‘Threading a Needle’

Michigan State University is caught in a dilemma.

On one hand, it’s shouldering an attack unlike anything in recent memory. A long-simmering distrust of higher education has manifested into action, with President Donald Trump’s administration leveling massive funding cuts, wide-ranging investigations, and restrictive executive orders against universities. For some, the perilous moment demands a full-throated rebuke from campus leaders.

But at the same time, standing up has proven dangerous. The most outspoken institutions have become the hardest-hit targets.

That tension looms large when MSU’s leaders have discussed their response, according to people with knowledge of the deliberations. 

The university is undoubtedly hurting, both in terms of its financial wellbeing and autonomy to handle international admissions and issues of equity as it pleases. Doing nothing is off the table, the people said, but there are fears that pushing back too hard could invite painful retribution.

So, MSU has opted to act carefully and speak sparingly, trying to fight where it can without drawing too much attention, according to the people, who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss the private deliberations.

President Kevin Guskiewicz has likened his strategy to “threading a needle,” they said.

Whether that balance can hold remains to be seen. But, eight months into the onslaught, MSU has been able to largely stay above the fray.

“They’re trying not to draw any attention to themselves for anything that might cause the administration to look at them,” said Jim Finkelstein, a George Mason University professor emeritus who studies college leadership. Michael Harris, a professor of higher education at Southern Methodist University, called MSU’s strategy a “very logical calculation.”

“Let’s not become a target,” he said.

‘Defend’ without a ‘megaphone’

Since Trump took office in January, MSU’s leaders have given occasional interviews to discuss the value of the country’s public universities, issued statements to campus about shifting federal higher education policy, and even signaled enduring support for embattled diversity, equity and inclusion policies.

But their words have been measured, and are usually focused on explaining new policies and their effects, not indicating whether the university supports them.

And, there’s one thing they almost never include — Trump’s name.

The nominal omission is intentional, according to one of the people; It helps to ensure those receiving MSU's messages don't react politically and factor in whether they support the president, they said. 

The unflappable veneer, though, does not mean the institution hasn’t been quietly advocating for itself.

A memo sent to deans, directors and chairs in May lays out the playbook, after noting how “rapid and far-reaching changes” by the Trump administration “directly impact [MSU’s] operations, policies and, most importantly, our people.”

Rather than speak alone about the challenges MSU was facing, one strategy entailed “joining peers nationwide” in signing a statement by the American Association of Universities and Colleges “calling for constructive engagement on federal education policy.”

The strength in numbers tact has defined MSU’s approach to legally challenging Trump’s actions, too. The university disagreed with his administration's move to slash the amount of money it provides for overhead costs associated with National Science Foundation-funded research. MSU's way of pushing back: "National higher education associations that MSU belongs to have filed a lawsuit to challenge this directive," the memo said.

Then, there’s MSU leaders’ trips to talk to lawmakers. Guskiewicz went to Washington D.C. on “two critical occasions in April to meet with several members of the Michigan delegation, highlighting the impact of recent federal developments and advocating for international students, student aid and research support,” the memo said.

The university asked students, faculty and alumni to join the fray as well, encouraging them to use its online platform "Spartan Advocate" to contact elected officials and "share how federally funded research and financial aid have impacted their lives."

MSU has also spent heavily on professional lobbyists this year. Data from the campaign finance nonprofit OpenSecrets shows the university spent $220,000 in the first two quarters of 2025. The last time MSU spent that much in the first half of the year was 2018, amid congressional oversight and investigation of its handling of the Larry Nassar sexual abuse scandal.

The strategy may not score points with those who demand a public chiding of Trump, but it could prove more effective in the long run, said Tom Ginsburg, faculty director of the University of Chicago’s Forum on Free Inquiry and Expression. “People will say, ‘If you’re not speaking out, then you’re with them!’ Well, that’s not right.”

“There is so much pressure on presidents to speak,” he said. “But there are lots of ways to defend the university that have nothing to do with using a megaphone.”

Higher ed’s new framing

When MSU has spoken out in recent months, they’ve focused narrowly on making the case that federal and state support of universities brings a broad return on investment.

Amid “federal transitions” that “effect” the institution’s research capacities, MSU has looked to “improve [its] storytelling efforts around the impact our research has on society,” said spokesperson Emily Guerrant. 

The case is made most fully on a new university webpage titled “Research For You.” In a video clip on the site, Guskiewicz explains how a research breakthrough at MSU led to the creation of the chemotherapy drug Cisplatin. There’s also a collection of links to articles by the university’s publication, MSU Today, with titles including “Food On Your Table,” “Thriving Schools,” and “Smarter, Safer Transportation.”

The message has been amplified by the Big Ten conference. MSU joined its peers to argue their societal significance in a recent advertisement, aired during opening week football games, titled “We Are Here.”

The messaging is not just “the best call” for the current moment, according to Harris, the SMU professor — “if we'd been doing it for the last 10 years, we might be in a different boat right now.”

Some academics have complained about the ways the Trump administration’s efforts have hurt them personally or stifled their research, but “the general public doesn’t care about that,” he said. By contrast, the argument that university research improves the lives of everyday people helps to “undercut the argument of ‘we’re wasteful, we’re woke.’”

Still, there are doubts about that kind of communication. Cheerleading the value of universities instead of condemning the challenges they face may carry less risk, but it may not be enough to sway public sentiment.

“Do you address the elephant in the room?” said Finklestein. “Or, do you hope people read between the lines and figure it out? Not to belittle football fans, but a lot of people aren’t smart enough to figure it out.

“I really don’t think running an ad on research during a football game is enough. When that ad comes on, people get up, go to the fridge, and get another beer.”

Stay inside ‘the foxhole’

The reserved messaging comes after years of pointed talkativeness from college leaders. Starting around 2015 and swelling in recent years, it’s become common for colleges to make statements on the issues of the day. 

Under President Samuel Stanley, MSU issued statements supporting the Black Lives Matter movement and condemning the Jan. 6, 2021 insurrection and Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Only the insurrection statement remains on university webpages, though Guerrant, the spokesperson, said the others were not purposefully removed, rather affected by a broader “web migration.”

Other universities issued statements in support of access to abortions following the overturning of Roe v. Wade, or offering support to their campus ahead of oral arguments in a U.S. Supreme Court case on the status of the “DACA Dreamers.”

On many campuses, there is now more pressure than ever for presidents to make similarly declarative assertions about the Trump administration. But Ginsburg said the constant statements are part of what got universities into this situation in the first place.

Institutions’ pronouncements on contentious issues eroded trust in higher education, giving way to Trump’s election and ability to attack the sector so forcefully, Ginsburg said. Now, universities should embrace policies of "institutional neutrality,” a philosophy his center at UChicago champions and is credited with creating.

Over 100 universities have adopted such guidelines in recent years, including MSU. Its policy — dubbed “thoughtful restraint” — discourages statements that ascribe opinions on contentious issues to the university, except when they directly threaten MSU’s core mission.

Trump’s higher education policies are a difficult test of that thinking, Ginsburg said. On one hand, many of his moves would appear to quite clearly weaken MSU’s ability to teach and research. On the other hand, it’s a politicized topic, with strong feelings on both sides. Acting behind-the-scenes while putting on a measured public face might be the best way forward, he said.

“I’m sympathetic with university leaders who don’t want to stick their heads out of the foxhole right now,” Ginsburg said. “Because, what would statements do? It would make some people inside the university feel better, but it wouldn’t change anything for the better. It would probably make things worse.”

Such silence can get awkward. For example: What should a university do when the U.S. President ousts one of its highest-profile faculty members from the Fed over unproven claims of mortgage fraud, leading to a high-stakes legal battle with sweeping implications for the country’s system of checks and balances?

MSU decided to say nothing when such a conflict arose between Trump and professor of economics and international relations Lisa Cook — except to confirm she was still on unpaid leave, and that no one from the university had spoken to her.

“I think reasonable minds could come to different conclusions,” Harris said of the choice not to speak publicly about Cook. “You could say this does not directly impact the university, but I imagine faculty colleagues would prefer there to be more vocal support.”