How the Trump Administration Made Higher Education a Target

Summary

---

The New Yorker Radio Hour

"How the Trump Administration Made Higher Education a Target"

Host: David Remnick
Guest: Emma Greene, New Yorker Staff Writer
Date: October 17, 2025

---

Episode Overview

This episode examines the Trump administration's aggressive and unprecedented campaign to reshape American higher education, targeting elite universities and leveraging federal funding as a tool. Host David Remnick speaks with Emma Greene, whose in-depth reporting for The New Yorker investigates both the policy strategies and cultural motivations behind these sweeping actions. The conversation explores how campus culture wars, populist skepticism, and long-standing conservative frustrations converged into a robust, coordinated federal agenda, and what this means for the future of universities in America.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. From Incrementalism to "Paradigm Shift": How the 2nd Trump Administration Changed Tactics

[01:10] Emma Greene:

• Officials from both Trump administrations wish they'd been "more aggressive" the first time.
• The first administration made incremental changes; the current one pursues "muscular," coordinated actions.
• Greene cites the freezing of hundreds of millions of dollars to Harvard over allegations of antisemitism as an example that "would have been unthinkable" in 2017.
• The approach is now about "changing the paradigm" rather than just reform.

“The things that they were doing now in 2025 would have been unthinkable in 2017.” — Emma Greene [01:29]

2. A Backlash to Cultural Change and Social Justice

[02:50] Emma Greene:

• Trump’s higher-ed agenda is partly a direct reaction to perceived overreach in social justice and diversity initiatives, particularly after the Biden years.
• Conservative officials see higher education as "ground zero" for societal change they find extreme.

“They see higher ed as the common theme in all of this cultural change, and they see that cultural change as being extreme, something that needs a really muscular response.” — Emma Greene [03:01]

3. The Inside Architect: Mae Mailman

[04:05]

• Mae Mailman, former Stephen Miller deputy, became the central coordinator of the administration’s education effort.
• Organized an "anti-Semitism task force" with cross-agency coordination.
• Known for "strike force" tactics—coordinated, rapid responses to target institutions.
• Seen by insiders as "running the show," ensuring all agencies acted "in lockstep."

“It created this kind of remarkable effect... almost like a strike force where when the administration decided to take on a particular school, they would have these series of letters or press statements or announcements that would happen, boom, boom, boom, one right after another.” — Emma Greene [05:00]

Mae Mailman's Worldview:

• Grew up biracial in rural Kansas, went through Teach for America.
• Developed a distaste for what she called a "victimhood" narrative in education, wanting practical skills focus over feelings or inequity.

“The first year they really were trying to help us teach... The second year, the focus was a little bit different. It was like understand racial inequity... And I was like, well, this is a problem because I need to teach my kids math tomorrow.” — Mae Mailman [06:38]

• Advocates for "academic freedom" for conservatives, but opposes federal funding for programs she sees as promoting "racism and racial hierarchies and violence and harassment."

“No one is more committed to academic freedom than conservatives... at the same time, when you have federal grants, you do not need to be funding racism and racial hierarchies and violence and harassment... do what you want to do, but we don’t have to fund it.” — Mae Mailman [08:47]

4. The Unique Moment: Culture Wars, Economics, and Campus Protest

[13:04] Emma Greene:

• The convergence of October 7th’s protests, debates over DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), and broadening skepticism about the value and cost of a college degree created political "permission to go farther."
• Populist anger feeds both cultural and economic critiques of universities.

“There's so much political salience to it... people don't believe that that fair deal is playing out.” — Emma Greene [13:31]

5. Populist Economic Critique & Partisan Approaches

• David Remnick wonders if Obama/Biden were blind to these changes.
• Greene and former Biden education official James Kfal argue Democrats addressed populist anger with student debt reform but from a different angle, focusing less on cultural grievances.

“We need to recognize that we shouldn’t be making loans to people who are unlikely to be able to repay them... I think it is a step forward that we now have agreement across the parties on that.” — James Kfal [15:47]

6. Conservative Grievances: Ideological Uniformity and Decline of the Humanities

• Recounts Princeton’s shift from "just one conservative" to “23”; notes longstanding complaints about ideological homogeneity on campuses.
• Humanities majors are dwindling: Is it cultural, practical, or both? Greene sees the current dynamic as “really unsettled.” [17:11–18:42]

7. The Leverage of Federal Funding: The "Compact on Excellence"

[19:57–21:05]

• Administration’s main leverage is research funding, which mostly affects science/engineering, not humanities.
• New “Compact on Excellence” offers universities preferential funding in exchange for pledging to forgo race/gender in admissions, ensure ideological diversity, and uphold “institutional neutrality.”
• Some professors’ organizations decry this as manipulation and a threat to academic freedom.

“It's the carrot to the carrot and stick, arguably. And the idea is that they're trying to incentivize universities to sign onto this vision culturally...” — Emma Greene [21:05]

8. Effectiveness of the Trump Strategy

• Even elite schools feel compelled to conform because critical research funding (and federal student aid) is at risk.
• "Harvard has to come sit" at the table. [24:00–24:33]

9. Conservative Endgame:

• Seeking not just policy changes but "culture change" in higher ed.
• Conservatives now embrace robust federal action—even as they claim to value academic freedom.

“Conservatives learning to stop worrying and love federal power... The idea that they're in charge of the government, they can do stuff and they want to do stuff and they want to use the levers that are available to them to make change.” — Emma Greene [24:52]

10. Antisemitism as Cudgel or Concern?

• Administration draws a broad, "expansive" line between antisemitism and anti-Israel protest, deploying the issue as both legitimate concern and political tool.
• Critics say it’s a pretext for punishing universities they dislike; Greene acknowledges the complexity.

“There is an argument then by critics who would say, actually a lot of this is just using the Jews to crack down on campuses that you hate.” — Emma Greene [28:50]

11. The Future: Power, Precedent, and Uncertainty

• Even if power reverses, both parties are now more comfortable with "forceful" executive action in higher ed.
• No expectation that the fight will subside, regardless of who wins the White House.

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Trump versus Harvard, if we can boil it down to that, is nothing less than a conservative campaign to change the way private and state colleges operate.” — David Remnick [00:49]
• “It was almost like a strike force.” — Emma Greene [05:05]
• “She tries to be modest about it... but in terms of the person who was actually making the agenda actually happening on the ground, it was Mae Mailman.” — Emma Greene [05:56]
• “American schools are mostly educating kids who like to go to riots.” — Mae Mailman, per Greene [08:26]
• “There seems to be an element of vengeance to it.” — David Remnick [20:07]
• “You can make them come to the table. You, as May Mailman told me, conservatives have a seat at the table now and Harvard has to come sit.” — Emma Greene [24:30]

---

Important Timestamps

| Timestamp | Topic / Quote | |-----------|--------------------------------------------------| | 01:10 | Changing tactics: incrementalism to paradigm shift | | 04:05 | Mae Mailman’s role and strike-force approach | | 06:38 | Mailman’s Teach for America experience | | 08:47 | Mailman on academic freedom and federal funds | | 13:04 | Why this is a unique political moment | | 15:47 | James Kfal on bipartisan loan reform | | 17:11 | Ideological diversity & decline in humanities | | 19:57 | Funding cuts & leverage | | 21:05 | "Compact on Excellence" explained | | 24:52 | Conservative endgame and embrace of power | | 28:21 | Antisemitism as campus flashpoint |

---

Tone and Voice

The episode features thoughtful inquiry and critical discussion, with Emma Greene offering deeply reported analysis and direct citations from administration actors. The tone is serious but accessible, with moments of pointed commentary and personal insight from both Remnick and Greene.

---

For more, read Emma Greene’s report, "Inside the Trump Administration’s Assault on Higher Education," at newyorker.com.

Transcript

[Narrator/Announcer]

This is the New Yorker Radio Hour, a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker.

[David Remnick]

Welcome to the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. The swiftness and the severity with which the Trump administration has tried to impose its will on higher education came as a shock to many people, not least to university presidents and faculties from Harvard to ucla. But for conservatives, this arena of cultural conflict has been a long time coming. Staff writer Emma Greene has been speaking with influential figures in the administration and in the larger conservative movement about why they decided to wage this battle and how they mapped it out for Trump's return to power. Trump versus Harvard, if we can boil it down to that, is nothing less than a conservative campaign to change the way private and state colleges operate. Emma Greene's reporting appears in the New Yorker this week. Emma, how has the education agenda changed from the first Trump administration to the second? Because so much has changed.

[Emma Greene]

So for this story, I spent a lot of time talking to both administration officials who work for the president now, but also people who were in that first Trump administration. And the thing that all of them have said is, is that they wish they had gone farther. Their perception was that their job was to come in, change some of the stuff that Obama had done that they didn't like, put some policies in place that could make incremental progress forward. But they were coloring within the lines. Even one of these officials who I talked to, who was an advisor in the first administration in the ed department, said that the things that they were doing now in 2025 would have been unthinkable in 2017, for example. So, for example, taking on a school like Harvard aggressively to say, we believe that you have violated your federal contract with us. You've had this rampant antisemitism that's a violation of federal statute, but it's also a violation of your agreement with us. We're going to freeze literally hundreds of millions of dollars, that kind of muscular approach to higher education, and trying to aggressively step outside of incremental change to this idea of paradigm shift in the sector that's the huge shift.

[David Remnick]

Well, we'll get to the question of quote, unquote, rampant antisemitism, whether that's a reality or that was a battering ram used by the Trump administration. But tell me this. How much of what we're seeing now would you say is a reaction to perceived overreach on social justice issues and diversity coming out of the Biden years and before versus a real long term strategic plan on the part of Trump.

[Emma Greene]

And his circle, I think reaction is definitely a good word for it. And that tracks with how President Trump got reelected in 2024, this sense of backlash to where our culture had gone. I was talking to this advisor in the Education Department who had worked under the first Trump administration, and he spoke about what, living through those biting years and watching things like, for example, Leah Thomas win the NCAA championship.

[David Remnick]

The swimmer at the University of Pennsylvania.

[Emma Greene]

That's right. The first transgender athlete to win a women's championship. Seeing the protests after October 7, seeing the development of DEI infrastructure, which was nudged along by the federal government, and coming to feel as though the two parties had come to this almost unbridgeable worldview. And I think that unbridgeable worldview is really important because it shows why the Trump administration has been able and willing to act this aggressively in the higher ed sphere. They see higher ed as the common theme in all of this cultural change, and they see that cultural change as being extreme, something that needs a really muscular response.

[David Remnick]

A crucial person in your piece, who I didn't really know much about at all is a woman named Mae Mailman who you interviewed. And she turns out to have had a singular role in this new administration's approach to higher education. Tell me about Mae Mailman.

[Emma Greene]

She was a policy deputy for Stephen Miller. She left her former role in the administration at the end of the summer, although she's still advising them on the university deals. One of the things that she was responsible for coordinating was this higher education agenda. So she would take the policy directives from the Domestic Policy Council, the White House, the president, and she would make sure that there was this coordinated effort across the different agencies. There was an anti Semitism task force with representatives from Department of Justice, Health and Human Services, Department of Education. They would report up to her, tell her what was going on, but she would also make sure that when there was going to be an action, when they were going to take on a school or take on an issue, that they were marching in lockstep, that all of the different agencies were aligned, that they were going to take actions of their own. And it created this kind of remarkable effect. It was almost like a strike force where when the administration decided to take on a particular school, they would have these series of letters or press statements or announcements that would happen, boom, boom, boom, one right after another. It was all lined up.

[David Remnick]

So in a way, she is to higher education what Stephen Miller is to immigration or Russell Vogt is to the economy. Does that sound right?

[Emma Greene]

I think that's right. Her position is not a senior, meaning she's not the person at that senior shot calling level. But she was running the show. And this is a description I've gotten from her and from lots of allies in the administration. She tries to be modest about it, right? She's the coordinator, the implementer. But in terms of the person who was actually making the agenda actually happening on the ground, it was Mae Mailman.

[David Remnick]

Tell me a little bit personally about Mae Mailman and why she came to this ideological place.

[Emma Greene]

So she grew up in Kansas in a pretty rural community that's pretty white. Her mom is Korean, her dad is white. So she's biracial. And she's spoken in an interview with the New York Times about how that made her tough, how it made her really be willing to sort of hold her own. And she's kind of a do gooder. She went to the University of Kansas and then she went to Teach for America. And she, she spoke at length with me about the kind of do Gooder motivations for that teacher.

[Mae Mailman]

Went through a shift between my first and second year. The first year they really were trying to help us teach, so they gave us how to teach math and use these rhymes and do this. And then the second year, the focus was a little bit different. It was like understand racial inequity. It was like a little more feelings. Ish. And I was like, well, this is a problem because I need to teach my kids math tomorrow. And so actually what I'd like to to know is how to do that.

[Emma Greene]

She spoke a lot about how, as she described it, the victimhood thing really bothers her, this idea that she has about college in America, which is that kids are going to these schools and they're taught that they're victims. They're taught about all of the ways that structural racism or sexual harassment or gender discrimination or whatever has made people into victims. So it was interesting to me that someone from this really do gooder background wanted to help kids in need of also developed this allergic reaction, I think, through experiences like Teach for America to this idea that kids would be taught about their lack of power.

[David Remnick]

In fairness though, it sounds a little bit like a cartoon. In other words, of course it's important to learn math, but it's also important to understand the history of your own country and its strengths, its weaknesses, its inequities. Why is that incommensurable?

[Emma Greene]

You know, I think what she would say is that there's a culture within our education system. Here she was talking about K12, but also in higher ed. There's a focus of certain types of ideas, certain types of analysis, and they are negative. They are trying to deconstruct things. They are probably, she would argue, anti American. She told me American schools are mostly educating kids who like to go to riots. Right. Her perception is that our education system is skewed in this way. That's not helping kids to learn how to better themselves and believe in something and fight for their country and do cool, amazing, make America great again things. They're learning something else.

[Mae Mailman]

No one is more committed to academic freedom than conservatives because for so long it's like, you can't say this, you can't teach this. Yep. You didn't do the pronouns, you know, like the whole thing. So we want to give power to individuals and to universities to be able to shape what they're teaching. But at the same time, when you have federal grants, you do not need to be funding racism and racial hierarchies and violence and harassment. So I think that line is do what you want to do, but we don't have to fund it.

[David Remnick]

Policy analyst Mae Mailman, speaking with the New Yorker's Emma Greene, will continue in just a moment. This is the New Yorker Radio Hour.

[Narrator/Announcer]

WNYC Studios is supported by Dell Technologies introducing the new Dell PC with the Intel Core Ultra processor. It helps you handle a lot, even when your holiday to do list gets to be a lot like organizing your holiday shopping and searching for great holiday deals and customer questions and customers requesting custom things. Plus planning the perfect holiday dinner for vegans, vegetarians, pescatarians and the rest of the family's dietary restrictions. Luckily, you can get a PC with all day battery life to help you get it all done. That's the power of a Dell PC with Intel inside backed by Dell's price match guarantee. Get yours [e-mail] holiday terms and conditions apply. See dell.com for details.

[AT&T Sponsor Voice]

The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported by AT and T. There's nothing better than feeling like someone has your back and that things are going to get done without you even having to ask. Like your friend offering to help you move without you even having to offer pizza and drinks first. It's a beautiful thing when someone is two steps ahead of you, quietly making your life easier. Staying connected matters. That's why in the rare event of a network outage, AT and T will proactively credit you for a full day of service. That's the AT and T guarantee credit for fiber downtime lasting 20 minutes or more, or for wireless downtime lasting 60 minutes or more caused by a single incident impacting 10 or more towers must be connected to impacted tower at onset of outage. Restrictions and exclusions apply. See att.com guarantee for full details at and t Connecting changes everything.

[David Remnick]

This is Ira Glass, the host of this American Life. So much is changing so rapidly right now with President Trump in office. It feels good to pause for a moment sometimes and look around at what's what to try and do that. We've been finding these incredible stories about right now that are funny and have.

[Emma Greene]

Feeling, and you get to see people.

[James Kfal]

Everywhere adapting and making sense of this.

[David Remnick]

New America that we find ourselves in. If you haven't listened in a while, I honestly think these are some of the best stories we've ever done. This is American Life. Every week, wherever you get your podcasts, this is the New Yorker Radio Hour. I'm David Remnick. The New Yorker has just published a major report by Emma Greene called Inside the Trump Administration's Assault on Higher Education. And nearly everyone looking at higher ed these days, not least at the cost of a college degree, can agree that the system just isn't working. But we don't agree on how to fix it. Some of the most highly regarded schools are caught now in a very difficult bind. If they give in to demands from the White House concerning, say, admissions policy and curriculum, then they're giving up their independence and alienating students and faculty. But stand up to Trump and they risk losing critical funding for research, student loans, and much more. I'll continue my conversation with staff writer Emma Greene. So college campuses have long been ground zero for culture wars. Not just now, but in the 60s and other periods of time. What's unique about the moment that we're in right now? Why was this the moment to go after federal funding at universities?

[Emma Greene]

So I think it's a couple things. October 7th splashed campus protests all over the news. These ideas about DEI and how to fix structural racism has been such a part of the cultural conversation. There's so much political salience to it. And that's paired with this other running current that is bipartisan and very widely held in America. This idea that higher education is isn't that good of a deal, it's really expensive. People are under these crushing loads of debt. And often people get out of school after having worked really hard and they can't get a job that pays them a living wage. This idea that, you know, the bargain of higher ed, you go to college and you better yourself, you better your family, you better the next generation People don't believe that that fair deal is playing out. And so what a lot of people said to me as I was reporting this story is that this sort of cultural frisson of all of the culture wars on campus gave political permission to go farther.

[David Remnick]

So what you're saying, I think in part is that figures like Barack Obama and Joe Biden were blind to this.

[Emma Greene]

So I don't think it was that Obama and Biden were blind to this. In fact, I think Biden and the fact that he took on student debt as such a central part of his policy making showed that they see the populist anger here, but that wasn't the.

[David Remnick]

Cultural side of things.

[Emma Greene]

That's right. They're sort of taking on all of the discontent around higher ed from this different angle. They have different solutions. And they also don't share the analysis of the cultural solutions. It's sort of like an equal and opposite reaction. Right. Biden was trying to take this on in a huge way, and Trump is now taking this on in a huge way. So I talked to this guy, James Cabal, who was an undersecretary at the Department of Education under President Biden, but he had also worked in the Obama administration and the Clinton administration. He's just a Democrat policy guy through and through. And he was the person in charge of implementing the structural reforms in the Biden administration. So a lot of their projects to eliminate student debt, for example, were under James Cabal. So I met him this summer and the Trump agenda on higher ed has been unfolding. And he was very introspective because he was willing to say, I think the Biden administration did some things that didn't fully recognize what was happening in this moment. And I am reflecting on this populist anger that has been undermining higher education.

[James Kfal]

We need to recognize that we shouldn't be making loans to people who are unlikely to be able to repay them. It's not doing someone a favor. Even if your goal is creating opportunity for a low income student or student of color or helping people pursue a career in the arts or go to divinity school, the right way to finance that is not a loan the student cannot afford to repay. So I think it is a step forward that we now have agreement across the parties on that.

[David Remnick]

Emma, recently we had Robbie George on, who's a conservative political scientist and very interested in religion and philosophy.

[Emma Greene]

I've interviewed him many times at Princeton.

[David Remnick]

And when he said, when he got to Princeton, he was the only, as he put it out, conservative. And he said, now there are 23. In other words, it reflected some self awareness that there was something off.

[Emma Greene]

It's not a new problem. Right. People have been talking about the lack of ideological diversity on campus for a really long time. And I don't think people who challenge that status quo, especially at the elite level, I don't think they're making it up. I think what Robbie George said is real, that it's kind of like you're the one conservative that they keep over as a pet in the corner.

[Narrator/Announcer]

Get your ass.

[Emma Greene]

That's right. They make sure they have you to show that they have you.

[David Remnick]

But let me ask you this. It's very interesting to me that this has to be most prevalent and most pronounced in the area of studies that is diminishing at a rate that's extraordinary. I'm talking about the humanities. When I was in university, which admittedly was some time ago, 40 odd percent of the majors were in the humanities. Now at that same place, it's a fraction of that. So a did that happen because people feel that they can get better jobs coming out of university with stem or people reacting to this ideological imbalance?

[Emma Greene]

Wow, that's like at least 10,000 more words that I have to write for you, David. So give me the assignment. But I think what I was describ earlier about this potent mixture that we have in the culture right now, where there are these political cultural clashes centered on campuses, paired with populist discontent about how hard it is to get ahead and how higher ed isn't helping people get ahead. I think there's probably an echo of that here, right? Which is there's a perception that if you're gonna go to college, well, at least you might as well get an engineering degree because what are you gonna do with an English major? Right?

[David Remnick]

Something might. Parents asked me roughly once a week.

[Emma Greene]

And here you are, David, you did well for yourself. You proved them wrong.

[David Remnick]

A complete piece of luck.

[Emma Greene]

You know, I think there's that sort of usefulness aspect, wanting to actually game the system and get ahead. In terms of the cultural piece though, I think we're in this really unsettled moment about what the humanities as a sort of set of disciplines can do about campuses being biased, about them only presenting very particular points of view and the university not being a place where these great clashes of ideas can happen. I think it's really unsettled how universities will respond to that and what kind of structures they'll put in place to try to answer that.

[David Remnick]

What makes this curious to me, I mean, the Trump administration's policy is that they're doing many things at once, but one of the big things is that they're slashing budgets, they're making sweeping cuts at universities. And where is it most pronounced? In the departments that have nothing to do with what we're talking about, the medical school, the engineering school, computer science. That's where the real budgets are. They're not in the classics department, it's not in gender studies. So how sincere is this attack? Or is it just a way to cut elites down to size?

[Emma Greene]

They care about prestige, which this certainly has been a hard thing for prestige. But also, and especially they care about money. And that's where the leverage was, was the science money.

[David Remnick]

There seems to be an element of vengeance to it.

[Emma Greene]

Some of that is coming from a kind of different motivation within the administration, which is doge. They mostly did keyword searches and they found grants for things that they thought were woke and canceled those grants. Some grants have been canceled. Through the administration trying to change universities or influence universities to comply with what they see as federal law, the Trump.

[David Remnick]

Administration is offering funding advantages to schools that adopt their conservative priorities. Among them, prohibiting consideration of gender or race for admissions, scholarships or programming, and the capping of international enrollment. Do you think many colleges and universities will take them up on this?

[Emma Greene]

Hard to say because it's playing out right now. They just unveiled this at the beginning of October, and they selected a handful of schools to consider this Compact on Excellence in Higher Education.

[David Remnick]

What does that mean?

[Emma Greene]

The Compact is this 10 page letter that they sent out, and they basically say, if you agree to not use race and admissions, if you agree to have ideological diversity, institutional neutrality, all of these different things that matter to them, we will give you preferred access to federal funds. It's the carrot to the carrot and stick, arguably. And the idea is that they're trying to incentivize universities to sign onto this vision culturally of what they should be like, the kinds of standards they should uphold in order to get access to the federal funds that they need to be competitive, to do research, to advance scientific agenda. So there's a lot of conversation happening right now about what these universities are going to do. There have been strong statements by, for example, organizations that represent professors against signing on to any such compact. And the concern is that it's basically manipulation, that it's the federal government trying to tell these independent institutions how to pursue truth and pursue knowledge. It would limit their academic freedom. I think what's been interesting about the Trump higher ed assault is that they've keyed in on this fact that universities take the money. They take hundreds of millions of dollars not just for federal contracts, but also federal student aid. And this is their business model. And there's been this kind of assumption that they wouldn't have to really be.

[David Remnick]

Held to account for it, especially ones with gigantic endowments.

[Emma Greene]

Yes.

[David Remnick]

Let's hear more from your interview with James Kfal on that.

[James Kfal]

You cannot build a higher education system that delivers more value to students by raising the cost of student loans and slashing funding for universities and, you know, putting them under assault from all different kinds of financial resources. So there is a blueprint for strengthening universities that's happening at many public colleges and universities in red and blue states that involves in investing in helping all students succeed and connecting programs more closely to careers and finding new sources of data that you can use to close the gap between campus and workplaces. That's not what they're doing.

[David Remnick]

So one side of the argument is look at Columbia, look at this one and that one. They're folding. They're folding like cheap suits. They're knuckling under, they're taking the knee. All the phrases that we hear all the time. It seems to me that there are a lot more than just that, that even Harvard, which kind of self admiringly described itself in courageous terms, is now also making its arrangements with the federal government. Is the picture more uniform than we might have thought six months ago?

[Emma Greene]

I think that any university president understands realistically that if they are an R1 institution that's getting significant federal funds for research, that they have to play ball because their business model and their research depends on it. And I think that kind of speaks to the efficacy and the insight of the Trump higher ed agenda, which is you can make them come to the table. You, as May Mailman told me, conservatives have a seat at the table now and Harvard has to come sit.

[David Remnick]

After all your reporting about this, and you've been reporting about this not just for this piece, but for quite a long time, what do you think the end game of the conservative movement is when it comes to higher education? At what point do they feel mission accomplished?

[Emma Greene]

I think the goal is culture change. And what's interesting to me, this is something I wrote about in this piece, but I've been reflecting on throughout my reporting, is this shifted relationship to federal power. Conservatives learning to stop worrying and love federal power. The idea that they're in charge of the government, they can do stuff and they want to do stuff and they want to use the levers that are available to them to make change. There's a recognition among the people that I interviewed that the administration cannot come in and script to universities. This is what you will teach, and this is the degrees that you will offer, and just script it from top to bottom. First of all, that would be not legally possible. And it also, I think, in some ways violates core instincts that conservatives have around academic freedom, because a lot of these people have been on elite campuses and had the experience of being told that, you know, their views weren't acceptable and, you know, been pushed around intellectually. A lot of them have a reflexive rejection of that. But I also think there's this other impulse, which is to say, okay, we're in charge. We think higher ed is a problem. We think the culture of higher ed is a bigger problem for the American populace and American culture than just the campuses. We're going to try to change this.

[David Remnick]

We've mentioned a number of times along the way in this discussion about antisemitism and in the administration, it seems to me it's a given that antisemitism is enormous and prevalent on campus. What if the argument that, of course, there are antisemites at a university, there are anti Semites at a gas station, there are anti Semites in society, and there's probably no doubt that antisemitism has been exacerbated in recent years. But this also comes at a time for the last two years, there have been demonstrations on college campuses about the Middle east, the war in Gaza, and that an enormous number of the demonstrators, I would argue the great majority of them, were not anti Semites, but rather they were outraged about the way this war was waged. There's a difference, and I am quite concerned, to put it mildly, that this is being used as a cudgel on campus.

[Emma Greene]

I think some of it is an earnest concern for what are clearly some instances of Jewish students facing harassment on their campuses, Jewish students being blocked from accessing their classrooms or libraries, Jewish students not being able to cross through a certain part of the campus because it's a Jewish exclusion zone. These things, I think, are issues of real concern. And I think there are people in the administration who see those as illegal legitimately. So, yes. And they want campuses to change it. Okay, I think that's one piece. I think clearly there is also this impossible to define boundary between what is anti Semitism and what is anti Zionism or anti Israel sentiment or whatever. They see a really strong and expansive definition of antisemitism, which is to say, if you are critiquing or deconstructing the colonial nature of Israel or whatever it.

[David Remnick]

Is that by nature is anti Semitic.

[Emma Greene]

That, that by nature is anti Semitic. Okay. So a lot of people disagree with that, right? A lot of people agree with that and a lot of people disagree with that. It's a very contested area. And I think there is an argument then by critics who would say, actually a lot of this is just using the Jews. It's just using the Jews to crack down on campuses that you hate. And there's craziness that happened after October 7th. You were very politically opportunistic and are using that now to your advantage to try to bring universities to heel.

[David Remnick]

Let me ask you this. Donald Trump presumably is only going to be president for another few years. Presumably.

[Emma Greene]

You want to explicate on that, David.

[David Remnick]

And it is entirely possible, it's entirely possible that there may be a political pivot ahead of us. A Democrat might be elected. Does the war just go in a different direction?

[Emma Greene]

I think Democrats would say, and a lot of the people I interviewed would say, well, we aren't like them. What they're doing is an abuse of power. We may have a strong agenda, but, you know, at least we follow the law. I don't think anybody on either side is going to cop to coloring outside of the lines in order to aggressively pursue their agenda. But what I will say is that I think we're in this really interesting moment where there's a lot of curiosity on both sides about executive power and being able to forcefully use the presidency to pursue your agenda without the inconvenience of going to Congress. And I don't foresee, without my crystal ball that we're going to be in any less interesting or aggressive times, no matter who becomes president after Trump.

[David Remnick]

Emma Greene, thank you.

[Emma Greene]

Thanks so much.

[David Remnick]

You can read Emma Greene's report inside the Trump administration's assault on Higher education@new yorker.com and you can subscribe to the New Yorker there as well. New yorker.com I'm David Remnick. That's our program for today. Thanks for listening. See you next time.

[Narrator/Announcer]

The New Yorker Radio Hour is a co production of WNYC Studios and the New Yorker. Our theme music was composed and performed by Meryl Garbus of Tune Yards, with additional music by Louis Mitchell. This episode was produced by Max Balton, Adam Howard, David Krasnow, Jeffrey Masters, Louis Mitchell, Jared Paul and Ursula Sommer, with guidance from Emily Bottin and assistance from Michael May, David Gable, Alex Barsch, Victor Guan and Alejandra Deckett. The New Yorker Radio Hour is supported in part by the Cherina Endowment Fund.

[David Remnick]

And now a next level moment from ATT Business. Say you've sent out a gigantic shipment of pillows and they need to be there in time for International Sleep day. You've got AT and T5G so you're fully confident, but the vendor isn't responding and International Sleep Day is tomorrow. Luckily, AT&T 5G lets you deal with any issues with ease, so the pillows will get delivered, delivered and everyone can sleep soundly, especially you. ATT 5G requires a compatible plan and device coverage not available everywhere. Learn [e-mail] 5G Network.

[Narrator/Announcer]

When a cold has you down, it's the little comforts that lift you up. A warm blanket, a cup of tea, and a tissue that actually feels good on your skin. Infused with aloe Kleenex Cooling plus Aloe provides a hint of cooling freshness to help your skin feel restored. So whether your skin is feeling dry, chafed or irritated, you're only one wipe away from helping it feel relieved. The next time you have a cold, get a hint of instant cooling relief with new Kleenex Cooling plus Aloe for whatever happens next, grab Kleenex.