None of the blows that have been inflicted on American higher education over the past few months were unanticipated. Every single one of them—the cancellation of grants and contracts, the suspension of visa issuance, the filing of civil and criminal complaints, and the withdrawal of accreditation—were explicitly predicted months before the administration took office.

Furthermore, these initiatives have all been taken in service of a vision that was clearly articulated four years ago:

“There is no way for a conservative to accomplish our vision of society unless we're willing to strike at the heart of the beast. That's the universities… Unless we're willing to de-institutionalize the left in those institutions—or destroy the institutions absent that—we are going to continue to make the most powerful academic actors in our society actively aligned against us. The only way to work is to actually take some of these institutions over.”

These remarks were made by JD Vance on a podcast episode; similar sentiments were expressed in a more formal setting a few months later. This was well before the attacks of October 7, and the encampments, building occupations, and classroom disruptions that followed.

Consistent with this bleak vision, our leading research universities are in the process of being taken over under threat of being destroyed. The claims that they are hotbeds of antisemitism or unwitting agents of foreign influence, whatever their merits, are clearly pretextual.

Furthermore, there is little that can be done through litigation to interrupt this process. Some of the most consequential federal decisions lie outside the scope of judicial review. A court might prevent the cancellation of existing grants or the revocation of previously-issued visas, but cannot force funding agencies or consular officials to approve any specific application in the future. And the messages being sent to funding agencies at home and embassies abroad are crystal clear.

If the administration continues along this path, American leadership in higher education will be lost for good. Faculty will be up for grabs in a global marketplace for scholars, and students will follow them wherever they land. And if a critical mass assembles in one particular region, agglomeration effects could fuel its rise and entrench its position. This is how American dominance of this sector (as well as the motion picture, software, and live theater industries) was established in the first place.

There has been a lot of attention recently to the possibility that the major beneficiary of this unraveling will be China, which is aggressively pursuing scholars and students. For example, the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology has instituted “unconditional offers, streamlined admission procedures, and academic support” for all current Harvard undergraduates seeking to transfer, as well as those holding confirmed offers of acceptance. And a Nobel laureate who had a federal grant frozen received an offer of twenty years of guaranteed funding at “any city, any university” of his choice within hours of posting his concerns on social media.

There have indeed been some high profile departures of scholars from the US to China, but I suspect that this particular pathway will be traveled largely by those in scientific and technical fields, and those who already have social connections in the region. What China cannot offer under current conditions, especially to scholars in the humanities and social scientists, is a commitment to academic freedom that faculty value immensely, and that is essential for their work.

If China cannot displace the United States atop the global higher education hierarchy, who can?

There are really two quite separate components to American dominance of this sector—a research infrastructure that draws aspiring scholars, and a broad and deep four-year degree that attracts academically inclined high school students. The connection between these components is tight, and our leading universities cater to both types of demands. The graduate divisions generate a steady stream of research-focused academics, as well as a population of teacher-scholars who join undergraduate-facing institutions. If some other country or region is to truly challenge American leadership in higher education, it will have to build on both these fronts.

In an earlier post (and a podcast appearance) I argued that the only country that has both the resources and the capacity to make credible commitments regarding academic freedom is Norway. The country is small, with fewer people than New York City, but its sovereign wealth fund is larger than the combined endowments of all American universities. Together with its Scandinavian neighbors, it has very deep roots in higher education and scholarly inquiry. If it chooses to make major investments in a system of undergraduate colleges and research universities based on the American model, the returns over the next few decades would be substantial.

Some defenders of the administration’s actions against Harvard have argued that other American universities “can be the recipients of talent and ideas… the beneficiaries of Harvard's misfortune.” But this misunderstands the position in which faculty find themselves. If the goal really is to take over or destroy American universities, then all of them are potential targets. Some will be taken over, and some destroyed. From the perspective of most faculty, a loss of institutional autonomy is tantamount to destruction. Moving from one institution to another facing comparable risks makes little sense.

The faculty are the beating heart of every university. They are the magnets attracting undergraduate students and aspiring researchers from every corner of the world. Where they go, others will follow. Germany surrendered its leadership of the research frontier by purging faculty on ethnic and political grounds. I fear that we are on the precipice of following this abominable example.

American universities are hardly beyond reproach, and there are many legitimate reasons for the cratering of public confidence in them. But they are also engaged in serious reflection and reform, not all of it in response to external pressures. And they really are a jewel in our economic crown, fueling productivity growth and generating significant service exports. The federal government is powerful enough to destroy them, and to scatter their remains worldwide. But doing so would be a strategic blunder of historic proportions.