Trump Administration Shifts Focus to California Public Universities Amid Title IX Dispute, While Easing Pressure on Ivy League Schools
The Trump administration has redirected its scrutiny from Ivy League institutions to California’s public universities as it intensifies its campaign to reshape higher education policy in the United States. In a recent conversation with Bloomberg’s Akayla Gardner, Education Secretary Linda McMahon confirmed that the administration is actively considering substantial cuts to federal funding for California universities—a move first reported by CNN.
McMahon cited what she described as “flagrant violations of Title IX” as the central reason for this pivot toward the Golden State. “We have men participating in women’s sports, which is clearly against Title IX,” she said.
This marks a new chapter in the Trump administration’s efforts to confront perceived ideological issues within higher education, particularly surrounding gender identity and fairness in athletics. Previously, the administration had focused on elite East Coast schools, criticizing their handling of antisemitism and free speech issues in the wake of the ongoing Israel-Hamas conflict. Now, attention has shifted West, where the administration claims California schools are defying federal law.
Clash Over Transgender Athlete Participation
President Trump weighed in last month, threatening to withhold federal funds from the state of California over Hernandez’s participation. Days later, the Justice Department launched an investigation into whether California’s School Success and Opportunity Act—which prevents schools from discriminating against transgender students in athletics—violates federal Title IX guidelines that bar sex-based discrimination in federally funded education programs.
McMahon echoed these concerns during her interview, asserting that California has “blatantly refused to be in compliance with Title IX regulations.”
State Pushback and Legal Action
In response, California leaders have doubled down on their stance. Earlier this month, the California Department of Education advised schools to resist federal pressure to exclude transgender athletes. The state filed a lawsuit against the Justice Department on Monday, challenging what it calls unconstitutional interference.
McMahon warned that California schools could face severe consequences if they fail to comply with the federal administration’s interpretation of Title IX, including potential cuts to formula funding—federal grants distributed based on a congressional formula.
“That is one of the tools and the opportunities that we have with California, and I think it’s right that we make them aware that that is a risk they run,” McMahon said, confirming earlier reporting by Politico.
Broader Political Tensions Between Trump and California
Singling out a state for federal education funding cuts would be a rare and aggressive step, though it fits within a broader pattern of friction between the Trump administration and California. From immigration policy to COVID-19 response, California—governed by Democrat Gavin Newsom—has frequently clashed with Trump’s White House.
Recently, Trump faced criticism for deploying the National Guard to manage protests in Los Angeles despite Governor Newsom’s objections. In a March podcast interview, he called the debate “an issue of fairness” and acknowledged the complexity of balancing rights.
However, Newsom has long been a staunch supporter of LGBTQ rights, famously ordering San Francisco to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in 2004 when he was mayor.
Still, federal agencies under Trump’s direction are now actively identifying education grants that could be withheld from California. According to sources, the University of California and California State University systems—two of the largest public education networks in the nation—are at particular risk.
The UC system alone is California’s third-largest employer and plays a critical role in global research efforts, particularly in biotechnology and medicine.
Title IX at the Center of Ideological Battle
In February, Trump signed an executive order titled “Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports,” which seeks to ban transgender women from participating in women’s athletic events. The order underscores the administration’s interpretation of Title IX, which contrasts sharply with the Biden administration’s approach. Biden officials have maintained that excluding transgender students from sports teams based on gender identity violates Title IX.
A senior White House official said Trump’s stance is clear: “If you’re going to have women’s sports, then they have to be equally safe, equally fair, and equally private opportunities. That means preserving women’s sports for biological women.”
The dispute over Title IX enforcement is now at the center of a larger ideological clash about gender identity, equity in education, and the role of federal power in enforcing compliance at the state level.
A Softer Tone Toward Ivy League Institutions
While California universities face the threat of sweeping penalties, McMahon struck a more conciliatory tone when discussing Harvard and Columbia—two institutions previously under heavy fire from the administration.
In January, the Trump administration had threatened to pull accreditation from Columbia University and restrict visas for incoming Harvard students. But on Tuesday, McMahon acknowledged what she described as positive momentum at both schools.
McMahon: Columbia Making Progress, Talks with Harvard Ongoing, Federal Funding Still a Possibility
Education Secretary Linda McMahon offered a more optimistic tone regarding ongoing negotiations with Ivy League schools, highlighting progress with Columbia University and signaling that the administration’s stance on Harvard remains steady — for now.
Look, no one is saying that colleges shouldn’t be spaces for discussion. Peaceful, nonviolent protests and the open exchange of ideas are part of what makes a university great. But it has to happen respectfully and without chaos.”
When asked whether Harvard should brace for more federal actions, McMahon replied, “At this particular time, we’re continuing with the things we’ve already talked about.” She avoided indicating whether new enforcement measures were forthcoming, but her comments suggested that no immediate escalation is planned.
Positive Dialogue with Columbia
McMahon praised the communication and cooperation seen in her interactions with Columbia University.
She described meeting in person with Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, and said the two had also spoken by phone twice. “I think we’ve made great progress,” McMahon emphasized.
While the initial discussions were sparked by concerns over antisemitic incidents on campus, McMahon explained that the scope of the dialogue quickly broadened. “We wanted to understand how Columbia was running its campus programs, how they were screening and admitting students, and whether the recent unrest was being driven by internal student movements or by outside agitators,” she explained. “We also looked at how the university was managing campus activity overall.”
Consent Decree and Oversight on the Table
As part of these conversations, McMahon revealed that a consent decree—a formal agreement approved and monitored by a federal judge—was under active consideration. This type of arrangement would allow for oversight of the university’s conduct and ensure compliance with federal guidelines.
A Path Toward Restored Federal Support
Despite the administration’s stern approach to compliance, McMahon signaled a willingness to reinstate federal funding for institutions that meet the government’s expectations. She framed reinstatement not just as possible but as a goal.
“That’s part of the negotiations, of course,” McMahon said. “If colleges and universities are following U.S. laws and meeting the standards we’ve laid out, then it’s only right that they be allowed to receive taxpayer-funded programs. That’s the direction I hope this goes.”
Her remarks suggest the Trump administration is maintaining a hard line but leaving the door open to compromise and resolution — provided universities demonstrate changes in line with federal priorities.