A winning platform for higher education in a high-scrutiny era

The rules of engagement for higher education have changed—and not just in ways that can be explained by a single election cycle or administration.

Across the country, colleges and universities are facing sharper questions about their value, priorities, and accountability to the public. Skepticism about affordability, outcomes, and leadership credibility remains widespread and bipartisan, even as public confidence in higher ed shows modest signs of rebounding after years of decline.

What’s different now is not simply the volume of criticism, but its staying power. Expectations that institutions clearly demonstrate public value—through outcomes, transparency, and alignment with national priorities—are becoming harder to ignore and more explicitly enforced. Decisions that previously played out internally are increasingly subject to external scrutiny, and autonomy that institutions long took for granted now feels more conditional.

The question is no longer whether higher ed will be asked to justify its role in society, but how, on whose terms, and for how long.

How higher ed’s social contract is being rewritten 

For much of the past several decades, higher ed operated under a stable social contract. Colleges and universities were granted wide latitude to govern themselves, define success broadly, and pursue teaching and research with limited political interference. Public investment rested largely on trust in institutional stewardship.

That trust is eroding. What institutions are experiencing today is not the impact of any single executive order or funding decision, but a broader shift in how legitimacy is judged. Public support is becoming more conditional, with growing expectations that colleges and universities clearly demonstrate value in exchange for public investment.

But over the past year, this shift has accelerated. The Trump administration has applied policy, funding leverage, and public scrutiny to press institutions toward alignment with federal priorities. State legislatures have followed suit, advancing restrictions on DEI, redefining academic freedom, and expanding oversight of governance and faculty activity. Boards and political appointees are also increasingly involved in institutional decision-making, often with less tolerance for internal processes.

Taken together, these forces have produced a tough accountability environment that places greater weight on measurable outcomes, ideological neutrality, and visible relevance to public priorities.

None of these dynamics are likely to fade with a change in administration. Fiscal pressure, workforce demands, and national security priorities will continue to shape expectations of higher education well beyond 2028.

Which raises a central question for the sector: if external pressure is here to stay, what would a credible, positive agenda that rebuilds public trust and secures support across political cycles look like?

Three building blocks for rebuilding public trust in higher education

Based on our analysis and conversations with campus leaders, we see three core building blocks for a ‘winning platform’ for higher education in 2028 and beyond. Together, they offer a way for institutions to demonstrate value, rebuild trust, and strengthen the sector’s resilience across political cycles without sacrificing its core mission.

Looking ahead

This blog draws on findings from EAB’s State of the Sector 2026 research and our ongoing work with campus leaders navigating sustained scrutiny, fiscal pressure, and rising expectations for public value

To learn more about this research or discuss how institutions are responding to these pressures, fill out the form below to connect with our team. You can also read this year’s full State of the Sector brief here.

Susan Woda

Managing Principal, Office of the President

Read Bio

• Susan Woda's LinkedIn page