Summary of "Today, Explained" Episode: "What Trump Really Wants from Colleges"

Released on August 12, 2025 | Hosts: Sean Rameswaram and Noel King | Part of the Vox Media Podcast Network

1. Supreme Court's Landmark Decision on Affirmative Action

The episode opens with a retrospective look at June 2023, when the Supreme Court delivered a significant ruling that dismantled race-conscious admissions policies, commonly known as affirmative action, at prestigious institutions like Harvard University and the University of North Carolina.

Noel King [00:12]:
"The Supreme Court today struck down race-conscious admissions policies, often called affirmative action at Harvard and the University of North Carolina."

Richard Kahlenberg [00:19]:
"For too long, many universities have wrongly concluded that the touchstone of an individual's identity is not challenges bested, skills built or lessons learned, but the color of their skin."

This decision marked a pivotal shift in higher education, challenging the foundational practices that aimed to foster diverse educational environments through racial considerations.

2. The Trump Administration's Response: A Comprehensive Data Demands

In the wake of the Supreme Court's decision, the Trump administration initiated a sweeping memorandum demanding that all colleges and universities submit detailed data to ensure compliance with the new legal framework.

Noel King [02:27]:
"Last week President Trump signed a memo that makes an ask or makes a demand of colleges and universities. What's the ask?"

Richard Kahlenberg [02:27]:
"Colleges will now have to report data disaggregated by race and gender for three subgroups: all applicants in a given year, all admitted students in a given year, and then the cohort of enrolled students."

The administration's memo aims to scrutinize admissions practices rigorously, asserting that some institutions might be covertly circumventing the Supreme Court's ruling by, for example, requiring applicants to describe personal obstacles as a proxy for racial considerations.

Noel King [02:12]:
"The Trump administration thinks this is a sneaky way of getting around the Supreme Court's ruling and says it's going to require colleges to start submitting data proving that they are not breaking the rules."

3. Implications for Higher Education: Chilling Effects and Wealth Influence

Legal experts express concerns that the administration's stringent data demands could have unintended consequences for universities. Richard Kahlenberg highlights the potential for the memo to inadvertently bolster the role of wealth in admissions processes.

Richard Kahlenberg [03:16]:
"Colleges will have to include what the government has called quantitative measures of applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students' achievements. And those measures will include standardized test scores, high school grade point averages and other applicant characteristics."

There's apprehension that an overemphasis on quantitative metrics like SAT scores and GPAs—factors closely tied to socioeconomic status—might disadvantage underrepresented and low-income students, thereby exacerbating existing inequalities in higher education access.

4. Analyzing Enrollment Data Post-Ruling

The discussion delves into the actual impact of the Supreme Court's decision on college admissions. Kahlenberg notes a noticeable decline in the enrollment of African American and Hispanic students at many elite institutions post-ruling, though some private colleges maintained or even slightly increased their numbers.

Richard Kahlenberg [07:39]:
"About a year ago is when we started to see colleges releasing, as they do every year, publishing the enrollment data broken down by race and ethnicity. And this was the first admission cycle to be completed for which the Supreme Court ruling had an effect."

These variances have fueled suspicions, particularly toward institutions that did not experience declines, prompting the administration to question their admissions practices more intensely.

5. The Debate Over Economic vs. Racial Affirmative Action

A significant portion of the episode is dedicated to dissecting the nuanced differences between race-based and economic-based affirmative action. Kahlenberg, representing a more progressive stance, argues for the effectiveness of class-based considerations in fostering both racial and economic diversity without relying explicitly on racial categories.

Richard Kahlenberg [10:28]:
"There's a disconnect... between a rather simplistic setup that the government's proposing here, which is that, hey, you know, what really matters? Grades and test scores. And colleges are saying, like it or not, that's not how we operate."

He warns that the administration's focus on quantifiable metrics could undermine holistic admissions processes that consider a broader range of applicant experiences and backgrounds.

6. Insights from Eric Hoover: A Shift in Legal Perspectives

The episode features insights from Eric Hoover, a senior writer at the Chronicle of Higher Education, who discusses the controversial stance of left-leaning legal experts who have supported the dismantling of race-based affirmative action.

Eric Hoover [14:40]:
"I've long been a supporter of racial diversity in colleges... But I've been troubled that elite colleges were racially integrated but economically segregated."

Hoover explains that his support shifted towards advocating for economic affirmative action, aiming to benefit disadvantaged students across all racial groups rather than focusing solely on race. This pivot has aligned some progressive voices with conservative critiques of affirmative action, highlighting the complex interplay between race and class in educational equity debates.

7. The Trump Administration's Broader Agenda and Public Opinion

Kahlenberg expresses skepticism regarding the administration's ultimate objectives, suggesting that a broad opposition to any form of diversity initiatives, regardless of their basis, could be politically untenable.

Richard Kahlenberg [23:27]:
"If Trump says no matter how you achieve this racial diversity, I'm just opposed to racial diversity, he'll have lost the public."

He posits that while transparency in admissions is crucial, the administration's approach might overlook the public's nuanced support for integrated yet non-preferential diversity, potentially alienating a broader electorate.

8. Future Implications and Closing Thoughts

The episode concludes without definitive answers, emphasizing the ongoing uncertainty surrounding the Trump administration's data demands and their long-term impact on higher education. Kahlenberg underscores the delicate balance between ensuring compliance with legal rulings and maintaining equitable admissions practices that consider both race and socioeconomic status.

Richard Kahlenberg [26:32]:
"I'm quite nervous about how the Trump administration will use the data... Essentially incentivizing colleges to admit even more the students who excel on those two measures."

Conclusion

This episode of "Today, Explained" offers a comprehensive examination of the Trump administration's efforts to regulate college admissions in the post-Supreme Court affirmative action landscape. Through expert analysis and detailed discussions, listeners gain insight into the potential ramifications for higher education, the evolving dynamics of affirmative action, and the broader societal implications of these policy shifts.