In light of President Trump’s intensified focus on higher education, top U.S. universities have ramped up their federal lobbying expenditures this year, as disclosed in recent filings. It’s noteworthy that 24 prominent universities and one major university system collectively shelled out around $24 million on lobbying in Washington, which is more than double what they spent during the same timeframe last year.
According to Thomas Holyoke, a political science professor at California State University, Fresno, this increase indicates that “universities are ramping up their lobbying efforts.” They’re aiming to directly influence the White House or, more often, sway members of Congress who supposedly have the president’s ear.
During the first nine months of this year, at least 11 universities, including the University of California (UC) system—which encompasses UC Berkeley and UCLA—each disbursed over $1 million on lobbying. The UC system alone spent upwards of $3.2 million on lobbying activities.
Following closely were Northwestern University, Columbia University, and Johns Hopkins University, together spending more than $4.9 million. Harvard University, embroiled in a court battle against the federal government, has already incurred lobbying costs of $1 million this year.
Yale University also felt the pressure, spending over $1.2 million. The University of Pennsylvania allocated $1.4 million, while Cornell University and the University of Michigan each spent $1.1 million.
As the year progresses, experts anticipate that university spending may continue to soar, particularly as the Trump administration pursues reforms in higher education. Recently, Education Department officials sought to have institutions sign a 10-point funding agreement, a demand that sparked unease among university leaders, leading at least seven institutions to refuse.
Throughout the initial nine months of the year, universities lobbied on a range of issues—from campus safety and federal funding to the nuances of international student visas—as the federal government cut funding and investigated anti-Semitism at various campuses.
Brian Clark, Brown University’s vice president for news and strategic communications, noted that their advocacy efforts target significant issues for students, faculty, and staff, such as funding for scientific research and student financial aid. He mentioned, somewhat candidly, that both public and private universities, like a number of other sectors, have increased lobbying amid the lead-up to a significant tax and spending bill that proposes extensive cuts affecting higher education.
To bolster their influence in Washington, institutions have turned to lobbying firms, spending considerably more than they did previously to maintain their clout. At least 15 universities engaged new lobbying firms after Trump’s election, with notable institutions like MIT, Duke, Brown, and Yale opting for corporate lobbyists after traditionally using their in-house teams.
Among those hired were various firms with close ties to the Trump administration and Republican members of Congress, such as BGR Government Affairs and Ballard. There are also major firms like Brownstein, Hyatt, Faber, and Schreck, and Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld.
Robert Kelchen, director at the University of Tennessee, pointed out that lobbying now has a more personal touch, as entities try to connect with those who have the president’s ear. It’s not merely about Congress anymore; the balance of power has shifted towards the White House.
Even universities that aren’t directly targeted by the Trump administration are increasing their lobbying investments to address the broader implications of his policies. For instance, Rice University is set to spend $510,000 on federal lobbying this year, while Notre Dame has moved funds into its internal lobbying efforts after years of outsourcing.
Mia McIver, from the American Association of University Professors, remarked on the “climate of fear” the administration is fostering. She criticized university lobbying efforts as misguided attempts to gain favor with a government not aligned with the interests of students or teachers.
Despite an overall increase in lobbying, some institutions reduced their spending in the third quarter. Brown, Cornell, and Northwestern collectively cut spending by tens of thousands, with Brown dropping over $100,000 after negotiating a deal involving the restoration of $500 million in funding. Both Cornell and Northwestern remain in discussions following the freezing of over $1.8 billion crucial to their operations.
The evolving budget proposals under Trump have caused anxiety among universities. Those concerns reflect the ramifications of the so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” which carries significant implications for higher education funding, including potential tax hikes on university endowments and constraints on federal student loans, which could adversely affect graduate programs.
As these lobbying dynamics shift, the relationships between universities and the Trump administration have varied, with some yielding to pressures while others resist. Columbia and Harvard maintained high lobbying expenditures despite scrutiny, with Harvard pursuing legal action against the federal government over funding rescissions that threaten its international student enrollment.
Looking ahead, substantial lobbying spending seems inevitable for universities navigating the complexities of their relationship with the Trump administration, particularly with the onset of the contentious 10-point agreement demanding various reforms in admissions and funding practices.
White House advisor Mae Mehlman noted that schools could still access grants, even without signing the agreement, but that they wouldn’t receive priority in funding or recognition at White House functions. The general atmosphere suggests that universities are adapting to these new demands and pressures, yet the necessity to stay vigilant remains evident.
