The 2025-2026 Common Application will launch on August 1, 2025, marking the official start of an increasingly politicized admissions cycle. This year, families are weighing more than rankings and acceptance rates. With elite universities facing federal investigations, many parents, administrators, students, and applicants are asking: How will the political climate affect application decisions, and what kind of campus experience can students expect upon arrival?
Title VI Investigations Intensify Political Pressures on Campus
In May 2024, the Biden administration reported that it had opened investigations into 100 higher education institutions for violations of the 1964 Title VI Act, alleging instances of antisemitism on college campuses. Now, over a year later, the Trump administration has deployed Title VI against sixty different higher education institutions, this time for infractions relating to the abolition of DEI initiatives countrywide, as well as for select cases of antisemitism. But whereas the Biden administration leveraged a cooperative approach with universities, supporting internal assessment and adjustment, the Trump administration has taken a more forceful approach. According to Forbes contributor Michael T. Nietzel, some elite institutions have experienced what he describes as “painful” consequences following coercive “federal shakedowns.” As a result of these conflicts, prospective students, domestic and international, face new and unexpected hurdles as they consider schools that were, just a short time ago, no-brainers for most applicants.
Columbia’s Settlement: A Price for Compliance
On July 23, 2025, Columbia University agreed to pay $200 million to the federal government and begin submitting compliance reports to an externally appointed administrator. While the Columbia declined to admit any wrongdoing, the university pledged to “reform” its approach to antisemitism through enhanced safety measures on campus. The university framed the settlement as part of a wider effort to reinstate hundreds of millions of dollars in frozen federal funding and restore its ability to apply for regular federal funding opportunities, but current students, alumni, and prospective applicants may view Columbia’s decision differently.
Zooming out, this settlement may be just the beginning. Harvard, too, remains under investigation for “allowing anti-Semitic harassment and discrimination to persist unchecked,” and the Department of Education has threatened to review its accreditation. Unlike Columbia’s conciliatory approach, Harvard has responded to these new threats, along with $2 billion worth of federal funding cuts, by suing the administration. While some prominent voices have praised Harvard’s response, prospective students may be concerned about the potential ramifications of this ongoing dispute.
For Families, Culture Is Now a Key Filter
As families plan college visits and students weigh whether or not to apply to their top-choice school in the binding Early Decision round, questions about the broader culture and ethical commitments of each institution are taking on a new urgency. In the past, this type of scrutiny often focused on state politics. For instance, some prospective students have reportedly avoided universities in Florida or Texas due to legislation impacting classroom content and restrictive abortion laws. Now, though, cultural and political concerns have shifted from the local environment to individual institutions themselves, even those in traditionally progressive states. For example, both the University of Pennsylvania and the University of California, Berkeley are facing heightened scrutiny for their responses to campus protests and federal investigations. Meanwhile, institutions in red states, like the University of Kentucky and Tulane University, have also drawn attention from the Trump administration, specifically for their affiliation with the “Ph.D. Project,” a nonprofit organization that supports students from underrepresented backgrounds.
It’s still too early in the admissions cycle to know whether these dynamics will significantly shift application numbers. But one thing is clear: families are increasingly weighing brand alignment alongside more traditional concerns like rankings, costs, and location. Ivy League schools, in particular, are being compared based on cultural and political identity. Just as consumers might think twice about supporting a company based on its social stances—whether that’s buying a Patagonia vest or eating at Chick-fil-A—students and parents are using college selection to express values and identity.
What These Federal Crackdowns Mean for Campus Life
When assessing colleges, students and families should consider how increased administrative oversight may directly shape campus life. The impact will vary widely depending on a student’s identity, field of study, and the kind of college experience they’re seeking. STEM-focused undergraduate students, and graduate students in all fields, are most likely to feel the effects of the Trump administration’s funding cuts because they will directly impact research and teaching assistant opportunities. For example, the $2 billion removed from Harvard University’s budget threatens a number of high-profile medical and scientific studies. And in March 2025, the University of Pennsylvania lost a significant source of funding when Trump issued an executive order that affected the National Institute of Health’s revenue and found itself in the awkward position of having to rescind graduate student offers. Indeed, it’s telling that Columbia’s Office of the President cited federal grant eligibility as a key reason for agreeing to the administration’s demands.
Students who claim a minority identity and/or are not U.S. citizens will need to research individual school policies as well as any current pending legal action on the part of the administration. Harvard’s quarrel with Trump is the extreme example: in March, the administration revoked the university’s ability to grant travel visas, though Harvard’s deal with the University of Toronto may circumvent this issue for now. Students seeking identity-based communities on campus will need to stay informed about current school policies that may affect these organizations and affinity groups. Currently, universities are unclear about whether they will be able to provide financial support to clubs that specify a membership identity, such as those affiliated with the University of Michigan’s Office for Multi-Ethnic Student Affairs.
At elite institutions, students may feel increased scrutiny, not only from the press but also from within their universities. If other schools follow Columbia’s lead in appointing an external monitor, it could signal broader shifts in how disciplinary matters and protests are handled—something to consider for socially minded prospective students. Increased oversight may also change how student data is handled: many of the universities under investigation, including Columbia, the University of Virginia, and George Mason University, have been asked to hand over international student and disciplinary records. Prospective students with infractions on their record or who are not U.S. citizens may need to consider how this increased oversight could affect them directly.
The silver lining to this instability could be a diversification in where top students choose to apply and ultimately study. Families looking for a top-tier education without the harsh glare of the national spotlight are considering the “New Ivies,” small liberal arts colleges, or Canadian options like the University of Toronto or the University of British Columbia, which have seen a notable rise in U.S. applicants.
Dartmouth: A Contrast with Columbia
While many colleges and universities nationwide are feeling the effects of mounting federal oversight, Columbia and Dartmouth offer two of the most visible and contrasting case studies to make headlines this month. Under President Sian Beilock, Dartmouth College has adopted a policy of “institutional restraint,” emphasizing that administrators should speak on behalf of the college only sparingly. The approach draws on the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, which argued that universities should refrain from taking public stances on political issues to protect academic freedom and viewpoint diversity.
Dartmouth, dubbed the “Ivy League’s Switzerland,” has declined to join peer institutions in signing public letters condemning recent federal actions related to higher education. This includes a widely circulated April 2025 statement opposing what academic leaders described as “unprecedented government overreach.” Beilock and her administration have framed Dartmouth’s decision not as a political endorsement but as an effort to preserve dialogue across perspectives. While praised by some as a strategic move to avoid federal sanctions and preserve campus continuity, Dartmouth’s choice has also drawn critique.
“Dartmouth’s stance of ‘institutional restraint’ is a double-edged sword for prospective students and their families,” says Maria Laskaris, Senior Private Counselor at Top Tier Admissions and former Dean of Admissions and Financial Aid at Dartmouth College. “Some may appreciate the focus on academic freedom and diverse viewpoints, but others will see the new policy as a lack of engagement on critical societal issues. Either way, the policy likely influences their perception of the College’s values and alignment with their own.”
For many prospective students, Dartmouth’s approach to this political moment will shape not only whether they apply, but how they imagine their place within its community.
The Bottom Line for Applicants
For students and families navigating a high-stakes, emotionally charged admissions process, these developments represent yet another curveball. What does a school’s public stance, or strategic silence, say about the campus experience it offers? Whose voices are protected—or policed—once students arrive? This application cycle, students are being asked to weigh not just where they’ll thrive academically, but what kind of institutional culture they’re stepping into and how that decision will reflect on them.