St. Louis universities grapple with ‘government overreach’ and frozen grants

Local universities are pushing back on the Trump administration, part of an effort across higher education to respond to a funding freeze on federal grants and the prospect of a heavier hand on everything from campus admission policies to endowment taxes.

This week, Saint Louis University president Fred Pestello—along with more than 150 college and university presidents—signed an open letter, “A Call for Constructive Engagement,” denouncing the administration’s “unprecedented government overreach and political interference now endangering American higher education.” The letter states that although the institutions are “open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight,” they “oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.”

Leaders from every Ivy League institution, as well as a wide array of public universities and liberal arts colleges, also signed the letter. By week’s end, the number of signatories had grown to 468.

The letter comes even as Harvard University has sued the Trump administration for freezing more than $2 billion in grants, and Columbia University drew criticism for initially agreeing to demands including restrictions on protests and academic oversight. 

Locally, universities are grappling with the shifting environment—and working to navigate the situation as best they can.

Washington University in St. Louis chancellor Andrew Martin points out that every university has a unique situation informing its response to the changes in Washington.

“We’re all approaching advocacy in different ways,” he says. “WashU is always involved in advocacy work in Washington, D.C., in Jefferson City, and locally.”

He continues, “The intensity of that work has increased for us in Washington over the last 24 months. We are engaged with folks in the legislative and executive branches on almost a daily basis having to do what’s happening in American higher education today.”

The research

The disruption to research grant funding is a matter of great apprehension for Martin, as WashU’s medical school receives the second highest funding in the nation from the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

“My most significant concerns are around research funding and the way in which the Trump administration has used research funding as a very blunt instrument to come after university policies and practices that the administration may not agree with,” explains Martin, who did not sign the “Call for Constructive Engagement.” “At this point, there has been a slowdown in some of the research grants that we’re receiving, primarily from the NIH, and there have been some grants that have been cut across the entire university.”

Martin says that one of WashU’s biggest adjustments in response to the research money slowdown has been a pause on two capital projects on the Danforth campus. Martin’s administration is now conducting a critical review of every significant capital investment at the university. “One of the reasons that we’re looking there first is to ensure that it’s not going to adversely affect the academic programs that are available to our students,” he says. Beyond federal funding, WashU has always been supported by philanthropic, academic, and private donors, which Martin says has been given “an even greater focus given the federal funding environment.”  

The students and faculty

Lindenwood University president John Porter says that, as his university is not research-oriented, it has thus far not been affected by federal funding cuts. He also did not sign the letter. However, if the government opts to substantially reduce financial aid for students, Porter says Lindenwood would need to “accommodate that and maybe take a different direction” with its budgetary strategy.

“We all rely on the financial system of the government to assist students with their education needs and help facilitate them getting through that journey,” Porter says. “Federal aid, state grants, direct loans, work-study programs—all of those affect students. Clearly, if there’s anything done with that from the government perspective, then that’s going to have an impact on all of us.”

Similarly, among Martin’s most significant concerns at WashU is an expansion of the endowment excise tax, which was passed during the first Trump administration and is up for reauthorization this year. He says it would “take away resources that we deploy primarily for financial aid, for our students and to support the research of our faculty.” 

That’s especially harmful coming on top of cuts to research grants, which are already impacting faculty on every level, Martin explains. “So many of my colleagues who are responsible for running research laboratories have had their funding pulled, and that means that people that they’re responsible for—postdoctoral trainees, graduate student trainees, research scientists, lab technicians—are ultimately going to be out of their jobs because these grants have been canceled. This is profoundly affecting many members of our faculty and their ability to get the research done.” 

The international community

The “Call for Constructive Engagement” also calls out the Trump administration’s crackdown on international students, including those who have been involved in campus protests, stating, “Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation.”

Martin shares concerns about the robust international community at WashU, which includes both students and staff. “We have had a number of students whose immigration status has been canceled,” he adds. “Not only our students—graduate students, professional students, and undergraduate students—but also our incredible international faculty and staff … those are going to be headwinds in terms of recruiting the sort of talent that we need to be able to maintain our excellence.”

Some of the Trump administration’s efforts have been focused on international students who engaged in pro-Palestinian protests last spring. WashU took a hard line against those protests, unlike some of the universities targeted by Trump.

Martin echoes the invitation in the “Constructive Engagement” letter for reasonable review of university activities. “There’s certainly space for there to be real, serious discussions about how we’re organized and the way in which the university operates; we’re prepared to have those discussions,” Martin says. “But using research funding as a lever I find to be counterproductive to the overall mission.

“The research mission is so important for American competitiveness,” he continues. “We are the envy of the world in terms of the infrastructure that we have to support cutting-edge research that has come because of co-investment between the federal government and higher-education institutions. And anything that happens to destroy that infrastructure is going to be a huge competitiveness problem for the United States.”

The local impact

Martin explains that federal cuts will be felt in a big way in St. Louis, simply because of how federal grants work. “Grants are awarded competitively,” Martin says. “You have to be the best of the best nationally in order to receive a particular grant, and you have responsibility to perform the work that’s outlined in the grant.”

The grant itself, Martin explains, pays for “direct costs,” including personnel, supplies, and equipment. Universities then negotiate with the federal government for “indirect costs,” which help pay for the infrastructure: facilities, lights, maintenance, upkeep, and “all of the things that we need to keep our laboratories open to do research.” 

“I think there’s a mischaracterization that ‘indirect cost’ is like a slush fund for nefarious purposes,” he says. “These are highly audited funds that are used to support the infrastructure to support research. Every million dollars that we spend on research is well over a dozen jobs that we’re supporting both directly at the university and the research laboratories and jobs that are supported by the projects themselves. I think it’s important to recognize that a very significant cut in our research funding is a very significant economic hit to St. Louis.”