Presidential initiatives often arrive with grand language and promises of progress, especially when addressing Black institutions. President Trump’s recent executive order on Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) is framed as a commitment to elevate these institutions as engines of educational excellence and economic opportunity. But history teaches us to separate political theater from tangible outcomes.
The order outlines a broad vision: integrating HBCUs into federal programs, fostering private-sector partnerships, modernizing infrastructure, and expanding workforce development in industries like technology, healthcare, and manufacturing. At face value, this appears to address longstanding challenges faced by HBCUs—institutions that, despite chronic underfunding, have produced 80% of Black judges, 50% of Black lawyers, and 25% of Black STEM graduates.
There are clear positives. Strengthening institutional capacity, improving access to federal research funding, and creating professional pipelines could offer real benefits. With Black unemployment consistently higher than the national average—standing at 6.4% compared to 3.8% overall as of early 2024—initiatives that open pathways into high-growth industries are essential. Additionally, with student debt disproportionately affecting Black graduates, increased focus on affordability and retention could ease financial burdens for future students.
However, good intentions have never guaranteed good results. The executive order removes prior frameworks focused on educational equity and dissolves advisory councils designed to address systemic barriers for Minority Serving Institutions. By emphasizing merit-based approaches and private-sector involvement, it assumes that access alone will resolve disparities—ignoring the structural disadvantages that have historically limited Black institutions and students.
HBCUs, on average, receive $5,000 less per student in public funding than predominantly white institutions (PWIs). Many lack the endowments that shield elite universities from economic volatility—Harvard’s endowment exceeds $50 billion, while the largest HBCU endowment, Howard University, sits at just over $800 million. Without enforceable commitments to close these gaps, federal encouragement alone will not reverse decades of financial neglect.
President Trump’s decision to pull federal funding from elite institutions like Harvard underscores a long-overdue reassessment of the allocation of taxpayer dollars in higher education. With an endowment exceeding $50 billion, Harvard has more financial reserves than many countries, yet it has continued receiving federal support to bolster educational institutions. The question is simple: Why should American taxpayers subsidize a university that could operate for decades without collecting another dime in tuition or aid? Redirecting these funds away from wealthy institutions and toward underfunded schools, particularly Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs), addresses a clear imbalance. While critics may dismiss this as political posturing, the reality is that institutions like Harvard do not need federal assistance—colleges serving marginalized communities do. Suppose federal funding is meant to expand opportunity and address disparities. In that case, propping up billion-dollar universities while HBCUs struggle with outdated infrastructure and limited endowments is both illogical and unjustifiable. This policy shift, if consistently applied, could begin to correct systemic inequities in education funding by prioritizing need over prestige.
The reliance on corporate partnerships introduces another layer of risk. While private investment can provide immediate resources, it often aligns institutional priorities with corporate interests. There’s a long history of workforce programs channeling Black talent into low to mid-level roles, offering jobs but limiting advancement to ownership or executive leadership. This order’s focus on workforce development could easily follow that pattern—preparing students to participate in industries without positioning them to lead or innovate within them.
Moreover, the language of the order is non-committal. Terms like “promote,” “encourage,” and “collaborate” dominate, while concrete funding levels, accountability mechanisms, and measurable targets are absent. An annual progress report to the President may document activity, but documentation is not the same as delivering outcomes. Without binding obligations, agencies and private partners can engage at their discretion, leaving HBCUs vulnerable to shifting political priorities and market conditions.
History offers plenty of examples where federal initiatives aimed at Black advancement produced more headlines than lasting change. From urban renewal projects that displaced Black communities to education reforms that ignored root causes, the pattern is familiar: promises are made, symbolic actions are taken, but structural conditions remain unchanged.
This executive order risks becoming another entry in that pattern. While it acknowledges the importance of HBCUs, it offers no guarantee that these institutions will emerge stronger, more independent, or better equipped to build generational wealth for Black communities. The absence of a focus on entrepreneurship, capital access, and institutional sovereignty suggests that the goal is integration into existing economic structures—not empowerment to build new ones.
For Black America, the measure of success isn’t whether politicians recognize HBCUs in policy statements. It’s whether those policies lead to financial stability, expanded ownership, and the ability to shape economic futures without dependency on government or corporate benevolence.
If this initiative results in modernized campuses, increased research capacity, and clear pathways to leadership in key industries, it will deserve acknowledgment. But if it merely provides temporary support while reinforcing a cycle of dependency and limited opportunity, it will serve as yet another reminder that access without power changes very little.
In the end, speeches and executive orders don’t build strong institutions—strategic investment, accountability, and a focus on ownership do. Without those elements, Black America will continue to be offered promises of opportunity while being denied the tools to control its own destiny.
Supporting Data:
HBCU Contribution: HBCUs account for 25% of Black STEM graduates and 80% of Black judges
HBCU Funding Gap: HBCUs receive approximately $5,000 less per student in state and federal funding compared to PWIs.
Endowment Disparities: Harvard University’s endowment exceeds $50 billion, while the largest HBCU endowment (Howard University) is just over $800 million.
Black Unemployment Rate (2024): 6.4%, compared to a national average of 3.8%.
Student Debt: Black college graduates owe, on average, $25,000 more in student loans than white graduates four years after graduation.
