A federal judge in Maryland granted a preliminary injunction on Monday barring top officials at the Education Department and the Office of Personnel Management from turning over sensitive data to Elon Musk and members of his Department of Government Efficiency team while a privacy lawsuit continues.

The order was the latest development in a category of lawsuits that have taken aim at Mr. Musk’s access to federal databases containing personal information about U.S. citizens. The suits have largely succeeded thus far in securing rulings blocking Mr. Musk’s team from that type of data.

In an opinion accompanying the order on Monday, Judge Deborah L. Boardman of the Federal District Court for the District of Maryland wrote that the Privacy Act of 1974 clearly required stronger protection of personal and financial data that could be vacuumed up in Mr. Musk’s efforts to scour agency records.

The American Federation of Teachers had sued to halt those efforts, saying that its members routinely submitted sensitive data to the department for help with student loan forgiveness and other programs, and had not consented to their data being scrutinized by Mr. Musk’s team, which despite its name is not an executive-branch department. Judge Boardman issued a restraining order last month and extended it on Monday, citing Congress’s reasoning when it passed the Privacy Act more than 50 years ago.

“Those concerns are just as salient today,” she wrote. “No matter how important or urgent the President’s DOGE agenda may be, federal agencies must execute it in accordance with the law. That likely did not happen in this case.”

Federal judges in a number of cases have been sympathetic to arguments that Mr. Musk’s sweep through federal data systems have come at the expense of ordinary people who handed their financial records and personal details over to the government for routine services.

Last week, a judge ordered the Social Security Administration to ensure that any data given to Mr. Musk’s team was anonymized or redacted first. And last month, a judge in a another case took similar steps to protect taxpayer information stored at the Treasury Department.

Lawyers behind those various challenges have argued that the injunctions are increasingly urgent, especially in light of fears that data submitted by private citizens could be used for other purposes beyond a routine audit, including identifying and targeting undocumented immigrants for deportation. Over the weekend, a draft report of a deal between the Internal Revenue Service and the Immigration and Customs Enforcement office indicated that the Trump administration was already moving to use data for that purpose, even without Mr. Musk’s team serving as a go-between.

Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, said in a statement on Monday that Mr. Musk and his team “have been running roughshod over Americans’ privacy.” The judge, she said, had acted to maintain a firewall between those efforts and the data of tens of millions of people held by the Education Department.

In her ruling, Judge Boardman reiterated that the union appeared likely to prevail in the case. But as in other cases, the rapid pace at which the Trump administration has moved to dismantle agencies and outrun the courts could limit some of the practical effects of the order.

Already this month, top officials at the Education Department rushed to cut the agency’s work force in half. And an executive order President Trump signed last week directed the agency’s leaders to find ways to spin off some of its functions, potentially moving some of the databases at issue in the lawsuit to other departments, such as the Small Business Administration or the Department of Health and Human Services.

It was chicken tenders night at Yale’s chapter of Hillel, the Jewish student group, and the basement dining hall was packed with boisterous, hungry students attracted by overflowing vats of kosher fried chicken and vegan mac and cheese.

Some students kissed the mezuza on the way in. Others were not even Jewish, but came for the food and companionship, a sign of the pluralism that Hillel — the dominant Jewish campus organization in the United States — says it embraces.

Yet under the surface, there were signs of strain, after months of divisive protests on campus over the war in Gaza. A silent question hung in the air, several students said: “Which side are you on?”

Few American organizations have been touched by clashes over the war quite the way Hillel has. The movement, founded in 1923 at the University of Illinois, now has chapters at 850 colleges and universities around the world, from highly selective private schools like Yale to big state universities like Texas A&M. The Hillel movement, including Hillel International and the campus Hillel chapters, had $200 million in revenue in 2023, received from tens of thousands of donors.

Hillel centers are where college students go to cement their sense of Jewish identity, or to discover it. Its slogan is “all kinds of Jewish,” and it aims to be welcoming to all.

But as the conflict in Gaza continues, some Jewish students believe that Hillel is not critical enough of the Israeli government’s conduct of the war, and too defensive in its support of Zionism, a belief in the right of Jews to a Jewish state in their ancestral land of Israel.

Hillel, for its part, is unapologetic. “Hillel as an institution has been and remains committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, that fulfills the right of Jewish self-determination in an ancestral homeland,” Adam Lehman, Hillel’s chief executive officer, said in an interview.

The shock of the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, against Israel has moved many Jewish students to explore what it means to be Jewish, fueling significant growth in interest in Hillel on campuses around the world. During the 2023-24 school year, as the conflict in the Middle East escalated, a record 180,000 students participated in Hillel activities at least once, 12,000 more than the year before, according to the organization. There was also an uptick in the number of “super-users,” who visited Hillel at least six times.

Over the last year and half, though, the solidarity that came with that identity has cracked.

The fissures can be felt in public life and in synagogues. And the division among Jews more generally is playing out among Jews on campus, as some complain that Hillel is too aligned with Israel, while others say that it is too open to critics of Israel.

Many students find it hard to divorce themselves from Hillel completely, especially in this time when they may not feel safe expressing their Jewish faith and identity outside their own community.

Some students, like Emanuelle Sippy, a senior at Princeton, look for a middle ground. She still goes to Hillel for prayer services, meals and lectures. But in the search for a more congenial left-wing political environment, she also helped to revive a small rival group, the Alliance of Jewish Progressives, on her campus.

“There is a group of people — very close friends, people I respect and admire — who are fighting battles within these institutions like Hillel,” she said. “They might be showing up to events. Hillel might be counting them. It doesn’t mean they don’t have criticisms.”

This is not the first time that there has been a schism among students at Hillel.

Students at Harvard launched an Open Hillel movement in 2012, in protest against the parent organization’s policy against partnering with anti-Israel groups. In December 2013, students at Swarthmore Hillel declared themselves the first “Open Hillel” chapter in the nation, vowing to promote open inquiry, regardless of ideology.

The current ideological split feels sharper, as campus protests for and against Israel have led to arrests, suspensions and lawsuits. When it comes to the campus Hillel, “a lot of students don’t feel comfortable going in for political reasons,” said Danya Dubrow-Compaine, a senior and a co-founder of Yale Jews for Ceasefire.

There is also a growing generation gap. In a Pew survey conducted in February 2024, 38 percent of adults under 30 years old said Israel’s reasons for fighting Hamas were valid, down from 41 percent two years earlier. That compares with 78 percent of people 65 and older who said the same, up several points from the earlier survey.

Elijah Bacal, a sophomore who is an organizer for Yale Jews for Ceasefire, said the institutional leadership of the Slifka Center, as Yale’s Hillel is known, has been slow to adapt.

“I think there is a real, honestly, just like an out-of-touchness,” Mr. Bacal said.

Hillel is still one of the first places Jewish students go when arriving on campus, to meet others, do homework and enjoy a meal with friends.

“I was looking for a place where my intellectual life wouldn’t be siloed into the classroom, but would spill out to a broader community,” said Medad Lytton, a Yale senior.

After Oct. 7, he said, he “felt a strong sense of peoplehood.” A singing circle at Slifka helped him connect with others to express his grief. “It’s kind of a second home for me,” he said of the center.

Nili Fox, a junior at Washington University in St. Louis, was brought up in a religious Jewish family, and sought out Hillel as soon as she arrived on campus. After Oct. 7, Hillel was her “rock,” she said.

“It has really been helpful to know that whenever I feel uncomfortable I have a place where I was supported and loved, no matter what,” Ms. Fox said.

Other students are dismayed by what they perceive as Hillel’s uncritical view of Israel in the face of a complicated and morally challenging reality.

Some students object to Hillel houses flying the Israeli flag, which they see as a symbol of a nation that has, from Ms. Sippy’s perspective, committed war crimes.

Uri Cohen, the executive director of the Slifka Center at Yale, says the flag represents Hillel’s values.

“There are some who don’t come because it crosses a line for them, and there are many who come,” Mr. Cohen said. “Slifka is very clear. We are a Zionist institution. We are also not checking anybody’s credentials at the door.”

In January, Yale Hillel hosted a talk by Naftali Bennett, a former Israeli army commando, defense minister and prime minister, who was once considered a protégé of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s current prime minister. Many Jewish students objected to Mr. Bennett’s hawkish politics.

(At a later talk at Harvard Business School, Mr. Bennett joked that he would give exploding pagers to people who disagreed with him, according to The Harvard Crimson.)

Mr. Bacal, the organizer with Yale Jews for Ceasefire, helped lead a peaceful protest against Mr. Bennett in the lobby of the Slifka Center. He did not contest Mr. Bennett’s right to speak, Mr. Bacal said, but he did not see why the event had been held in a spiritual place, a chapel where students went to pray and that contained an ark with a Torah in it.

“I think it’s a real shame, because the Jewish community at college should welcome and represent all Jews on campus to the best of its ability, no matter where they are coming from,” he said.

Another student, Netanel Crispe, a senior, said that he objected not to the speaker but to Hillel’s having allowed the protest against him. Mr. Crispe said that Slifka staff stopped him and several others from filming the protest.

He faulted Yale Hillel for trying “to play to both sides in a way that doesn’t reflect core values.”

Mr. Cohen, Slifka’s director, defended the invitation the center extended to Mr. Bennett, noting that his talk drew 300 people to a space that only held 100. “We did it out of our love for Israel and our love for Zionism, and the opportunity of giving access for our students to an influential world leader,” he said.

To illustrate Hillel’s dilemma, Mr. Bacal, the protest leader, recalled how honored he was to lead Shabbat services for the first time. His parents came to town to be there, and friends attended. But it took place around the time of the Naftali Bennett event, and one of his friends stayed away in protest.

She told Mr. Bacal she did not feel comfortable stepping into Slifka that week. “I totally get that,” Mr. Bacal said.

Alain Delaquérière, Susan C. Beachy and Sheelagh McNeill contributed research.

Colleges are expecting what could be the largest freshman class ever this fall at a moment of extraordinary turmoil, as campuses face financial pressures from the federal government and political conflict over diversity and other cultural issues.

Admissions processes, upended by the Supreme Court decision to ban affirmative action, have been revamped. Budget pressures and worries about financial aid and tuition loom for colleges and families alike. Campuses have been grappling with protests and the sanctity of academic freedom.

And that was before President Trump’s return to power.

After he took office in January, his administration almost immediately began a campaign to close the Education Department and stop billions of dollars from flowing to colleges. On campuses, universities are shutting down laboratories and confronting civil rights investigations over antisemitism.

As about 3.9 million students earn their high school diplomas and many of them head to college, the changes could affect their experiences in big and small ways.

Here’s how the commotion might touch students, their parents and anyone else around college campuses this year.

Different schools, different problems

The United States has close to 4,000 degree-granting colleges and universities that offer everything from associate’s degrees in nursing to doctorates in history. But challenges are just about everywhere in higher education right now.

The kind of federal budget cuts that the Trump administration is pursuing could be the most damaging to universities where research is integral to the campus’s culture and structure. That includes places like the University of Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins University, but also schools like Kansas State University. Some have already announced layoffs or hiring freezes, and may be forced to rework their course offerings.

It is unclear how much belt tightening there will be, and how it might affect undergraduates in the fall.

Regional public universities often receive less attention but are very much the backbone of higher education for millions of people. They have not been as targeted by the Trump administration, but they still face fundamental challenges around state budget fights, increasing day-to-day costs and declining enrollments.

On some campuses, students are finding reduced services and staffing, with fewer professors, diminished academic resources and buildings that are closed more frequently.

Community colleges are generally far cheaper than their four-year counterparts and are still avoiding the biggest political fights around higher education; plenty of politicians, in fact, are pushing to make them free.

But their troubles are deep and stubborn. Although some schools have reported enrollment growth for this semester, community colleges have suffered from slumped interest for years.

Private colleges are a mixed bag. Many remain strong, if susceptible to criticism over their costs and political leanings. But dozens have closed in recent years, leaving students scrambling to find new academic homes.

Is paying for college going to change?

There is proposed change, and then there is actual change.

Mr. Trump’s effort to dismantle the Education Department puts two federal programs in limbo: Pell Grants and student loans.

Linda McMahon, the secretary of education, said during her confirmation hearing that she wanted to expand the Pell Grant program, which is for low-income students. It isn’t clear, however, which agency or entity would administer the grants if the Education Department were to go away.

On Friday, Mr. Trump said that the Small Business Administration would “immediately” take over the federal student loan portfolio. The Student Borrower Protection Center called his idea “illegal, unserious, and a distraction.”

Given the enormity of the loan program, any quick transfer seems highly unlikely. Until Congress or federal courts get involved — and both may happen before long — the application process for financial aid and loans won’t change. The FAFSA, short for Free Application for Federal Student Aid, has been working better so far this application season after a rough redesign of the application. But it’s not clear how recent Education Department layoffs will affect the process.

The biggest wild card may be the colleges themselves and what sorts of grants and scholarships they’ll be giving out. Many schools are suspending hiring to save money and fretting over a possible decline in international students, who may fear coming to the United States right now.

What isn’t clear is whether schools will ask students to pay more than they may have otherwise (because of concerns over budget hits from the loss of federal funding) or pay less (to get them to commit to coming in the first place).

How campus culture is shifting

Diversity, equity and inclusion programs had once seemed like a good idea to many universities, even a necessity, as they sought to increase their enrollments in a competitive landscape. But a backlash has driven state lawmakers to take up legislation to eliminate such programs, and now the Trump administration is also attacking them.

Universities are responding in varying ways.

Sometimes schools have simply renamed their D.E.I. operations. Other universities been more aggressive. In March 2024, the University of Florida fired its 13-member D.E.I. staff in response to a state ban, for example.

On some campuses, students will very likely feel the differences.

The University of Virginia pulled trainings on topics such as D.E.I. and microaggressions from its website. At the University of Houston, the campus newspaper announced that an L.G.B.T.Q. center was being shut after Texas banned diversity programming in colleges and universities. At the University of North Florida, an L.G.B.T.Q. center, a women’s center, an interfaith center and an intercultural center were all shuttered.

At Missouri State University in January, students protested the elimination of an annual diversity conference as well as an “inclusive excellence” gala.

There remain holdouts. In a recent meeting with the faculty Senate at Amherst College in Massachusetts, its president Michael Elliott called Mr. Trump’s orders ambiguous, and said that Amherst would make no cuts.

Schools that have seen major protests over the war in Gaza could face blunt-force pressure from Washington to change discipline and other institutional policies related to protests, and even curriculum related to the Middle East.

Republican efforts to curb diversity programming could extend into the classroom. Long before Mr. Trump began his second term, some states, including Florida, tried to sideline ideas from college curriculums that lawmakers considered left-leaning.

That could lead to more limited course offerings that touch on race and gender. For now, the courses in Florida are still available but not required.

Other efforts are in the works. A bill in Arizona, for example, would slash state funding for all state colleges if any instruction connected “contemporary American society” to ideas like whiteness or systemic racism.

What does the affirmative action ban mean for students?

The Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 to strike down race-conscious admissions has upended nearly 50 years of court precedent and university policies, and the effect on admissions especially at the nation’s most selective institutions may be unclear for years to come.

Statistics are in for the class that entered in the fall, and they broadly show a decrease in the number of Black students enrolled. Some differences were stark, as at Harvard Law School, which enrolled 19 Black first-year students last fall, compared with 43 the year before.

But there are some exceptions to the trend. And given the difficulty of comparing different counting methods across universities, officials have been reluctant to predict how the future will play out.

Schools are trying to maintain diversity by stepping up financial aid and recruitment, particularly in rural areas. Several universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, are offering free tuition for students whose families earn $200,000 and below.

The court also left open the possibility that universities could consider race in the context of life challenges, especially as students presented them in application essays. But critics of affirmative action, like Students for Fair Admissions, which brought the Supreme Court case, are ready to challenge universities if they see any hint of any decisions based on race.

Anti-affirmative action groups will also be scrutinizing measures like SAT scores, if they can get them, to see whether universities are using different standards for different races and ethnicities.