Your Cart is Empty
Trajan Hammonds
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: A couple of weeks ago, at 1 a.m., I found out the National Science Foundation (NSF) Postdoctoral Fellowship I applied for was being canceled because it did not comply with Trump’s new executive order on federal funding for DEI initiatives. I did what anyone from my generation would do in a moment like this: I took to X to share my experience. It’s clear that the Trump administration’s assault against academia has begun — and ultimately students, researchers, and our country are on the losing end.
University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 presented his annual State of the University letter and answered questions about various student concerns at the first 2026 meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community (CPUC).
Eisgruber spent the majority of his presentation reviewing the University’s strategic shift in endowment spending priorities amid diminishing long-term endowment return projections. This includes a 10-year estimated $11.3 billion deficit in endowment growth relative to previous growth projections, according to the Princeton University Investment Company (PRINCO).
In his 2026 “State of the University” letter sent to students on Monday, University President Christopher Eisgruber ’83 previewed major upcoming changes to University finances. The letter, titled “From Growth to Focus,” described a move away from expansion, citing long-term economic factors.
The changes will come in addition to the 5–7 percent departmental budget cuts over the last year, alongside the hiring freeze instituted last March. “The long-term endowment trends described in this memorandum are likely to require more targeted, and in some cases deeper, reductions over a multiyear period,” Eisgruber wrote. “The change that I am describing … goes beyond the pace of construction. It will affect everyone on campus.”
Ten years ago, Princeton University’s Board of Trustees published a strategic framework to guide the institution into the future. As I prepared this annual letter to the community—the tenth in a series that began in 2017—I reread the framework and the mission statement included in it.
The strategic framework and the values expressed in it have shaped a period of remarkable, mission-driven growth. As I describe in the paragraphs that follow, those values will be equally crucial in the months and years to come, when changed political and economic circumstances require that we transition from a period of exceptional growth to one defined by steadfast focus on core priorities.
Ming Lovejoy,'82
February 28, 2025
This is a thoughtful and passionate piece, and I appreciate the frustration of losing a hard-earned opportunity due to sweeping policy changes. That said, the larger issue at hand isn’t an attack on academia itself but a long-overdue course correction in how federal funds are allocated. For years, DEI-infused programs—many prioritizing ideology over merit—have dominated higher education, often at the expense of open discourse and intellectual diversity. The Ascend fellowship, despite being open to all, explicitly tied funding to racial and identity-based criteria, making it a natural target for reforms aimed at restoring race-neutral policies in federal funding.
The concerns about endowment taxation and funding cuts are valid, but they also raise an important question: Why should taxpayers continue to subsidize institutions that increasingly seem insulated from the realities of the country they serve? If Princeton and other elite universities truly value intellectual excellence, they should prioritize funding research and postdocs based on merit, not just federal handouts.
Instead of blaming external policies, academia should take this moment to reflect on how it has alienated much of the public. The growing skepticism toward higher education isn’t just “anti-intellectualism”—it’s a reaction to an academic culture that too often dismisses dissenting viewpoints and operates in ideological silos. If scholars want broader public support, they need to reconnect with everyday Americans, engage in real debate, and make the case for their work based on its merits—not just moral appeals or accusations of political hostility. A return to true academic rigor and open inquiry will do far more to secure the future of higher education than any government program ever could.