Higher Education Under Scrutiny: Crisis Readiness for 2026
As Federal Scrutiny Grows, Universities Must Build Communication into How They Plan and Respond.
-
October 05, 2026
-
This insight is Part 1 of a new series: Higher Education: In the Spotlight and Under Scrutiny – in which we discuss the most pressing issues facing college and university leaders and the key considerations for them to consider as they navigate an evolving and volatile landscape.
Key Takeaway: This first installment explores how the current political landscape is likely to continue shaping the higher education industry for the foreseeable future, with particular focus on federal and state policymakers’ ongoing attention to institutional accountability, governance, student safety, campus speech and public trust.
Introduction
Increasingly, colleges and universities have faced heightened scrutiny from lawmakers, regulators, the media, students, faculty and staff, alumni and donors, and frequently found themselves at the center of federal and state policy debates.
As such, university leaders should treat public affairs or reputational issues as omnipresent realities that demand active preparation. Clear and purposeful communication will underpin a sound external affairs strategy.
When crisis is “always on” communication cannot be an afterthought – it must be embedded into how the institution strategizes, operates, plans and responds. Institutions will need clear escalation protocols, aligned leadership teams, disciplined messaging and a strong understanding of where they are most exposed. Further, universities that will be best positioned to navigate political and policy volatilities will be those that pressure-test response plans and communicate with speed, consistency and credibility, to key internal and external stakeholders.
The Department of Education’s Call to Action
In August 2026, Education Secretary Linda McMahon issued a national call to action to college and university leaders, outlining the Trump administration’s higher education priorities and encouraging institutions to identify reforms already underway.1 The request is voluntary, and institutions are not being asked to sign on to a uniform agenda; however, the public nature of this exercise will undoubtedly lead to some universities being thrust into the national spotlight whether they choose to respond or not.
The U.S. Department of Education’s call underscores a broader shift in the higher education policy environment. Civil and criminal investigations, executive orders, rescinding of federal funds and press releases have all become instruments through which the administration is signaling its priorities and expectations for the industry. Federal scrutiny is increasingly being translated into direct pressure on institutional leadership, with non-compliance carrying consequences that significantly raise the risk of reputational crises. This moment in time highlights the communications challenge for university presidents and their cabinets who often find themselves caught between federal and state elected officials, their boards and their campus communities (students, faculty and staff, alumni and donors), having to manage contrasting viewpoints on how the university should respond to crises.
Institutions that seek to work with the administration will need to show their commitments are specific, credible and aligned with existing policies and practices. Institutions that choose not to engage with the administration risk facing heightened scrutiny, while also having to explain the decision to certain stakeholders. In either case, it becomes both an uncomfortable and uncompromising position to be in, which could expose institutions to political, legal and reputational risks. In both scenarios, how an institution communicates its rationale — internally and externally — is as consequential as the decision itself.
What This Shifting Landscape Means for University Leaders
What’s happening in Washington is only one part of a broader narrative shaping the industry. University leaders find themselves juggling many issues that pose individualized and institutional risks. A regulatory change can become a reputational challenge. A student conduct issue can become a political flashpoint and engulfing media story. An athletics decision can become a governance issue and legal case. An enrollment trend can become a public debate about the value of the institution and the degrees it confers. The higher education environment is more complex than ever, as issues no longer remain confined to one domain, and the 2026 midterms will likely only accelerate that dynamic. Any one of these issues can move from policy debate to reputational crisis faster than most leadership teams anticipate.
With a new academic year already underway, university leaders should pressure-test their crisis readiness across four dimensions:
- Risk sensing: Do leaders know which policy, political and reputational issues are most likely to affect their institution at the state and federal levels?
- Governance alignment: Are trustees, presidents, legal counsel, government affairs and communications teams aligned before issues escalate?
- Message discipline: Are all communications owners aligned, prepared and supported to clearly explain the institutional mission, decision making and how it protects its community to its various key stakeholders: students, faculty and staff, alumni, donors, policymakers, etc.?
- Stakeholder engagement: Are key internal and external audiences hearing from the institution before, during and after moments of scrutiny?
One key takeaway for those at the helm of our nation’s institutions of higher learning is that as political and reputational pressures continue to converge, preparedness is their friend. In an environment in which issues can escalate rapidly and consequences extend beyond campuses, it’s imperative that institutions proactively pressure-test their state of crisis readiness. This kind of preparedness, paired with experienced strategic counsel and proven communications capabilities, will best position leadership teams not only to manage scrutiny, but also to leverage it to enhance the institution’s reputation and credibility among its key stakeholders.
Footnote:
1: U.S. Department of Education, Press Release, “U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon Issues National Call to Action to University Presidents and Governing Boards” (Aug. 3, 2026), .
The views expressed herein are those of the author(s) and not necessarily the views of FTI Consulting, Inc., its management, its subsidiaries, its affiliates, or its other professionals.
Related Insights
Related Information
Published
October 05, 2026
Key Contacts
Managing Director
Director
Senior Consultant