There is a sentiment among American academics that funding normalcy will eventually return. In the short term, they expect the courts to block the administration¡¯s more heavy-handed actions. In the long term, the Trump presidency will end.

This rose-colored view is misplaced, however ¨C and higher education institutions need to start acting accordingly.

Universities are in a . Donor fundraising has weakened amid controversy and protests. Investor confidence has been shaken as universities issue more debt, increasing borrowing costs. The Trump administration has proposed taxing endowments, which typically account for more than? of elite school annual budgets and are also exposed to market downturns. Most saliently, the administration has frozen some federal research grants ¨C including ¨C which make up between at American universities.

In all likelihood, moreover, the ability and will of the federal government to provide grants will continue to decline while tuition costs may well continue to increase even as Republicans , threatening existing funding structures.

51³Ô¹Ï

Even if the government were willing to continue to provide ever more student loan funding, its ability to do so is likely to decline as the US debt pile grows. Publicly held federal debt will hit by 2029, according to the Congressional Budget Office¡¯s latest prediction. The cost of servicing that debt will account for more than 15 per cent of total federal spending, and it is already the second-largest budget category.

But the cost of debt is likely to expand far more than the CBO expected when it issued its report in January. Recent market turbulence shows how political shocks magnify fiscal stress. Unparalleled use of executive powers ¨C from to ¨C suggests the institutional stability of the US is fraying.

51³Ô¹Ï

The Trump administration has already erased nearly and driven investors into risk?off mode, sending Treasury yields . The are now high. The dollar was already to competing currencies and ; if the US loses its exorbitant privilege as the world¡¯s reserve currency, it will pay even more on its debts and struggle to finance its trade deficit (among other compounding economic issues). Higher borrowing costs feed directly into the federal interest bill, accelerating the squeeze on spending.

When Congress goes hunting for savings, politically resilient programmes ¨C social security, Medicare, defence ¨C tend to be shielded. Research spending and campus?based aid are easier to cast as ¡°luxuries.¡± The dynamic is not new: in 2008, vice-presidential candidate Sarah?Palin for fruit fly research, portraying it as the epitome of waste. Once such funds are axed, experience shows they are slow to return.

Rising Treasury yields push up the reference rate for student loans, which are typically indexed to 10?year bonds (as is institutional university debt). Meanwhile, inflationary pressure would raise tuition, forcing students to borrow more. Unaffordable schools mean might be willing to pay, further reducing university revenue.

This dispiriting long-term prognosis for the funding environment means that universities should begin making structural changes straight away to enable their survival. Initial decision-making should focus on core missions, administrative processes and technological efficiencies.

51³Ô¹Ï

Schools should ensure every dollar supports their core value proposition. For example, most athletics programmes drain resources and ; almost all athletics departments, even at , operate at a loss even after accounting for alumni donations. When tuition dollars subsidise varsity tennis ¨C or luxurious ?such as lazy rivers ¨C colleges should explore whether they can trim some of their prestige athletic programmes, which are ultimately just entertainment for the public rather than scholar-athlete programmes.

Some academic offerings also fail a cost?benefit test. A study of 4,500 programmes published in 2022 found that deliver a negative lifetime return on investment. Departments with chronically poor outcomes should be first in line for consolidation.

Administration of American universities has become , with on student outcomes. Part of the bloat is driven by student services and fulfilling government and grant requirements. Services considered out of direct scope of the school¡¯s mission, such as new on-campus housing, could be provided by the private sector; administrators should engage in thorough discussions with donors to streamline grant administration and lobby aggressively to rationalise government regulatory compliance requirements.

Finally, schools should adopt technology-driven efficiency measures. Cloud-based enterprise resource planning and student information systems can collapse redundant processes. Universities human resources, finance and student records on a single platform, eliminating manual forms and costly legacy servers.

51³Ô¹Ï

Procurement and vendor management can be augmented with AI (such as Pipefy, Coupa). So can some facilities and space management, functions such as recruitment and scheduling, and admissions and enrolment screenings. Digital self-services for students can cut back-office support requirements.

Universities should at the very least come to grips with the fact that the world has changed permanently. By preparing now, they might continue to survive in a more resource-scarce world.

51³Ô¹Ï

Nathan Decety is a macroeconomics strategy consultant and an officer in the US Army.