The U.S. Supreme Court split 4-4 on the Oklahoma religious charter school issue. St. Isadore of Seville Catholic School applied for public funding to sponsor an online religious school. The tie decision means that the last decision–which ruled against the proposal–stands.
Justice Amy Coney Barrett recused herself because of a previous relationship with one of the school’s founders.
The decision was unsigned, but one of the Court’s conservative Justices voted with the three liberal Justices to produce a tie vote.
Remember, this is a Court whose conservative Justices claim to be originalists. Their decisions on matters of church and states indicate a flexible, if not hypocritical, application of “originalism.” Over more than two centuries, the U.S. Supreme Court has struggled to maintain separation of church and state. They have found exceptions to Thomas Jefferson’s “wall of separation, allowing public funds for textbooks and state-mandated services, but over the years the courts attempted to avoid the state paying for tuition or teachers’ salaries.
Yet this Court seems to laying the groundwork for tearing that Wall down completely. In previous decisions, the conservative majority has ruled that failure to fund religious schools was a denial of religious freedom.
Such a conclusion does not align with Originalism. No matter how hard Justice Clarence Thomas or Justice Sam Alito scours the historical record, they are unable to build a case that the Founding Fathers or the Supreme Court want the public to subsidize the cost of religious or private schools.
The only thing “original” about their recent decisions requiring states to pay tuition at religious schools in Maine and Montana and capital costs at a religious school in Missouri is their conclusion. They invented a right out of whole cloth.
If someone asked you which of Trump’s policies was the most catastrophic, what would you say? His personal attacks on law firms that had the nerve to represent clients he didn’t like? His unleashing of ICE to threaten and arrest people who have committed no crime? His efforts to intimidate the media? His assault on free speech, freedom of the press, and academic freedom? His blatant disregard for the Constitution?
All of these are horrible, despicable, and vile.
Yet one of his grievances burns deeper than the other. This is his contempt for science.
His first show of irrational hatred for science was his selection of the utterly unqualified Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as Secretary of Health and Human Services. He is a conspiracy theorist with no experience in science or medicine. RFK has been a one-man wrecking crew.
Then he used his authority to close down university research centers. These centers are working on cures for the most intractable diseases: cancer, ALS, Alzheimer’s, and more.
Why does Trump hate science? Is it another facet of his ongoing hatred for knowledge, the arts, culture?
President Trump is very much still hung up on the star power that boosted former Vice President Kamala Harris’ ultimately unsuccessful campaign.
In a pair of posts shared to his Truth Social platform Sunday night and Monday morning, Trump criticized several celebrities who publicly endorsed Harris in her months-long bid. Among the stars fueling the former “Apprentice” host’s ire were Beyoncé, Bruce Springsteen, Oprah and Bono. In his caps-lock-laden tirades, Trump accused the Harris camp of illegally paying Springsteen, Beyoncé and other stars to appear at campaign events and throw their support behind the Biden-era VP.
“I am going to call for a major investigation into this matter,” Trump wrote on Sunday, before accusing Harris and her team of paying for endorsements “under the guise of paying for entertainment.”
The Boss did not back down on his fiery rhetoric against Trump on the second night of his “Land of Hopes and Dreams” tour in Manchester, England, on Saturday — a day after Trump lashed out against the legendary singer on Truth Social, calling him an “obnoxious jerk,” a “dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker,” and writing that he should “keep his mouth shut.”
Springsteen didn’t oblige. In a resolute three-minute speech from the Co-op Live venue, Springsteen thanked his cheering audience for indulging him in a speech about the state of America: “Things are happening right now that are altering the very nature of our country’s democracy, and they’re too important to ignore.”
He then repeated many of the lines that he used during his first Manchester show — the same words that upset Trump to begin with, including the administration defunding American universities, the rolling back of civil rights legislation and siding with dictators, “against those who are struggling for their freedoms…”
“In my home, they’re persecuting people for their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. That’s happening now,” Springsteen said. “In America, the richest men are taking satisfaction in abandoning the world’s poorest children to sickness and death. That’s happening now. In my country, they’re taking sadistic pleasure in the pain they inflict on loyal American workers.” In a steady voice, he listed the many concerns of those who oppose Trump, his enablers and his policies.
“They are removing residents off American streets without due process of law and deploying them to foreign detention centers as prisoners. That’s happening now. The majority of our elected representatives have utterly failed to protect the American people from the abuses of an unfit president and a rogue government,” Springsteen said as the crowd applauded and yelled its support. “They have no concern or idea of what it means to be deeply American.” He finished on a positive note.
“The America I’ve sung to you about for 50 years is real, and regardless of its many faults, it’s a great country with a great people, and we will survive this moment. Well, I have hope, because I believe in the truth of what the great American writer James Baldwin said. He said, ‘In this world, there isn’t as much humanity as one would like, but there’s enough.’ ”
Republicans are struggling to get the votes they need to pass Trump’s budget bill. They have a narrow majority in the House of Representatives, and they need almost every Republican vote to put the bill through. Much of the debate focuses on the fate of Medicaid.
Medicaid and Medicare are often confused. Medicare is health insurance for senior citizens, funded by their lifetime deductions from their income. Medicaid is health insurance for low-income persons.
Trump and most of the party want to cut Medicaid to pay for the Trump tax cuts, which are focused on high-income individuals and corporations. Even with deep cuts to Medicaid, the tax cuts will increase the deficits.
Hello from just outside the chambers of House Speaker Mike Johnson.
I am waiting with a handful of other reporters as a small group of House Republicans try to work out a compromise over the party’s “One, Big, Beautiful Bill.” (I am looking for a shorthand for the bill, perhaps OB3?)
Republicans do not have the votes for this — yet. But they could agree at any point in the next day or two. If not, they face a weekend standoff or the possibility of leaving for Memorial Day recess without the progress Johnson has promised.
There is much at stake here. We’d like to pull off one major piece and break down some highlights. Let’s talk about Medicaid.
The basics
Medicaid is the federal health care program for low-income Americans.
CHIP is the Children’s Health Insurance Program, which, along with states, provides health care for kids whose families can’t afford health care but earn too much to qualify for Medicaid.
Medicaid expansion is a program in which the federal government pays 90 percent of the cost for any state that expands Medicaid to include those making up to 138 percent of poverty. In 2025, that is $21,597 a year for individuals or $44,367 for families of four.
The federal government and states share the costs of Medicaid. But the rate of federal sharing varies by state, based on a formula.
Something called FMAP, the Federal Matching Assistance Program, helps determine how much each state gets, based on the state’s average income level. These range from a 50 to 77 percent match in the states.
But that match rate is just one half of the formula. The other is how much states spend. Medicaid is often the largest single expenditure for any state. The largest portion of money comes from the state’s general fund or general budget.
But states also use something called a “provider tax,” which is a fee charged on health care providers. Think nursing homes or hospitals.
Here is the thing about the provider tax. It is a system whereby states can actually profit.
Think about it this way. States charge hospitals and nursing homes a fee. They spend that fee on Medicaid, upping the amount the federal government must match. (More state spending triggers more federal match.) And then those federal dollars go back to the state and to the providers, as people get care. So states and providers don’t lose money, in theory.
But they trigger more federal matching.
Why it matters
Fiscal conservative holdouts who oppose the current “One Big Beautiful Bill” want action on these provider taxes and potentially on the FMAP level.
But the latest draft instead reforms Medicaid primarily by setting up new work requirements for “able-bodied” people, or those without disabilities, in the program. That requirement is currently set to phase in over the next two years.
Per the Congressional Budget Office, this Republican Medicaid plan would lead to 8.6 million Americans losing their health insurance over the next decade.
(Changes to the Affordable Care Act would lead to millions more losing coverage, per CBO.)
Republicans argue that these are programs the United States cannot afford.
And all of it revolves around precisely how Medicaid works, and how states pay for it.
WASHINGTON—House Republicans pushed President Trump’s “big, beautiful” tax-and-spending bill past a key hurdle late Sunday night, but the last-minute grappling has them colliding with a stark reality: The plan won’t reduce federal budget deficits and would make America’s fiscal hole deeper.
The bill could reach the House floor this week, and it is a tenuous balance between the party’s tax-cut wing and factions seeking larger, quicker spending cuts. To get a bill through the House with their 220-213 majority, GOP tax cutters trimmed their ambitions and scheduled some breaks to expire. Many spending hawks, meanwhile, backed the plan while groaning that it doesn’t go far enough fast enough. Others are holding out for more…
Moody’s Ratings, in downgrading the U.S.’s AAA rating on Friday, said it didn’t expect Congress to produce material multiyear spending or deficit reductions. Publicly held federal debt stands at about $29 trillion, nearly double the level when Trump and Republicans passed the 2017 tax law. Nearly $1 in every $7 the U.S. spends goes toward paying interest, more than the country spends on defense.
Trump signed an executive order demanding the defunding of public television (PBS) and National Public Radio (NPR).
Since both are a valuable source of news and information about science, politics, history, nature, significant people and events, their defunding would be a great loss for the American people.
Why does Trump hate PBS?
His hatred originated on Sesame Street in 1988, where he was portrayed as Ronald Grump, a developer who planned to build a huge high-rise building on the site of Sesame Street.
Leonie Haimson, the executive director of Class Size Matters in New York City, is a tireless advocate for reform policies that work. She has spent years collecting research about the benefits of class size reduction and prodding legislators to take action.
She wrote recently about the cross-pollination between New York State and Michigan, where state school board leaders used her research to advocate for lower class sizes.
She wrote:
On April 5 and 6, the Network for Public Education, on whose board I sit, held its annual conference in Columbus, Ohio. More than 400 parents, teachers, advocates, school board members, and other elected officials gathered to learn from each other’s work and be re-energized for the challenges of protecting our public schools from the ravages of budget cuts, right-wing censorship, and privatization.
It was a great weekend to reconnect with old friends, meet new ones, hear from eloquent education leaders, and participate in eye-opening workshops. I led a workshop on the risks of using AI in the classroom, along with Cassie Creswell of Illinois Families for Public Schools, and retired teacher/blogger extraordinaire, Peter Greene. You can take a look at our collective power point presentation here.
At one point, Diane Ravitch, the chair and founder of NPE,introduced each of the board members from the floor. When she told me to stand, I asked her to inform the attendees about the law we helped pass for class size reduction in NYC. She responded, you tell it –and so I briefly recounted how smaller class sizes are supposed to be phased in over the next three yearsin our schools, hoping this might lend encouragement to others in the room to advocate for similar measures in their own states and districts.
Perhaps the personal high point for me was the thrill of meeting Tim Walz, on his birthday no less, who said to me that indeed class size does matter. Here are videos with excerpts from some of the other terrific speeches at the conference.
Then, just four days ago, Prof. Julian Heilig Vasquez, another NPE board member, texted me a link to this news story from the Detroit News:
State Board of Education calls for smaller class sizes after Detroit News investigation
Lansing — Michigan’s State Board of Education approved a resolution Tuesday calling for limits on class sizes to be put in place by the 2030-31 school year, including a cap of 20 students per class for kindergarten through third grade.
The proposal, if enacted by state lawmakers, would represent a sea change for Michigan schools as leaders look to boost struggling literacy rates. Across the state, elementary school classes featuring more than 20 students have been widespread.
Mitchell Robinson, a Democratic member of the State Board of Education, authored the resolution and said action on class sizes was “overdue.”
“Smaller class sizes are going to be a better learning situation for kids and a better teaching situation for teachers,” said Robinson of Okemos, a former music teacher.
A months-long Detroit News investigation published in April found 206 elementary classes — ranging from kindergarten through fifth grade — across 49 schools over the 2023-24 and 2024-25 years that had at least 30 students in them. Among them was a kindergarten class at Bennett Elementary, where the Detroit Public Schools Community District said 30 students were enrolled.
Less than a month after The News’ probe, the Democratic-led State Board of Education, which advises state policymakers on education standards, voted 6-1 on Tuesday in favor of Robinson’s resolution. The resolution said lawmakers should provide funding in the next state budget for school districts with high rates of poverty to lower their student-to-teacher ratios in kindergarten through third-grade classrooms.
By the 2030-31 school year, the resolution said, limits should be instituted to cap class sizes at 20 students per class in kindergarten through third grade, at 23 students per class in fourth grade through eighth grade, and at 25 students per class in high school.
“Many studies show that class size reduction leads to better student outcomes in every way that can be measured, including better grades and test scores, fewer behavior problems, greater likelihood to graduate from high school on time and subsequently enroll in college,” the resolution said.
The resolution added that the Legislature should increase funding to ensure schools are “able to lower class sizes to the mandated levels.”
In an interview, Pamela Pugh, the president of the state board, labeled the resolution an “urgent call” for action. Pugh said the board hasn’t made a similar request in the decade she’s served on the panel.
…Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle have called for action on class sizes after the reporting from The News and as Michigan’s reading scores have fallen behind other states.
During her State of the State address in February, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said just 24% of Michigan fourth graders were able to read proficiently. Michigan invests more per student than most states but achieves “bottom 10 results,” the governor said.
“I think the science would tell us that we’ve got to bring down class sizes,” Whitmer said in April.
On Wednesday, state Sen. Darrin Camilleri, D-Trenton, said he was open to a conversation about timelines for implementing class size limits and about how schools could achieve the proposed standards with staffing and physical space.
As I read the story, I was delighted, of course; and noticed that the class size caps cited in the resolution were identical to those required to be phased in for NYC schools. I also noted language in the resolution that echoed the words in some of our research summaries.
I reached out to Diane to ask her if she knew whether Mitchell Robinson had attended the NPE conference, and she confirmed that indeed he had. I then emailed him to ask if our New Yorklaw had played any role in his decision to introduce the resolution, and he immediately responded,
“Leonie, your work in NYC was the direct model and inspiration for this resolution! I was in your session in Columbus, and went home motivated to put together the resolution, using the figures from your bill and the research base on the website.”
He cautioned me that the proposal still has to be enacted into law, and that it would be “an uphill battle,” as Republicans hadretaken the state House.
Then he added: “But that doesn’t mean we sit on our hands for another 2 years—we need to stay on offense and advance good ideas whenever we can.”
I wholeheartedly agree. This resolution and what may hopefully follow for Michigan students reveals just how importantgatherings like the NPE conference are to enable the exchangeof ideas and positive examples of what’s occurring elsewhere. This sort of interaction can be vital to our collective struggle,not just to defend our public schools from the attempts of Trump et.al. to undermine them, but also to push for the sort of positive changes that will allow all our kids to receive the high qualityeducation they deserve.
May 19, 2025, by Dean Hoke: In my recent blog series and podcast, Small College America, I’ve highlighted the essential role small colleges play in the fabric of U.S. higher education. These institutions serve as academic homes to students who often desire alternatives to larger universities, and as cultural and economic anchors, especially in rural and small-town America, where, according to IPEDS, 324 private nonprofit colleges operate. Many are deeply embedded in the towns they serve, providing jobs, educational access, cultural life, and long-term economic opportunity.
Unfortunately, a wave of proposed federal budget cuts may further severely compromise these institutions’ ability to function—and in some cases, survive. Without intervention, the ripple effects could devastate entire communities.
Understanding the DOE and USDA Budget Cuts
The proposed reductions to the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) budgets present a two-pronged threat to small colleges, particularly those in rural areas or serving low-income student populations.
Department of Education (DOE)
The most significant concerns center on proposed changes to Pell Grants, a vital financial resource for low-income students. One House proposal would redefine full-time enrollment from 12 to 15 credit hours per semester. If enacted, this change would reduce the average Pell Grant by approximately $1,479 for students taking 12 credits. Students enrolled less than half-time could become ineligible entirely.
Additionally, the Federal Work-Study (FWS) and Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants (SEOG) programs face serious threats. The House Appropriations Subcommittee has proposed eliminating both programs, which together provide over $2 billion annually in aid to low-income students.
Programs like TRIO and GEAR UP, which support first-generation, low-income, and underrepresented students, have been targeted in previous proposals; however, current budget drafts maintain level funding. Nonetheless, their future remains uncertain as negotiations continue.
The Title III Strengthening Institutions Program, which funds academic support services, infrastructure, and student retention efforts at under-resourced colleges, received a proposed funding increase in the FY 2024 President’s Budget, though congressional appropriations may differ.
Department of Agriculture (USDA)
The USDA’s impact on small colleges, while less direct, is nonetheless critical. Discretionary funding was reduced by more than $380 million in FY 2024, reflecting a general pullback in rural investment.
Programs like the Community Facilities Direct Loan & Grant Program, which supports broadband access, healthcare facilities, and community infrastructure, were level-funded at $2.8 billion. These investments often benefit rural colleges directly or indirectly by enhancing the communities in which they operate.
While some funding has been maintained, the broader trend suggests tighter resources for rural development in the years ahead. For small colleges embedded in these communities, the consequences could be substantial: delayed infrastructure upgrades, reduced student access to services, and weakened town-gown partnerships.
Why Small Colleges Are Particularly Vulnerable
Small private nonprofit colleges—typically enrolling fewer than 3,000 students—operate on thin margins. Many are tuition-dependent, with over 80% of their operating revenue derived from tuition and fees. They lack the substantial endowments or large alumni donor bases that buoy more prominent institutions during hard times.
What exacerbates their vulnerability is the student profile they serve. Small colleges disproportionately enroll Pell-eligible, first-generation, and minority students. Reductions in federal financial aid and student support programs have a direct impact on student enrollment and retention. If students can’t afford to enroll—or stay enrolled—colleges see revenue declines, leading to cuts in academic offerings, faculty, and student services.
Additionally, small colleges are often located in areas experiencing population decline. The so-called “demographic cliff”—a projected 13% drop in the number of high school graduates from 2025 to 2041 will affect 38 states and is expected to hit rural and non-urban regions the hardest. This compounds the enrollment challenges many small colleges are already facing.
Economic and Social Impact on Rural Towns
The closure of a small college doesn’t just mean the loss of a school; it signifies a seismic shift in a community’s economic and social structure. Colleges often rank among the top employers in their towns. When a college closes, hundreds of jobs disappear—faculty, staff, groundskeepers, maintenance, food services, IT professionals, and more.
Consider Mount Pleasant, Iowa, where the closure of Iowa Wesleyan University in 2023 cost the local economy an estimated $55 million annually. Businesses that relied on student and faculty patronage—restaurants, barbershops, bookstores, and even landlords—felt the immediate impact. Community organizations lost vital volunteers. Town officials were left scrambling to figure out what to do with a sprawling, empty campus in the heart of their city.
Colleges also provide cultural enrichment that is often otherwise absent in small towns. Lectures, concerts, art exhibitions, and sporting events bring together diverse groups and add vibrancy to the local culture. Many offer healthcare clinics, counseling centers, or continuing education for adults—services that disappear with a campus closure.
USDA investments in these communities are often tied to colleges, whether in the form of shared infrastructure, grant-funded development projects, or broadband expansions to support online learning. As these federal investments diminish, so too does a town’s ability to attract and retain both residents and employers.
Real-Life Implications and Stories
The headlines tell one story, but the real impact is felt in the lives of students, faculty, and the surrounding communities.
Presentation College in Aberdeen, South Dakota, ceased operations on October 31, 2023, after citing unsustainable financial and enrollment challenges. Hundreds of students, many drawn to its affordability, rural location, and nursing programs, were forced to reconsider their futures. The college quickly arranged teach-out agreements with over 30 institutions, including Northern State University and St. Ambrose University, which offered pathways for students to complete their degrees. The Presentation Sisters, the founding order, are now seeking a buyer for the campus aligned with their values, while local officials explore transforming the site into a technical education hub to continue serving the community.
Birmingham-Southern College in Alabama, a 168-year-old institution, closed its doors on May 31, 2024, after a $30 million state-backed loan request was ultimately rejected despite initial legislative support. The college had a $128 million annual economic impact on Birmingham and maintained partnerships with K–12 schools, correctional institutions, and nonprofits. The closure triggered the transfer of over 150 students to nearby colleges like Samford University, but left faculty, staff, and the broader community facing economic and cultural losses. A proposed sale of the campus to Miles College fell through, leaving the site’s future in limbo.
Even college leaders who have weathered the past decade worry they’re nearing a breaking point. Rachel Burns of the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) has tracked dozens of recent closures and warns that many institutions remain at serious risk, despite their best efforts. “They just can’t rebound enrollment,” she says, noting that pandemic aid only temporarily masked deeper structural vulnerabilities.
Potential Closures and Projections
College closures are accelerating across the United States. According to the State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO), 467 institutions closed between 2004 and 2020—over 20% of them private, nonprofit four-year colleges. Since 2020, at least 75 more nonprofit colleges have shut down, and many experts believe this pace is quickening.
A 2023 analysis by EY-Parthenon warned that 1 in 10 four-year institutions—roughly 200 to 230 colleges—are currently in financial jeopardy. These schools are often small, private, rural, and tuition-dependent, serving large numbers of first-generation and Pell-eligible students. Even a modest drop of 5–10% in tuition revenue can be catastrophic for colleges already operating on razor-thin margins.
Compounding the challenge, the Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia released a 2024 predictive model forecasting that as many as 80 additional colleges could close by 2034 under sustained enrollment decline driven by demographic shifts. This figure accounts for closures only—not mergers—and spans public, private nonprofit, and for-profit sectors.
Layered onto these economic and demographic vulnerabilities are the potential impacts of proposed federal education funding cuts. The Trump administration’s FY 2026 budget blueprint once again targets student aid programs, proposing the elimination or severe reduction of subsidized student loans, TRIO, GEAR UP, Federal Work-Study, and the Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant (SEOG). Although similar proposals from Trump’s first term (FY 2018–2021) were rejected by Congress, the renewed push signals ongoing political pressure to curtail support for low-income and first-generation students.
To assess the potential impact of these policy shifts, a policy stress test was applied to both the Philadelphia Fed model and the historical closure trend. The analysis suggests that if these cuts were enacted, an additional 50 to 70 closures could occur by 2034.
Philadelphia Fed model baseline: 80 projected closures
With policy cuts: Up to 130 closures
Historical average trend (2020–2024): ~14 closures/year
10-year projection (status quo): ~140 closures
With policy cuts: Up to 210 closures
In short, depending on the scenario, anywhere from 130 to 210 additional college closures may occur by 2034. Institutions most at risk are those that serve the very populations these federal programs are designed to support. Without intervention—through policy, partnerships, or funding—the number of closures could rise sharply in the years ahead.
These scenario-based projections are summarized in the chart below.
Why Should Congress Care
According to the National Association of Independent Colleges and Universities (NAICU), a private, nonprofit college or university is located in 395 of the 435 congressional districts. These institutions are not only centers of learning but also powerful economic engines that generate:
$591.5 billion in national economic impact
$77.6 billion in combined local, state, and federal tax revenue
3.4 million jobs supported or sustained
1.1 million people are directly employed in private nonprofit higher education
1.1 million graduates are entering the workforce each year
As such, the fate of small private colleges is not just a higher education issue—it is a national economic and workforce development issue that should command bipartisan attention.
Strategies for Resilience and Policy Recommendations
There are clear, actionable strategies to reduce the risk of widespread college closures:
Consortium and shared governance models: Small colleges can boost efficiency and sustainability by sharing administrative functions, faculty, academic programs, technology infrastructure, and enrollment services. This allows institutions to reduce operational costs while maintaining their distinct missions and brands. In some cases, these arrangements evolve into formal mergers. An emerging example is the Coalition for the Common Good, a new model of mission-aligned institutions that maintain individual identities but operate under shared governance. This structure offers long-term financial stability without sacrificing institutional purpose or community impact.
Strategic partnerships: Collaborations with community colleges, online education providers, regional employers, and nonprofit organizations can expand reach, enhance curricular offerings, and improve student outcomes. These partnerships can support 2+2 transfer pipelines, workforce-aligned certificate programs, and hybrid learning models that meet the needs of adult learners and working professionals, often underserved by traditional residential colleges.
State action: States should establish stabilization grant programs and offer targeted incentive funding to support mergers, consortium participation, and regional collaboration. Policies that protect institutional access in rural and underserved areas are especially urgent, as closures can leave entire regions without viable higher education options. States can also play a role in convening institutions to plan for shared services and long-term viability.
Federal investment: Continued and expanded funding for Pell Grants, TRIO, SEOG, Title III and V, and USDA rural development programs is essential to sustaining the institutions that serve low-income, first-generation, and rural students. These investments should be treated as critical infrastructure, not discretionary spending, given their role in expanding educational equity, enhancing workforce readiness, and promoting rural economic development. Consistent federal support can help stabilize small colleges and enable long-term planning.
College leaders, local governments, and community groups must advocate in unison. The conversation should move beyond institutional survival to one of community survival. As the saying goes, when a college dies, the town begins to die with it.
Conclusion
Small colleges are not expendable. They are vital threads in the educational, economic, and cultural fabric of America, especially in rural and underserved communities. The proposed federal budget cuts across the Departments of Education and Agriculture represent a direct threat not only to these institutions but to the communities that depend on them.
If policymakers fail to act, the consequences will be widespread and enduring. The domino effect is real: reduced funding leads to fewer students, tighter budgets, staff layoffs, program cuts, and eventually, campus closures. And when those campuses close, entire towns are left to absorb the fallout—economically, socially, and spiritually.
We have a choice. We can invest in the future of small colleges and the communities they anchor, or we can stand by as they vanish—along with the promise they hold for millions of students and the towns they call home.
References
U.S. Department of Education, FY 2025 Budget Summary and Justifications
National Association of Student Financial Aid Administrators (NASFAA), Analysis of Proposed Pell Grant and Campus-Based Aid Reductions
State Higher Education Executive Officers Association (SHEEO) and Higher Ed Dive, Data on College Closures and Institutional Viability Trends
Fitch Ratings, Reports on Financial Pressures in U.S. Higher Education Institutions
Iowa Public Radio and The Hechinger Report, Case Studies on Rural College Closures and Community Impact
Council for Opportunity in Education (COE), Statements and Data on TRIO Program Reach and Effectiveness
Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, Predictive Modeling of U.S. College Closures (2024)
EY-Parthenon, 2023 Report on Financial Vulnerability Among Four-Year Institutions
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Rural Development and Community Facilities Loan & Grant Program Summaries
Interviews and commentary from institutional leaders, TRIO program directors, and SHEEO policy staff
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), Data on Enrollment, Institution Type, and Geographic Distribution
Dean Hoke is Managing Partner of Edu Alliance Group, a higher education consultancy. He formerly served as President/CEO of the American Association of University Administrators (AAUA). With decades of experience in higher education leadership, consulting, and institutional strategy, he brings a wealth of knowledge on small colleges’ challenges and opportunities. Dean is the Executive Producer and co-host for the podcast series Small College America.
I have been following the case of Kseniia Petrova, a cancer researcher at Harvard, with a sense of outrage and helplessness. She attended a conference in France and returned last February with samples of frog embryos for her laboratory. She was detained by Customs for failing to declare them and has been incarcerated ever since. The other day, the charge of bringing in an undeclared item was upgraded to a felony, and this young woman faces a possible 20 years in prison.
Is she the kind of dangerous, violent criminal that Trump promised to deport? No.
Jay Kuo is both a lawyer and a playwright, whose blog is called The Status Kuo. He writes about the case today in hopes of rallying support for her. Petrova left Russia to protest the invasion of Ukraine. If she is deported there, she will be immediately jailed.
He writes:
We need to pay close attention to the case of Kseniia Petrova. She’s a Russian-born researcher who was detained by Customs and Border Protection back in February when traveling back from a conference in France.
Like others caught up in the “immigration crackdown” by the Trump administration, Petrova has been held in ICE detention ever since. In her case, a custom agent alleged she had failed to declare frog embryo samples that she’d picked up from a colleague to bring back to the U.S.
For this, the government canceled Petrova’s visa and threatened to deport her. But her case is about far more than frog embryos.
For starters, her home country is Russia, where she was outspoken against the war in Ukraine and was part of the exodus of Russians opposed to Putin’s invasion. She now faces persecution or worse for her anti-war activism should she be sent home, even while the Trump administration bends over backwards for Putin and the Kremlin.
She’s also a researcher and valued member of the Harvard medical sciences community, which has been the constant target of the Trump White House. Being deliberately cruel to Petrova means Trump gets to traumatize Harvard in yet another way.
Petrova has been languishing in a detention facility in Louisiana, but things had begun to move her way. This week, Judge Christina Reiss, a federal judge in Vermont hearing Petrova’s habeas petition, questioned government lawyers over whether Customs and Border Protection actually had the authority to cancel Petrova’s visa. Judge Reiss had set a bail hearing for next Friday, and many viewed it as a hopeful signal that she was set to release Petrova from custody.
Not so fast, said the government. What they did next was frankly shocking, even in this corrosive and highly politicized environment.
The government charges Petrova criminally
Apparently out of sheer spite, and faced with the prospect of losing another case where they had egregiously overreached and overreacted, the government charged Petrova with felony smuggling. That’s a charge that carries up to 20 years in prison.
Felony smuggling laws are intended to deter profiteers from deliberately carrying in endangered species, not to punish researchers who fail to declare frog embryo samples.
Normally when you fail to declare something that should have been itemized at customs, you could face a fine. It’s considered a minor infraction. And in this case, it isn’t even clear that frog embryos count. According to Petrova’s lawyer, customs experts conveyed that that she “did not need a permit to bring in her non-living scientific samples that are not considered biological material under U.S. Customs law.”
The criminal complaint itself is a just single page attaching an affidavit from a Homeland Security agent. In that affidavit, the agent makes much of the fact that, after checking her text messages on her phone (!!), he learned that Petrova apparently had been told by a colleague that she should declare the samples. But she had joked about not having a plan to carry them in, saying, “I won’t be able to swallow them.”
When asked, Petrova told the agent that she was not sure she needed to declare anything. (I should add here that advice from a colleague is not the same as legal advice from a customs lawyer.) Per the Customs and Border Protection website, U.S. government agencies “regulate the importation of biological materials that can pose a threat to agriculture, public health, and natural resources” (emphasis added). But frog embryo samples don’t pose any threat. So it’s hardly clear that Petrova knew these had to be declared.
“Yesterday’s hearing in federal district court in Vermont confirmed that Customs and Border [Protection] officials had no legal basis for cancelling Kseniia’s visa and detaining her,” wrote Petrova’s attorney. The judge in Vermont seemed prepared to agree and to rule that canceling her visa over this was excessive.
Filing criminal charges now? Really?!
When someone is taken into custody by immigration officials, it is customary to charge them first with any crimes they have committed. This makes sense because criminal charges, which are far more serious, should always take priority over any immigration violations, which are normally just civil violations.
Once the individual has been prosecuted, explained Ingrid Eagly, co-director of the Criminal Justice Program at the UCLA School of Law, to the New York Times, the authorities can begin the process of removing them from the country. In Petrova’s case, “they put her in removal proceedings, and now are saying it is a criminal case.” Dr. Eagly explained that this was a “ratcheting up of the charges,” an atypical move that “seems retaliatory, designed for a particular end.”
Prof. Marisol Orihuela of Yale Law School told the Times that this was the first time she had seen a case where criminal charges were brought against someone who had already been in removal proceedings for so long. “The question it raises in my mind is why would it take three months” to decide to charge Petrova, remarked Prof. Orihuela. “It doesn’t really quite add up,” she added, wondering why the government would “need this amount of time if you thought this was a crime worth charging.”
Nor does it make any sense that after three whole months, there is still no further evidence beyond what one lone agent said Petrova did and said under questioning just before she was taken in. There are no interviews of Petrova’s colleagues. There is no showing, beyond a text thread with a colleague, that Petrova knew such samples must be declared. They’ve had three months, but the case has not advanced beyond what was known at the time.
On top of this, the timing of the charge is highly suspicious. Judge Reiss had only this week questioned whether Petrova’s visa revocation was proper, and from all accounts she would have likely ordered Petrova’s release on bail next Friday.
Here’s what I want to know. Who in the administration ordered Petrova to be criminally charged? Was there coordination between an overzealous Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Justice? When was the charging decision made? Did anyone object to it? Why was there apparently no investigation to obtain further evidence to support the charge?
Playing dangerous politics, holding political prisoners
Petrova’s case has been prominent in the headlines. She has received support from all across the country and the world. A feature on her plight was published in the New York Times. Her work as a scientist studying images for cancer diagnostics has been widely lauded, while her detention has been condemned as a pointless harm, not just to her but for medical science and the world.
It would not surprise me if orders to do everything possible to continue to punish and hold Petrova came from the very top of the Trump administration. After all, moving to criminally charge Petrova, three months after she was first detained, makes zero sense unless your point is to make an example of her and thumb your nose at customary prosecutorial practices.
The administration has basically said, “Oh, so you think you can get her out? We’ll stop you, just to show that we can. To hell with your ‘due process’ and ‘civil rights.’ We’re in charge, and she’s not going anywhere.”
This is of course the same position the government has taken with Kilmar Abrego García and all the other political prisoners in El Salvador’s CECOT facility.
I say “political prisoners” because that is precisely what they’ve now become. Petrova, Abrego García, and others are being held for purely political reasons, by or at the request of the U.S. government. It’s not because they’ve committed any actual crimes or are in any way deserving of the treatment they are receiving. Rather, it’s because the administration wants to telegraph strength and cruelty, just like any other fascist regime.
It’s also why the White House is so desperate to cast them as “criminals” and stretch the laws and the truth, even to absurd degrees, to fit its narrative. That makes this fight not just about achieving justice for those wrongly arrested and held, but also about rejecting the raw politicization of their cases and of our immigration and criminal justice systems.
Indeed, fighting for justice for Petrova and others now means no less than fighting for the rule of law, democracy and the very soul of our nation, now put at serious risk by the tyranny of the Trump regime.
Petrova is not a dangerous criminal. She has not raped or murdered anyone. She is a researcher trying to find a cure for cancer.
As I was scrolling through Twitter on Sunday, I read a bunch of anti-Biden tweets, so I added my two cents.
I tweeted:
Maybe it’s just me, but I would rather have Joe Biden (surrounded by highly competent people) asleep than Donald Trump at his best (surrounded by Fascists, haters, and law-breakers) on his best day. @jaketapper @AlexThomp
I once wrote on this blog that I would never criticize Joe Biden because he was running against a man who was totally unfit for the job. Several Trumpers has since written to complain about that statement, saying that it demonstrated my bias, but time has confirmed my view.
Regardless of his mental state, Biden would never have appointed a crackpot to run the National Institutes of Health. He would never have defunded USAID, NPR, PBS, FEMA, the Voice of America, the Consumer Product Safety Commission, and the U.S. Department of Education. Nor would he have let loose Elon Musk’s DOGS to ransack federal agencies, fire thousands of expert career officers, mess with the Social Security Administration, and hoover up all our personal data, for whatever nefarious purposes he chooses. Unlike Trump, Biden would not have terrorized institutions of higher education and threatened academic freedom and freedom of speech. Unlike Trump, Biden respected the independence of the Justice Department and the FBI and did not put political lackeys in charge of them or treat them as his personal attack dogs.
Frankly, I can’t keep track of the many federal programs and agencies that Trump has recklessly destroyed. If anyone knows of such a compilation, please share it. Trump and Musk have vandalized our government, and despite the thousands of injudicious, capricious firings, have not saved any money at all.
Then I came across this post by Julie Roginsky, which appeared shortly after the nation learned that former President Biden has prostate cancer, which has metasticized to his bones. She is writing about the new book by Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson that aims to prove that President Biden was experiencing severe mental and physical decline while he was in office and that his family and staff collaborated to conceal that decline from the public.
She wrote:
Maybe now they’ll leave Joe Biden alone — or, better yet, spend some time assessing his actual presidency, both in isolation and in comparison with what has followed.
Stick it to legacy media, which has consistently beaten up on a decent man.
Was Biden operating at half-capacity throughout his term? Was he operating at 10%? Here are some facts, regardless of the opinions rendered by amateur neurologists all over media these days.
“Biden inherited an economy that was flat on its back because of the pandemic, and he’s bequeathing an economy that’s flying high,” said Mark Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s, which just lowered the credit rating of the United States for the first time in history under Donald Trump.
Biden’s economic tenure was marred by the inflation that was a hangover of the Covid pandemic. But the numbers don’t lie about the rest of it. On his watch, the Dow Jones rose by over 40%, while the Nasdaq rose by almost 50%. The economy expanded by 11% during his four years in office (compared with under 9% during Donald Trump’s first term). Despite inflation, retail sales grew by more than 20%. Household net worth was 28% higher when Biden left office than when he took over from Trump. Unemployment was 2% lower at the end of Biden’s tenure than when he entered the White House.
Most importantly, no one was predicting the demise of our 250 year American experiment while Biden was in charge.
Now, Biden is diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer, which has spread to his bones. You don’t need to be an oncologist to know that the prognosis is not great.
So maybe now is a good time to reflect not just on Biden’s tenure but on what this obsession with his mental health means for the future of this country. Reporters who have spent the past several weeks on the fainting couch about “the cover up” of his mental condition in the Oval Office have consistently failed to acknowledge the successes of his tenure. They have failed to compare that tenure, both in economic and in governance terms, to what has followed. They have never stopped beating up a man who is no longer in the White House to take stock of the mental health of the current occupant of the White House.
Trump’s mental decline (which is apparent to anyone who has lived in the New York media market for the past four decades) is not happening, you see — because he does not stutter, because he shouts with vigor, because he “truths” at all hours of the night, unlike a septuagenarian who might require more rest.
In short, all this is just “Trump being Trump.” It cannot be that he is stark raving mad.
And Trump’s economic record, the one that is driving inflation ever higher, the one that is destroying consumer sentiment, the one that has driven both the stock and bond markets crazy? Never mind all that. Have you listened to Biden’s conversation with Robert Hur? Now that’s a scandal.
Look, I really don’t care if Biden was confined to a gurney for four years. The facts speak for themselves. The country was more prosperous, the democracy was more stable, the nation was more respected, the people were less terrified, when he was in charge.
Yes, Biden’s staff may have covered up his medical condition while he was in the Oval Office. But the real scandal is the cover up happening now. The media so obsessed with kicking Biden now that’s gone that it is ignoring the very real danger that his successor poses to us all.
I am not a religious person but I hope that whatever higher power exists will look out for Joe Biden. He is a good man, who did well on behalf of the people who entrusted him with the presidency. That is a hell of a lot more than could be said about his successor.
I repeat:
Maybe it’s just me, but I would rather have Joe Biden (surrounded by highly competent people) asleep than Donald Trump at his best (surrounded by Fascists, haters, and law-breakers) on his best day. @jaketapper @AlexThomp
