Federal actions in the second Trump administration have placed higher education institutions at a critical crossroads as they navigate how best to support undocumented and international students (Streitwieser et al., 2020), as well as the higher education leaders, faculty, and staff who serve them amid an escalating climate of immigration enforcement (National Immigration Forum, 2025). Some of the actions taken by the Trump administration include efforts to expand mass deportations of undocumented migrants, revoke or restrict protections previously available to some individuals (Trump, 2025; The White House, 2025), implement more stringent screening processes for certain international student visas, and proposed elimination of the Optional Practical Training (OPT) program (Know, 2025).
The heightened threats of and presence of policing agents—such as ICE, state and local police, and campus security—on our campuses has exacerbated a culture of anxiety and fear among not only undocumented and international college students, but also faculty, staff, and communities. These students are pausing their academic and career goals and fear attending class, particularly when federal agents are near campus, while faculty and staff experience distress as they scramble to support students with precarious statuses amid growing responsibilities, all while facing risks to their own psychosocial well-being.
Amidst these challenges, it is essential to understand the role institutional leaders—such as chancellors, presidents, provosts, and vice presidents—play in responding to and potentially resisting federal policies. As part of a larger project funded by the W. T. Grant Foundation and the Spencer Foundation, we are working to understand the challenges arising from the escalating immigration enforcement climate and its impact on undocumented and international college students, as well as on institutional leaders, faculty, and staff. Our project includes a comprehensive review of recent research evidence along with focus groups and interviews with institutional leaders, faculty, staff, and undocumented and international students. As part of our work, conducted in collaboration with the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, we will disseminate an engagement plan to guide institutions in developing policies and practices that support faculty, staff, and students with precarious immigration statuses.
Left to right: H. Kenny Nienhusser, Milagros Castillo-Montoya, Jillian Ives, Adam McCready, Franklin Tuitt
Here, we briefly describe the current landscape affecting institutional leaders and conclude with implications for future research in relation to leaders navigating this heightened climate of immigration enforcement.
Reticent and Resistant Leadership
Higher education institutional leaders have been thrust into a fraught landscape that in many ways have forced them to reflect on their leadership actions as they consider ways to support undocumented and international college students amidst navigating federal actions that may negatively impact their institutions. In our focus groups and interviews, actions taken by leaders in this heightened immigration enforcement climate generally fell into two categories: reticent and resistant.
Reticent actions include preemptive obedience, where leaders unnecessarily restrict opportunities out of fear of federal retaliation, and institutional silence, in which leaders avoid public support to protect students but risk being perceived as failing to act (Pacheco, 2025). Our initial findings indicate that the often-perceived reticent actions—or inactions—of institutional leaders are affecting students, faculty, and staff, with students feeling overlooked and some faculty and staff reporting a lack of support and guidance. Our findings also suggest that institutional leaders’ preemptive obedience to sociopolitical pressures or compliance (e.g., from board of trustees, elimination of federal funds) has resulted in stripping websites of information for campus community members, cutting support programs, and faculty and staff finding themselves on the frontlines of providing the necessary support for students with precarious statuses mostly without clear institutional leadership support.
In contrast, resistant actions involve proactive efforts to support students with precarious immigration statuses, such as issuing public statements, implementing supportive policies, expanding resources, and backing faculty and staff efforts. In these cases, their core work as leaders has not changed dramatically. These actions, however, are at times carried out discreetly by leaders in an effort to protect community members by “keep[ing] our heads down and do[ing] what needs to be done,” as one leader shared with us. These institutional leaders have made strategic adjustments that sustain longstanding commitments and infrastructures designed to support students with precarious immigration statuses. Where these commitments were embedded across leadership levels—from cabinet leaders to mid-level administrators and frontline staff—support had already become normalized in everyday institutional practices.
“Webs of Relationships”
While our focus here is on leaders, our data indicate that leaders, faculty, staff, students, and community members are growing webs of relationships to navigate this precarious reality. In these webs, they share resources, information, and support for each other. Faculty in our study shared, for example, how they connect with local community organizations, undocumented student organizations or youth networks, and internal college and university coalitions to stay up to date on what is happening and how it is impacting students and their families.
Both our research and recent events in Minnesota underscore the importance of relationships during times of crisis (Long, 2026). We know that both community advocacy and relationships—outside of colleges and universities, as well as within them—are stepping up to support those most impacted. The webs of relationships are growing because faculty, staff, and students recognize that if institutions of higher education, and their leaders, are not going to step in, or they perceive them as not taking action, then the community must. One faculty member noted that the lack of institutional support is “leading us to develop stronger statewide networks.”
The perceived leaders’ reticence and vague guidance have left many faculty and staff feeling unsupported and uncertain about how to best assist students with precarious statuses. Faculty and staff are also overburdened and experiencing secondary trauma trying to support students’ safety and wellbeing during these times, often with little training, support, or resources. This challenging landscape points to important directions for future research that we argue are warranted to better understand the impacts of how institutional leaders are navigating the escalating climate of immigration enforcement.
Call to Action: Future Research
The unprecedented times we are living in require novel actions to advance research to identify how higher education institutions—including its leaders—can be more supportive of students with precarious statuses. We present six recommendations for future research given the intensifying climate of immigration enforcement.
Fraught policy landscape: The complex policy environment presents unique challenges for institutional leaders. We call for sustained research examining how leaders’ decision-making and institutional culture shape support for students with precarious statuses within this increasingly fraught landscape. How are leaders navigating these complexities? In what ways do sociopolitical contexts shape their work?
Institutional leaders’ (in)actions: The (in)action of institutional leaders is having profound effects on how students with precarious immigration statuses, faculty, and staff experience the escalating climate of immigration enforcement. Additional research is needed to better understand how leaders’ (in)actions during this time of crisis shape the experiences of these students, as well as faculty and staff. What actions are needed to ensure that students with precarious statuses, as well as faculty and staff, feel supported? How might leaders’ perceived inaction affect the campus community?
Preemptive obedience: Many interviewees described leaders engaging in preemptive obedience to avoid potential retaliation. Further research is needed on how institutional leaders make decisions to (over)comply with external pressures, and how such (over)compliance leads to the elimination of programs and services to support students with precarious statuses. What affect will these decisions have on the success of these students and those faculty and staff supporting those learners? How are students, faculty, and staff responding to and supporting each other amid these decisions?
Implementation of strategic adjustments: Future research should explore how leaders develop and implement strategic adjustments that effectively address the needs of students with precarious immigration statuses, as well as the faculty and staff who support them. What strategic adjustments are most needed? Which changes would best support the specific learning needs of these students?
Where are the leaders in this web?: We know little about how institutional leaders currently support—or could better support—faculty and staff as they build and sustain these webs of support for students. Even less is understood about how leaders can recognize and account for this labor—intellectual, emotional, and psychological—so that it is valued as part of faculty and staff roles and protected in ways that do not produce additional harm or trauma. How can leaders recognize, support, and sustain these webs amid external sociopolitical pressures? That said, research in this area must be conducted with great care to avoid compromising these networks and the individuals within them.
Supporting a climate of safety and support: Future research should more closely examine how leaders can foster a climate of safety and support on college campuses. For example, how can leaders communicate clear, effective guidance to faculty and staff on supporting students’ sense of safety during uncertain times? What trainings and workshops are most effective in preparing faculty and staff to respond during crises? What roles can communities and organizations—such as unions and professional associations—play in building campus capacity? Additionally, given the secondary trauma experienced by faculty and staff, research should explore how leaders can cultivate a culture that supports their psychosocial well-being. What types of training, programs, or initiatives can be implemented to support the psychosocial well-being of faculty and staff amid an escalating climate of immigration enforcement?
The escalating climate of immigration enforcement has had a heightened and profound impact on the higher education access and success of students with precarious immigration statuses. As a result, this climate has placed higher education institutional leaders in a fraught and complex position—often in reticent and resistant ways—of considering how to support these students. Also present are “webs of relationships”—composed of students, faculty, staff, and local community members—that have formed to support students with precarious statuses and one another. We end with a call to action to engage in research aligned with these issues, with the goal of finding ways to best support students, faculty, and staff with precarious immigration statuses during the challenging times in which we are living.
