5 Trends To Watch In 2025

Now that the countdown to the new year is over, attention turns to the major developments that could be in store for higher education in 2025.

The past year was a tumultuous one for American colleges and universities. Scores of institutions were forced to contain serious budget deficits. Campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza broke out across the nation. Several prominent university presidents were forced from office. State legislatures continued to attack curricular and diversity initiatives.

A significant decline in the number of new freshmen refreshed concerns about a prolonged downturn in college enrollment, and a bungled rollout of the Free Application for Federal Student Aid caused further havoc in college admissions. And last, but surely not least, the election of Donald Trump as president provoked uncertainty, if not panic, about the federal government’s approach to higher education.

What higher education issues will dominate the scene in 2025? Will it be a better year for colleges and universities, or another year marked by turmoil and controversy? Here are five trends to watch.

Trump’s Higher Education Agenda Emerges

Trump made numerous higher education-related promises during his campaign for the presidency. Now campus leaders will begin to learn how many and which ones of his plans will become reality. Amidst the prevailing uncertainty, five issues will take center stage.

• Will the Department of Education be shut down, as Trump has suggested? That’s not likely, given that it would take a vote by Congress to do so, but what will become of its many programs and funding streams is up in the air. How will Title I, special education, Pell Grants, Title IX enforcement and student loans be affected? Will they be reduced or distributed to other cabinet level agencies like Treasury, the Department of Justice, and Health and Human Services? And how much executive authority might a Republican controlled Department of Education wield? The quick answer is “a lot,” so expect to see the full power of federal oversight redirected to promote favored conservative causes.
• Will the accreditation process be upended, as Trump has pledged? How far will Linda McMahon, Trump’s choice to be Secretary of Education, go in using accreditation as a “secret weapon,” making good on Trump’s promise to “fire the radical left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics.” Or will regional accreditors “comply in advance,” by preemptively removing or revising some of their standards that have attracted the incoming president’s ire? Accreditation will become a major policy lever in 2025.
• For university researchers, another major question is how much the Trump administration will change the priorities of federal research funding agencies like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health (which currently provides about of all federal spending on basic science). Will certain areas of research be restricted? Will peer review of grant proposals be maintained? Trump’s choice of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to lead HHS has rattled many scientists. Kennedy’s proclivity for embracing a variety of debunked ideas suggests a bumpy road ahead for paradigmatic research.
• How far might the incoming administration go in forcing changes in university curricula and other programming, given Trump’s frequent rhetoric about “liberal indoctrination” on campuses? Could federal financial aid be tied to what is or isn’t taught at an institution?
• What will happen to the hundreds of thousands of DACA (Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals) students now enrolled in postsecondary institutions? In a recent Meet the Press interview, Trump said, “we have to do something about the Dreamers,” adding “I will work with the Democrats on a plan.” But those statements stand in stark contrast to his hardline position to immediately begin the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants. A solution to the Dreamers problem has proved elusive over the years, so as welcomed as a breakthrough this year would be, it remains unlikely.

How many of Trump’s promised policy changes will eventually be enacted remains to be seen, but it’s certain the next four years of federal oversight will be among the most challenging that higher ed officials have seen in decades.

Also still unclear is the effect Trump’s policies might have on the general public’s opinion about higher education. Will it continue to erode, adding to existing doubts about the value of a college education? Or might higher ed recover some of its lost trust, with more Americans rediscovering — and wanting — the many benefits of advanced education?

AI Becomes Part of College Infrastructure

During the past few years, discussions about artificial intelligence have focused on its role in teaching and learning and the risks it poses for student cheating and academic integrity. However, with the technology changing so rapidly, look for 2025 to be the year when AI becomes a key element in the infrastructure of most colleges and universities.

Enterprise AI will involve everything from pedagogic enhancements like running courses with AI-produced materials and supplementing tutoring and student success initiatives to improving basic operations like procurement, HR practices, and budgeting and planning. Expect increased use of AI in admissions and financial aid decisions. More institutions will add AI research centers and academic departments, and AI will become an even more essential tool in all kinds of scientfic research.

AI will also emerge as a common component in the curriculum. Ravi Pendse, vice president for information technology and chief information officer at the University of Michigan, has recommended that “every student who graduates from a higher ed institution should have at least one core course in AI or significant exposure to AI tools. We will be doing a disservice to our students if we do not provide opportunities to acquire these skill sets.”

State Legislatures Take On University Governance

New state legislative sessions will begin in January, and, as in years past, there will be hundreds of bills filed dealing with higher education. We can expect to see the usual suspects – anti-tenure bills, prohibitions against DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) initiatives, limitations on the teaching of “divisive concepts” like critical race theory, conceal-and-carry gun protections, and bans against legacy admission preferences.

But look for 2025 to also be a year when more state legislatures challenge the traditional role of faculty senates in university governance. For example, in Texas, Gov. Dan Patrick has tasked state lawmakers with investigating and recommending potential changes to the role faculty senates play in university governance, curriculum development and institutional decision-making.

The concept of shared governance, in which faculty and administrators engage in a collaborative process for making important university decisions, has come under increased attack in recent years through various legislative and even university attempts to curtail faculty’s authority in such matters.

Last year, for example, the Arizona legislature passed House Bill 2735 that would have reduced faculty members’ statutorily protected participation in shared governance at the same time it upgraded the power of public university presidents and the Arizona Board of Regents.

Arizona Governor Katie Hobbs vetoed the bill, but had it become law, it would have constituted a major setback to the role of faculty in that process. Expect more legislative attempts this year aimed at restricting the role of faculty in shared governance .

Financial Challenges Continue

The financial outlook for higher education remains problematic. Recent reports from Moody’s Ratings, S&P Global and Fitch Ratings point to several pressures on the sector, including enrollment challenges and the uncertainties associated with a second Trump term as president.

According to a summary by Inside Higher Education, Moody’s offered the most positive outlook — projecting a stable year. S&P Global Ratings projected a “mixed” picture, with regional, less-selective colleges facing a negative future and well-resourced institutions with a broad enrollment base remaining stable. Fitch had the most negative view, predicting a “deteriorating” outlook for 2025 because of enrollment challenges, tight margins and an “uncertain legislative landscape.”

Last year saw the finances at scores of colleges and universities taking serious downturns. As a result, several nationally prominent institutions had to impose large-scale budget cuts to stem the red ink. As one noteworthy example, just last month Brown University announced it was taking several steps to reduce a $46 million budget deficit.

Look for more institutions being forced this year to make deep cuts to their budgets, including both faculty and staff layoffs. Declarations of financial exigency, mergers and outright closures are also likely to increase.

The Playing Field For College Athletics Continues To Shift

The new year will almost certainly see college athletics continue its increased shift toward commercialism and professionalism. Court decisions, legislative changes, and economic pressures have radically changed the playing field of college athletics.

Just when you thought you began to understand the ins and outs of NIL (name, image, likeness) rights for college athletes, get ready for the new age of revenue sharing. Sometime next summer, assuming that legally sanctioned developments proceed as expected, big-time universities will be able to share a portion of their revenue with their intercollegiate athletes. The amount is expected to be capped between $20 and $22 million per year per institution.

Along with this change, the runaway use of transfer portals, major conference consolidation and realignment, and changes in national tournaments will likely continue. While it would be tempting to hope that these developments would usher in an opportunity for long-needed reforms to big-time college sports, history would suggest that such reforms have been elusive, most often thwarted by the NCAA or higher education institutions themselves.