Introduction
A recent New York Times article drew widespread attention for reporting that colleges and universities across the country are implementing tuition hikes and workforce layoffs. Concerns from the public have centered on whether education is being deprioritized as a public good. Specifically, a user’s question—”Why do these governors and politicians always say ‘focus on needs, not wants’—isn’t education kind of a basic need?”—reflects a broader fear that higher education is being framed, and funded, as a luxury rather than a societal necessity. We fact-checked the piece to clarify the causes of these financial pressures and assess the accuracy of political and budget-related claims.
Historical Context
Public funding for higher education in the United States has fluctuated for decades, often mirroring economic downturns, shifting political ideologies, and policy priorities. The 2008 financial crisis triggered significant budget cuts for public universities nationwide, pushing many institutions to raise tuition. Although federal stimulus funds helped temporarily stabilize some budgets during the COVID-19 pandemic, many colleges are now facing chronic structural deficits. Simultaneously, declining enrollment in many regions has compounded fiscal strain. As a result, education stakeholders are again confronting hard choices about tuition, staffing, and state contributions.
Fact-Check: Specific Claims
Claim #1: “The Trump administration’s efforts to reduce research funding are siphoning cash from many campuses, sometimes by hundreds of millions of dollars.”
This claim inaccurately emphasizes the role of the Trump administration despite it no longer being in power. While it is true that during his presidency, Donald Trump proposed significant cuts to research agencies like the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and the National Science Foundation (NSF), most of those reductions were not enacted by Congress. In fact, research funding often increased during his term due to bipartisan support for science and innovation in legislation. Additionally, given that this article was published in June 2025—over four years after Trump left office—the attribution of current financial pressure to his administration is misleading. More recent economic trends, falling enrollment, inflation, and expiring pandemic relief are more immediate contributors.
Source: Congressional Research Service; American Association for the Advancement of Science.
Claim #2: “In Nebraska, the state government’s contribution to the university system will rise roughly 0.6 percent, far below the 3.5 percent increase that the Board of Regents had sought to account for inflation.”
This statement is accurate based on public budget records from the University of Nebraska system and the governor’s fiscal year 2025 budget proposal. The university system requested a 3.5 percent funding increase, primarily to address inflation and wage growth. Instead, Governor Jim Pillen supported a much lower increase—0.6 percent. While this still represents a nominal rise in funding, it falls well short of what university leaders contend is necessary to maintain operations without cuts. In an inflationary context, this technically amounts to a real-terms funding decline.
Source: University of Nebraska Board of Regents; Nebraska Legislative Fiscal Office.
Claim #3: “Gov. Jim Pillen, a Republican, said he wanted the state to have ‘the courage to say no, and to focus on needs, not wants.’”
This is an accurate quotation from Governor Pillen’s public comments related to higher education funding. However, it lacks contextual explanation and may give readers an incomplete picture of the broader debate. In full, Pillen argued that state government must draw spending limits and prioritize “core services.” His office later clarified that he includes K–12 education and public safety in the “needs” category but believes universities can adjust budgets internally. Crucially, he did not explicitly claim higher education is a “want,” but rather that budget discipline was necessary statewide. The article omits this nuance, leaving readers to assume a stronger position than was actually stated.
Source: Nebraska Governor’s Office Press Briefing, April 2025; Omaha World-Herald.
Conclusion
The New York Times article provides a timely and concerning overview of sweeping financial challenges in U.S. higher education. However, its framing contains several gaps in context. Critically, attributing current fiscal shortfalls to the Trump administration’s research funding proposals ignores more relevant economic drivers in 2025. Additionally, while the reported figures and quotes about Nebraska’s budget decisions are factually sound, omitting the background of Governor Pillen’s remark risks misleading readers into thinking he explicitly devalues higher education. In sum, while the article captures the gravity of the crisis, it selectively emphasizes older or partial narratives, which gives a skewed picture of what is driving these tuition hikes and layoffs today.
Take Action Now
Want to fact-check the headlines for yourself? Stay informed and ahead of misinformation.
Download the DBUNK App today and see every side of the story.
