Guardian Climate Desk Recent attacks on US universities by the Trump administration have built on decades of efforts by libertarian donor networks, fossil fuel companies, and conservative think tanks to reshape university governance and increase outside influence, according to a new study.

The authors of the new perspective study argue that the erosion of university autonomy has left colleges more vulnerable to corporate interests, especially within climate and energy research.

In 2025, the Trump administration froze billions of dollars in research funding, launched investigations into 75 institutions and pushed colleges to sign agreements supporting administration policies in exchange for federal funding. The federal government canceled $4 million in climate research grants at Princeton University alone and accused scientists of fueling “climate anxiety.”If you’re a young researcher watching that, you might think twice about asking a question that could cost you your funding, said Noel Healy, of Salem State University, the lead author of the study published in the journal .

“Climate policy is only as good as the evidence behind it. When the industry being regulated gets to shape the questions researchers ask, it ends up shaping the policy too,” he said.

Academic Freedom Index which measures how freely scholars and universities can teach, research and express ideas without interference, found that US institutional autonomy fell from 3.3 in 2019 to 1.7 in 2025, on a scale of 0 to 4.

“In other countries, attacks on university legitimacy paved the way for faculty purges, campus closures, and centralized political control.”

“Since 2025, scientists have been deleting words like ‘climate change’ from their grant applications because those words can get an application rejected,” Healy said. “Some universities have shut down programs before the government even asked them to, hoping to avoid becoming a target. You don’t have to ban speech if people fear that speaking up will cost them their funding. People start deciding it’s safer to stay quiet.”

Outside influence on US universities is not new. In the 1920s, electric utilities worked with academics to defend their monopoly positions and oppose regulations. Fossil fuel companies followed suit in the 1950s, funding research to sow doubt about the public health impacts of their products.

Internal industry documents have shown that companies viewed academic research as a way to build credibility and influence public debate.

Corporate-funded research was only one way powerful interests influenced universities. Libertarian donor networks also influenced program content, faculty hiring and gained appointments to university governing bodies. For example, David Koch, the billionaire industrialist whose wealth came from Koch Industries, gave more than $185 million to his alma mater, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), and served as a lifetime member to the elite research university’s highest governing body.

Between 2010 and 2020, six fossil fuel companies alone gave more than $700 million to US universities, helping to legitimize industry solutions to the climate crisis and undermine regulatory approaches. Some of this funding came with donor agreements that gave outside actors control over decisions traditionally made by faculty, such as in hiring and curricula.

At the same time, donor-influence models were written into state law. For example, in 2016, the Arizona state legislature created the first publicly funded libertarian academic center.

Other states have followed suit These centers bypass faculty control, instead answering to legislators. These centers are expected to receive $50 million in US taxpayer dollars during the 2025-2026 school year, according to reporting by the Hechinger Report State legislatures have also tried to limit faculty power through legislation that could abolish tenure, block faculty participation in lawsuits, and police educational programming. From 2021 to 2023, more than 150 state bills were introduced targeting tenure faculty governance, and diversity, equity and inclusion according to the perspective.

“Faculty need the power to review major gifts before they’re accepted and to refuse the ones that threaten academic freedom.”Soaring tuition and student debt, which are also products of the corporate model, have contributed to mistrust in higher education. The authors of the study argue that to regain public trust, administrators must confront how corporate donors have reshaped their priorities, disclose donor contributions and influence, and give faculty committees the ability to reject funding that undermines the university’s public mission and create conflicts of interest. Union contracts can protect faculty and empower them to confront corporate capture.

“Transparency lets you see the deal, but it doesn’t let you stop it. Faculty need the power to review major gifts before they’re accepted and to refuse the ones that threaten academic freedom,” Healy said.

Universities don’t have to start from scratch. For example, the national UnKoch My Campus campaign published a model gift-acceptance policy that gives faculty a say before gifts with conditions are accepted, makes donor agreements public, and sets clear grounds for rejecting gifts that give donors influence over hiring or teaching. Universities can draw on examples like this to write their own rules, Healy said.

“In other countries, attacks on university legitimacy paved the way for faculty purges, campus closures, and centralized political control,” he said. “Universities came under attack before those governments had full control, not after.”MIT has previously said it would not divest its endowment from fossil-fuel companies arguing that working with industry could help develop climate solutions. The MIT Energy Initiative has also said that funders have no control over the content or findings of its research reports.