Public Confidence in Higher Education Is Rebounding — Will Institutions Seize the Moment?

For the first time in a decade, public trust in U.S. higher education has increased. Two major national surveys — Gallup/Lumina and New America — show confidence rising from 36% to 42% in 2025. While the improvement is modest, it represents a meaningful reversal after years of decline. In a third survey administered in June 2025, again from Gallup and Lumina, 59 percent of parents in the U.S. indicated that they think going to a four-year or two-year college is their best next step (with some variation by political party) and another 13% say a job certification or training program.

The irony? This rebound appears to have less to do with major institutional changes and more with what political scientists call the “thermostatic model” of public opinion — where public sentiment moves in the opposite direction of government policy. As Inside Higher Ed recently noted, sustained political attacks on colleges and universities may have inadvertently rallied public support.

The opportunity for institutional leaders is clear: this goodwill may be temporary unless it is matched with visible, tangible actions that address both bipartisan priorities and areas of greatest skepticism.

Where Americans Agree — and Where They Diverge

The New America survey shows that Democrats and Republicans most strongly agree that it is very important for colleges to:

1. Equip students with the skills and knowledge to succeed

   in their chosen fields (D: 85%, R: 75%).

2. Provide a skilled and educated workforce

   for the economy (D: 77%, R: 64%).

3. Engage with and serve their communities

   (D: 62%, R: 42%).

These are foundational missions — and “winning issues” — for higher education’s public narrative.

Yet there are stark partisan differences on other priorities:

• Conducting research to expand new understandings

  (D: 68%, R: 37%) — a 31-point gap.

• Creating an environment where students of all backgrounds feel supported

  (D: 78%, R: 49%) — a 29-point gap.

• Fostering cross-cultural understanding

  (D: 63%, R: 22%) — a 39-point gap.

While disagreements over diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) reflect well-publicized political debates, the research gap is especially concerning. Without clear messaging about the critical work institutions do in medical research, AI, engineering, and public health these great works risk being overshadowed by perceptions of an overemphasis on what some think of as “divisive” social issues.

What Skeptics Are Thinking

The data sheds light on where skeptics — who lean heavily Republican — have shifted most in the past year:

• Political agendas

  (+10 points to 38%).

• Poor administration

  (+9 points to 12%).

• Quality concerns

  (+1 point to 9%).

• Wrong focus/don’t teach the right things

  (down 3 points to 32%).

• Cost/expense

  (down 9 points to 24%).

The largest growth is in concern about political agendas — especially “not allowing students to think for themselves.” Cost, once the top frustration, has eased somewhat in relative priority, even as tuition continues to rise. This move from what is a clear and present and obvious challenge (cost concerns) to issues that are “ginned up” in our political environment must be addressed substantively.

A Six-Part Playbook for Sustaining and Building Trust

This moment calls for more than incremental adjustments. Institutional leaders can use the rebound as a springboard to rebuild trust across political lines.

1. Put Career Preparation at the Center: With over 90% of graduate and online students enrolling to advance or change careers – and traditional undergraduates more concerned about these issues than at any time in the past, career readiness is the most powerful common ground. Integrate internships, industry partnerships, co-curricular networking, and virtual experiential learning directly into curricula. Communicate these opportunities consistently to students and families.

2. Publicize Job Outcomes Relentlessly: Begin or expand the collection of placement and career outcomes data of graduates — soon to be required by the U.S. Department of Education. While longitudinal datasets take time, institutions can immediately share qualitative profiles, alumni interviews, and sector-specific employment trends. Short-form videos and written stories serve both SEO and social engagement.

3. Quantify Local Economic Impact: Many communities underestimate their local institution’s economic contribution. Go beyond service projects and sponsorships — publish clear metrics on local employment, vendor spending, and the direct economic effect of student and visitor spending.

4. Reframe Community and Belonging: Avoid politically charged terminology while reinforcing values most Americans share: connection, inclusion, and mutual respect. Show how belonging contributes to student success, retention, and civic engagement — without defaulting to language that can alienate skeptics.

5. Address Tuition Costs Head-On: Reevaluate pricing strategies in light of new student loan policies and rising skepticism about affordability. Where feasible, explore price resets over heavy discounting to signal accessibility and value.

6. Spotlight Research with Broad Impact: Reclaim the narrative on research by highlighting tangible, life-improving work: medical breakthroughs, engineering advances, AI innovations, and environmental solutions. Use accessible, non-technical language, and localize the impact where possible.

A Narrow Window of Opportunity

The 2025 rebound in public trust gives higher education leaders a unique — and possibly brief — window to change the narrative. By leaning into areas of bipartisan agreement, directly addressing sources of skepticism, and telling clearer stories about their value to students, communities, and society, institutions can make this rebound more than a political reflex.

If we fail to act now, public confidence may slip again. But with deliberate, data-informed leadership, this could be the turning point that higher education has been waiting for.