The Truman Foundation Must Embrace Civic Seriousness

Last spring, I coauthored an AEI report examining the taxpayer-subsidized Truman Scholarship program, founded in 1975 to identify “aspiring leaders” during their college years and encourage “their commitments to careers in public service.” We found an overwhelming left-wing bias. Among the fellows selected between 2021 and 2023, just six of 182 winners expressed interest in even a single conservative issue. Meanwhile, 72 had explicit interest in “woke” areas like “LGBT+” advocacy, DEI, or immigration rights, while dozens more had biographies readily recognizable as left-leaning.

The Truman Foundation recently named its 2025 winners, and nothing has changed. The College Fix reported, when this year’s 54 fellowship winners were announced, that 43 “have worked for Democratic politicians, advocated for progressive causes, or identify as left-leaning,” while just three winners have similar ties on the right. The 2025 fellows include an “abortion doula,” an “abolition feminist,” and multiple students who use “they/them” or other nonstandard pronouns.

The 2025 fellows include an “abortion doula,” an “abolition feminist,” and multiple students who use “they/them” or other nonstandard pronouns. That’s not exactly a cross-section of America’s college students. After all, while college faculty may be overwhelmingly left-leaning, the same isn’t true of the broader student population.

In fact, Truman’s leadership has doubled down on its intransigence by scrubbing the bios of past winners from its website, ensuring that no one can replicate the AEI study. Indeed, past press releases of winners are now password-protected. One can view them only via a Truman scholar account. And the program didn’t issue biographies for this year’s winners, either, instead just listing name, major, and degree aspirations. An information lockdown is certainly one response to the problem. Rather than addressing ideological bias, it is easier to hide the evidence. But this isn’t a good solution for the nation, as opacity seems better suited to a felonious enterprise than a taxpayer-funded scholarship.

Right-leaning students and faculty tell me that the deck is stacked and there’s no point wasting their time. What’s going on? Well, right-leaning students and the handful of conservative faculty tell me that they’ve concluded that the deck is stacked and there’s no point wasting their time. Meanwhile, left-leaning faculty are used to mentoring applicants and have had good experiences. And, of course, program announcements and information sessions tend to send clear (if unintentional) signals about the kinds of interests and research deemed promising.

As a recent Truman finalist told me, “When I interviewed for the scholarship (over Zoom), I was asked a number of politically pointed questions by the committee, including whether I, as a conservative, would condemn Donald Trump.” When he shared his experience with the director of his university’s honors college, he was told not to worry because “students like you don’t usually win the Truman.”

A former member of the Truman Scholars Association Board explained, “Scholars who [aren’t progressive] tend to disengage. This is especially true when opponents of progressive policies are labeled as racists or bigots. […] Most of the programming at Truman events is aimed at progressive scholars, because they are the majority participating.”

It’s not news that America’s colleges have little room for conservative thought, but it’s especially egregious when the same is true of the nation’s most prestigious federal scholarship, supported by public funds. The Truman program awards scholars $30,000 in taxpayer money for a graduate education and provides access to special programs and preferential hiring for federal jobs.

Last year, in response to my AEI report, Rep. Virginia Foxx, then-chair of the U.S. House Committee on Education & the Workforce, wrote a letter to the head of the Truman program expressing concerns about the findings. Foxx pressed the Truman leadership to account for these findings and to explain what they were doing to address the concerns. In response, Terry Babcock-Lumish, the foundation’s executive secretary, issued a defensive reply, lashing out at the study and insisting that “most applicants are neither obviously progressive nor obviously conservative” and that, in any event, it’s “needlessly divisive” to imagine that students can be sorted “to one side or another.”

Umm, okay.

Fortunately, the Truman Foundation’s board is in a position to set things right.  You see, the board currently includes Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and renowned Ivy League-slayer New York Rep. Elise Stefanik. They have the opportunity to strike a powerful blow for free inquiry and intellectual heterodoxy at an influential, highly visible program—one that is publicly subsidized and charged with an explicitly nonpartisan public mission.

What should they do?

Start by installing new leadership in the Truman program. Executive Secretary Babcock-Lumish has shown she is either unable or unwilling to address these concerns. In response to congressional inquiries, she has stonewalled and prevaricated, opting to hide problems rather than fix them.

There’s a need for a public accounting of the content and tenor of recruitment materials. Demand that the program take the challenge of recruiting students with diverse interests and perspectives much more seriously. There’s a need for a public accounting of the content and tenor of recruitment materials, how wide a net is being cast during the recruitment process, and whether the program is working to retain a broad and inclusive alumni community (which, in turn, has spillover effects on recruitment and selection). After all, the program holds that, “when it comes to cultivating leaders, our diversity is our strength.” Leaders of participating colleges and universities need to take a hard look at how they publicize opportunities, provide information, mentor applicants, or celebrate scholarship winners to ensure they’re not placing a fat thumb on the scale when it comes to which views and values are welcomed.

The interview process should be rigorously apolitical, while those involved in the selection process need to be more ideologically heterodox. Scrutinize the program’s selection process. I’ve received a remarkable number of missives over the past year from former applicants describing an ideologically freighted interview process. There’s a need to examine who is making these decisions, what questions they’re asking, and how finalists are being judged. In particular, tackle the Regional Review Panels that interview and select fellows. The interviewers’ names are public, and, at a rough estimate, it appears that Democrats outnumber their GOP counterparts by four to one. Moreover, the Republicans who are involved tend to be more moderate than the progressives. (Think “district judge appointed by George W. Bush” vs. “LGBTQ+ advocate.”) The interview process should be rigorously apolitical, while those involved in the selection process need to be more ideologically heterodox.

Of course, the reality is that the Truman board has remained silent through years of troubling bias and has sat on its hands even as Babcock-Lumish has doubled down. What should happen if McMahon tries to lead and the board refuses to change its ways?

In that event, the Trump administration should seek to overhaul the board. The president appoints eight of the 13 board members. While members serve six-year terms, there may be an argument that the president can replace executive-branch appointees before that term is up. In any event, the White House should seek to install a reform-minded majority as rapidly as possible. New appointments would need to be Senate-confirmed, and no more than half can be from one political party. But it shouldn’t be difficult to find Democrats who recognize the need to depoliticize higher education. A reform-minded majority’s first move should be to hire executive staff committed to making the Truman program a model of intellectual and ideological inclusivity.

The Truman program is charged with cultivating future leaders who can offer principled public leadership. This mission has never been more important. But fulfilling it will require a bold change in program leadership and culture in this polarized, distrustful age. The changes won’t be easy ones, but they’ll be well worth it if they help ensure that Harry S. Truman’s venerable legacy serves as a model for the whole nation and not just another redoubt for the denizens of the campus left.

Frederick M. Hess is the director of education policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute. He is the author of Getting Education Right.