As Eisgruber Speaks Out for Higher Ed, Princeton Community Digs In

Editor’s note: This story, posted on March 26, 2025, was updated for the May 2025 print issue. The version below combines the printed version with portions of the original story. 

After weeks of uncertainty, Princeton received notice on April 1 that the federal government plans to suspend dozens of its research grants. According to an email to the University community from President Christopher Eisgruber ’83, the notifications came from the Department of Energy, NASA, the Department of Defense, and other agencies. However, many key details remained unknown, including when the suspension would take effect, how much money would be suspended, and why.

Although the Trump administration has not explained its action, a reporter for the right-wing news and opinion site The Daily Caller posted on X that $210 million in federal funds were being paused pending an investigation into campus antisemitism. The post quoted an unidentified administration official alleging, “Princeton has perpetuated racist and antisemitic policies,” allegations the University vehemently denies.

Weeks earlier, on March 10, the Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights announced that it was considering “enforcement actions” against Princeton and 59 other universities for violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act. Princeton is under investigation because of a complaint filed a year ago by Zachary Marschall, editor of the conservative website Campus Reform. Marschall, who is not affiliated with the University, alleged that the administration failed to respond to violent words uttered at a pro-Palestinian demonstration in 2023. The University has denied any wrongdoing.

In his April 1 email, Eisgruber wrote that Princeton was “committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination” on campus but would also “vigorously defend academic freedom and the due process rights of the University.”

The Trump administration’s notification was the latest in a series of moves to cut funding to Ivy League universities. Columbia, Harvard, Penn, Brown, and Cornell have also received notices that federal funds would be suspended for various alleged offenses.

Amid these attacks, Eisgruber has emerged as a leading voice in higher education defending academic freedom. In a March 19 essay in The Atlantic, the Princeton president called the Trump administration’s cancellation of $400 million in federal aid to Columbia “a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research.” Expressing his belief that the administration would be emboldened to target other institutions, Eisgruber added, “Universities and their leaders should speak up and litigate forcefully to protect their rights.”

In the days following Princeton’s notification, Eisgruber made several media appearances in which he reiterated his defense of higher education and support for the long-standing partnership between the federal government and American universities. Speaking on The Big Take podcast on Bloomberg, Eisgruber said, “What we’re seeing now is the use of research and funding as a lever to try to change what [universities] teach. And that threatens to disrupt the quality of our universities and the principles that are fundamental to them.”

Few of Eisgruber’s Ivy League peers have been as vocal. Brown president Christina Paxson, former dean of Princeton’s School of Public and International Affairs, wrote that her university “would be compelled to vigorously exercise our legal rights to defend [academic] freedoms, and … would do so with integrity and respect.” The board of directors of the Association of American Universities, which Eisgruber chairs, has also issued a statement. Dartmouth announced that it was hiring as its new general counsel a former chief counsel for the Republican National Committee who has questioned the constitutionality of birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment.

In response to funding cuts to government-sponsored scientific research, Penn, Harvard, and MIT have announced hiring freezes, while Johns Hopkins laid off more than 200 employees. Princeton has not gone that far, but administrators have begun to batten down the hatches.

In a March 19 memo, Provost Jennifer Rexford ’91 and Executive Vice President Katie Callow-Wright cited the administration’s attacks, restrictions on research funding, and a proposed increase in the endowment tax to urge faculty and staff to “exercise holistic spending restraint.” It announced that the University will temporarily curtail hiring searches, reduce annual raises for employees, and reconsider some early-stage capital projects while warning that “more serious actions” might become necessary. An April 2 University release about the budget for the coming academic year reiterated Princeton’s commitment to financial aid, saying that the undergraduate aid budget is projected to increase 8% to $306 million. The overall budget “may change due to uncertainty about federally sponsored research funding, which represents almost one-fifth of Princeton’s overall annual spending,” the release said.

As Eisgruber acknowledged on the Bloomberg podcast, deep and continuing cuts to federal funding would present Princeton with wrenching choices. “We would look for things we could stop doing,” he said. “We would try to raise other funds. We would look at ways to potentially reallocate endowment funding … . But at the end of the day, what would happen here and elsewhere is that less research would get done.”

On April 1, the University announced that it is considering selling up to $320 million in taxable bonds to make up part of any funding loss. The move was first reported by Bloomberg. Princeton has sold such bonds twice before within the last five years: $500 million worth of bonds during the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 and another $300 million in 2022. Princeton University bonds carry a AAA rating.

Beyond the budget, the University has taken other steps to protect students and to clarify its policies. The Davis International Center advised international students and scholars to carry their federally issued Arrival/Departure Record card, which is given to all visa holders, with them “at all times,” both their own and those of their dependents. Even so, Eisgruber acknowledged on the Bloomberg podcast, the administration’s aggressive actions have put international students at risk of deportation, even those with valid visas. “I think [international] students have to make a judgment about how and when they speak up” on public issues, he counseled.

Many of the Trump administration’s actions have been directed against programs in higher education and elsewhere that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI). The University insists that its commitment to DEI remains unwavering and has added a new statement appearing on several of its web pages explaining that campus DEI initiatives are “voluntary and open to all” and comply with federal and state anti-discrimination laws.

“To maximize excellence, we seek talent from all segments of American society and the world, and we take steps to ensure everyone at Princeton can thrive while they are here,” the statement reads in part. “That is the sole rationale and purpose of our diversity and inclusion programs.”

Meanwhile, the Office of the Dean of Undergraduate Students has asked leaders of student organizations to insert language in their websites and social media posts reiterating that programs are “open to all Princeton University students regardless of identity, such as race, sex, ethnicity, national origin, or other protected characteristics.”

At a meeting of the Council of the Princeton University Community on March 24, Eisgruber walked a fine line between reiterating his support for academic independence and not criticizing the Trump administration directly. After expressing annoyance that several students asked him questions different from the ones they had submitted in advance, he nevertheless answered them. Asked if he could promise that the University would not “capitulate to the anti-democratic demands of the Trump administration,” Eisgruber replied, “I will just say that Princeton University will stand firm for its values and mission.”

Amid challenges that sometimes seemed to mount almost daily, Eisgruber promised to fight on. “These are extraordinarily difficult circumstances,” he said in an appearance on NPR’s All Things Considered on April 6. “But we’re going to stand strong for our values at Princeton, and I think we have a community that is united behind those values.”

When the Trump administration began to announce funding cuts in March, some campus group urged the University to do more. A petition by the graduate student government, signed by several hundred graduate students, undergraduates, faculty, staff, and alumni, called for the creation of a transition fund to support those who lose funding due to government cuts. It also echoed several proposals made by the postdoctoral fellows’ union calling for, among other things, greater support for international workers, increased job security, and protection from harassment.

Faculty and alumni have also voiced their opinions about the administration’s actions.

Professor Robert P. George, director of the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions, suggested that retaliation might have been expected, citing incidents of campus antisemitism, viewpoint discrimination in hiring and promotion, and the resulting “indoctrination of students.”

“If faculty and administrators fail to address these problems, then sooner or later other actors, including governments ... will be incentivized to step in,” George wrote in an email to PAW. However, he continued, “I agree with President Eisgruber that everyone exercising authority of any type in or over universities must strictly respect academic freedom. Moreover, when, for example, the federal government investigates or intervenes, it is obligated to honor the principles of due process of law.”

Posting on his class Facebook page, William Ryan III ’83 noted that while many disagree about the extent of racism and antisemitism on campus and what should be done to address them, “It’s a different thing for any government to do this. The type of advocacy all of us have every right to make is not the same thing as that kind of pressure, especially where it potentially or actually collides with freedom of thought or speech.” Lorena Grundy ’17, an assistant professor at Penn, wrote a letter of thanks to Eisgruber, saying, “Your steadfastness in standing up and speaking out for what is right has made me proud to be a Princeton alumna.”

Journalist Stuart Taylor ’70, a co-founder of Princetonians for Free Speech, wrote a long essay calling for “careful change” in DEI programs at Princeton and elsewhere but concluded that “trusting the Trump administration to do it right requires a leap of faith.”

In an interview with PAW, Taylor elaborated on his points, explaining, “I think DEI has done a lot of harm in terms of campus freedom of expression, but the Trump administration is wildly overreacting to everything it doesn’t like.” He called the withholding of funds to Columbia and Penn “probably illegal,” adding, “Trump has got a kind of contempt for legality.” While saying that he has disagreed with many of Eisgruber’s actions as president, Taylor praised the Atlantic essay but wondered if it had “put a target on the University’s back.”

Taylor’s target metaphor resonated with Professor Sam Wang, a neuroscientist and director of the Princeton Election Consortium who has spoken out frequently against the Trump administration. Writing on his Substack, Wang praised Eisgruber’s essay as a possible watershed moment. “At last we have a university leader who will say that the Trump administration is attacking higher education,” he wrote. “He’s willing to point out that accusations of antisemitism are not made in good faith, but in fact constitute a pretext for pitting people against one another. And he’s willing to stand up for those rights.”

Going further in an interview with PAW, Wang likened Eisgruber to the sheriff played by Gary Cooper in the movie High Noon. “In the old westerns, the good guy is not a big talker, and he’s not going to start trouble,” Wang said. “But when trouble comes, he has to be ready.” Extending the High Noon analogy to Rexford’s memo, Wang continued, “I would characterize what Jennifer is saying as, ‘Don’t go walking out on the street. Keep the kids indoors.’ It’s not complying [with administration directives] in advance; it’s being ready for the thing that may happen to the people you care about.”