Exploring the DP’s claim that Trump will deport students and defund Penn
Photo Credit: ChatGPT
By Sarah Mester
Following the election, the Daily Pennsylvanian posted an article titled: Trump’s proposals could deport students, remove federal funding from Penn, DP analysis finds. However, research into the actual policies in question reveals the support for both of these alarming claims to be misinformed and weak. The DP’s analysis relies on a misunderstood point from a Republican National Committee Platform Committee resolution, comments from one political rally, and Project 2025, which President-elect Trump has disavowed repeatedly. The argument that Trump is looking to implement a widespread student deportation scheme lacks evidence altogether and claims of a threat to Penn’s funding by the next administration are significantly more nuanced than the article let on.
In support of their claim that Trump will deport students, the reporters cite a press release for the Republican National Convention (RNC) 2024 platform. In particular they narrow in on item 18: “deport pro-Hamas radicals and make our college campuses safe and patriotic again.” The Daily Pennsylvanian’s reporting implies a fear that the goal of this policy would be to punish simple involvement in pro-Palestinian protests, which would implicate quite a few students.
I remain skeptical of that both as a general matter, but also because such a policy would almost certainly be struck down as a violation of freedom of speech. However, I do not need to speculate on the goal of this policy point. The RNC policy platform can also be found on Trump’s website along with a more detailed 16-page policy document, which the article does not cite. A section from that document titled “bring common sense to government and renew the pillars of American civilization” on page 14 has the following point:
6. Combat Antisemitism: Republicans condemn antisemitism, and support revoking Visas of Foreign Nationals who support terrorism and jihadism. We will hold accountable those who perpetrate violence against Jewish people.
The Combat Antisemitism policy clarifies that the eighteenth point of the RNC/Trump platform is specifically about revoking the visas of foreign nationals who support terrorism, with “supporting terrorism” likely defined as showing explicit support for federally recognized terrorist groups like Hamas and Hezbollah. It is possible that such a policy could be deemed relevant to a select handful of Penn students, but international students can lose their visa for a myriad of reasons that are much less serious than committing a felony. The eighteenth point of the Republican platform is therefore weak evidence that Trump is looking to implement any kind of wide ranging deportation scheme.
As the first point of evidence for the claim that Trump will defund Penn, the DP cites a few sentences from a 90-minute Trump rally from December 2023 following the resignation of Liz Magill. Here is the comment in full (edited for clarity, timestamp 1:09:10):
“We are going to stand up to the radical left communists, Marxists, fascists, and frauds who have taken over our universities. They have taken over our universities. You saw that this week. They have destroyed the reputations of once highly respected schools like Harvard, M.I.T., Columbia, Stanford, University of Pennsylvania, the great Wharton School of Finance. So sad to see it all happening. [They] indoctrinated our youth and brought censorship and antisemitism to our campuses. Under the Trump Administration, if universities discriminate against conservatives, Christians, Jews, if they attack free speech we are going to take away their tax advantages and grants. We are going to take away their endowments, and they will pay us billions and billions of dollars for the terror they have unleashed into our once great country.”
Trump is clearly threatening Penn’s funding and endowment. However, a short statement made during a stump rally might not necessarily reflect an administration’s actual policy. Interpreting this statement as a serious commitment to unilaterally defund Penn seems like a bit of a stretch, especially since the timing strongly suggests that Trump was reacting to the top story of the news cycle. Not to mention the now-famous adage that Trump should be “taken seriously, not literally,” coined by journalist Salena Zito. If I want to understand Trump’s proposed policies, a single comment from a rally a year ago is not a strong source for an alarming claim like the defunding of an entire university. No further direct evidence is offered and the article transitions to a discussion of Project 2025.
Trump’s 16-page policy document contains four points related to higher education:
2. Accessible Higher Education: To reduce the cost of Higher Education, Republicans will support the creation of additional, drastically more affordable alternatives to a traditional four-year College degree.
5. Make Colleges and Universities Sane and Affordable: Republicans will fire Radical Left accreditors, drive down Tuition costs, restore Due Process protections, and pursue Civil Rights cases against Schools that discriminate.
6. Combat Antisemitism: Republicans condemn antisemitism, and support revoking Visas of Foreign Nationals who support terrorism and jihadism. We will hold accountable those who perpetrate violence against Jewish people.
7. Overcome the Crisis in Liberal Arts Education: Republicans support the restoration of Classic Liberal Arts Education
I do not see any threat to defund Penn, although there is a strong commitment to investigate universities for discrimination. Indeed, Trump told the Republican Jewish Coalition in a September speech that universities could lose accreditation and federal support due to propagation of “antisemitic propaganda.” Trump professed a similar opinion during the previously discussed December stump rally and also during other appearances. In fact, Trump’s admittingly repeated threats to defund universities are almost universally tied to a failure to protect students, especially Jewish students, from discrimination.
I disagree with the DP, then, not on the simple fact of whether Trump has threatened Penn’s funding (he has), but whether the threat is (1) credible and (2) reasonable. I think the DP’s sole evidence of credibility—the December stump rally—is lacking, but even with the additional information I have collected, I am far from confident that the threat is credible and a priority for the Trump administration. It does not appear in his proposed policy document and his statements related to the topic are often brief or given during small events with relevant interest groups (i.e. Jewish/pro-Israel groups). I consider the threat as semi-credible at best, but I think the basis for the threat—the discrimination faced by Jewish students—as a reasonable reason to threaten universities’ funding.
If discrimination is indeed taking place, then Penn could be ineligible for federal funding under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Title VI does not explicitly list religion as a protected class, but it is understood that antisemitism is at least partly covered by the statute. Not only do I consider the possibility of discrimination as worthy of investigation and possible penalty—so does established law.
The DP’s reporters do not seem to agree, with the article heavily implying that congressional investigations into antisemitism, like the one currently being conducted by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, are simply an avenue for a wider, partisan campaign against the university. That implication ignores the fact that the committee is currently investigating Penn due to very credible and highly concerning reports of pervasive antisemitism at Penn. Casting the current ongoing investigation by the committee as an act of purely partisan prosecution is an insult to the many Jewish students who have experienced discrimination and fear at Penn since October 7.
Much of the later part of the article relies on quotations related to education from Project 2025, which Trump has repeatedly and strongly disavowed. During the September Trump-Harris debate, one of the most important and widely watched political events of the election cycle, Harris accused Trump of wanting to implement the “dangerous” Project 2025, which provoked the following response from Trump: “I have nothing to do, as you know and as she knows better than anyone, I have nothing to do with Project 2025. That’s out there. I haven’t read it. I don’t want to read it, purposely. I’m not going to read it. This was a group of people that got together, they came up with some ideas. I guess some good, some bad. But it makes no difference. I have nothing to do [with it].”
Project 2025 was written by the Heritage Foundation, a large conservative think tank based in Washington D.C. with no official connection to Trump. It is unsurprising, given the political affiliation of the Heritage Foundation, that there is overlap of staffing and policy between the past and future Trump administrations and Project 2025, but the overlap does not automatically confer upon Project 2025 the status of being official policy. Labeling Project 2025 as being completely representative of Trump’s policy agenda is dishonest given how explicit Trump has been about his rejection of the Heritage Foundation’s pet project.
I am thoroughly unimpressed by the attempt at spreading fear about what the policy of the second Trump administration will look like. If one has to make predictions about the policies Trump will implement, look to his campaign website or, even better, his first presidency. It is important, critical even, to explore and debate the possible policy of a President-elect, but we should do so without alarmism and with the benefit of ample evidence and thorough investigation.
Sarah Mester is a senior in the College studying Political Science and Classics from San Francisco, CA. She’s the Assistant News Editor for The Pennsylvania Post. Her email is smester@sas.upenn.edu.
