding where to study, live, and build community. They are central to the success of historically marginalized populations. The erosion of DEI sends a conflicting message: that even as the U.S. becomes more demographically diverse, the infrastructure that supports that diversity is being dismantled.
The impact on recruitment, retention, and global reputation is real. International education isn’t named in these policies, but it is deeply affected by them. Students and partners interpret campus climate through the lens of inclusion, safety, and belonging, and that perception increasingly shapes institutional competitiveness. From a leadership perspective, this is a moment to affirm, not abandon, our values. The promise of U.S. higher education has always included the idea of opportunity through diversity. That promise must be upheld—and reimagined—even in the face of political headwinds.
International Students at the Center of Misunderstanding—and Untapped Value
International students sit at the intersection of education policy, immigration debates, and economic impact—but too often, the national discourse fails to make those connections clear. Policy proposals affecting F-1 student visas, J-1 exchange programs, Optional Practical Training (OPT), and H-1B skilled worker pathways are increasingly entangled with broader political rhetoric around undocumented immigration. This conflation is not just a policy error—it’s a strategic misunderstanding of international education’s true role in the U.S. system.
While immigration debates often focus on border security or unauthorized entry, international students enter the U.S. through legal, highly regulated channels. Their presence is not only vetted—it is one of the most direct and measurable contributions to the U.S. economy and innovation pipeline. According to NAFSA, international students contributed nearly $38 billion to the U.S. economy in 2023 and supported over 335,000 jobs. That number includes tuition, housing, living expenses, and spending in local communities. But these figures rarely enter public conversation.
What is often discussed instead is a vague narrative about foreign “overreach” in U.S. institutions, despite the fact that international students help fill critical enrollment gaps, sustain graduate research programs, and drive innovation in high-demand fields like AI, engineering, and healthcare. For many institutions, especially in STEM disciplines, the loss of international enrollment would be both academically and financially destabilizing.
Further, restrictions to OPT and H-1B pathways signal to global talent that the U.S. may not be a viable long-term destination for work and contribution. These programs are not loopholes; they are pipelines that connect world-class education to workforce needs. Curtailing them would be a self-inflicted wound to U.S. global competitiveness.
The reality is clear: international students do not take—they contribute. They bring more than diversity of thought—they bring economic resilience, research capacity, and global relevance. The challenge is not just in protecting their visas—it’s in reasserting their value as integral to the American higher education promise.
What This Means for Global Education Stakeholders
International educators must navigate a rapidly shifting environment with both realism and resolve. Ongoing uncertainty around visas, OPT, and H-1B pathways may accelerate the diversification of student flows to countries with more stable policies. Changes in federal funding priorities—particularly in global fields like climate science or public health—could disrupt long-standing international partnerships. Federal compliance is being embedded more deeply into the funding process. Heightened oversight in hiring, curriculum, and governance raises new questions about academic freedom and institutional independence.
Leading Forward
We are not just witnesses to change—we are architects of resilience. While political cycles may shift, the mission of global education remains. The question is not whether we can maintain international engagement, but whether we can evolve it with integrity.
If we do so with clarity, courage, and collaboration, international education won’t just weather this period—it will lead by example, showing what inclusive, adaptive, and values-driven global learning can look like.
Yes, in this moment we are thinking about survival. But to be successful, this needs to be replaced with the conversation of how we persevere.
