Tag: Executive

‘We simply could not practice law . . . if we were still subject to the executive order’ – First Amendment News 463
“Global law firms have for years played an outsized role in undermining the judicial process and in the destruction of bedrock American principles.” — Executive Order (3-14-25)

“Law firms refuse to represent Trump opponents in the wake of his attacks” — The Washington Post (3-25-25)

The wolf is at the door.

Those who do not yet realize this may be forgiven for perhaps two reasons: They do not know the wolf is ravenous, and they do not know the door is ajar.

To get but a whiff of this, just read Brad Karp’s March 23 memo to his colleagues at the Paul Weiss firm, from which the title of this edition of FAN gets its title.

Also this, from MSNBC legal correspondent Lisa Rubin:

[The attacks on law firms] began with Trump issuing executive actions punishing three firms — Covington & Burling, which did not react; Perkins Coie, which fought back and won a partial temporary restraining order; and Paul Weiss, which ultimately capitulated to a deal announced last Thursday, the terms of which are still a matter of some debate. But the president has now directed Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a memo issued Friday night, to seek sanctions “against attorneys and law firms who engage in frivolous, unreasonable, and vexatious litigation against the United States.”

Now back to the Paul, Weiss controversy.

A little background at the outset to help set the retributive stage: According to Wikipedia, Karp “is a bundler for Democratic Party presidential candidates . . . having raised sums for the presidential campaigns of Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Joe Biden, Amy Klobuchar, and others.”

In other words, if Trump was out for political retribution, Karp was a perfect target. And then consider this: One of Karp’s former partners was Mark Pomerantz, author of “People vs. Donald Trump: An Inside Account,” which details the attempt to prosecute former president Donald Trump, written by one of the lawyers who worked on the case and who resigned in protest when Manhattan’s district attorney refused to act.

And now on to the Executive Order from March 14, “Addressing Risks from Paul Weiss.” Excerpts below:

In 2022, Paul Weiss hired unethical attorney Mark Pomerantz, who had previously left Paul Weiss to join the Manhattan District Attorney’s office solely to manufacture a prosecution against me and who, according to his co-workers, unethically led witnesses in ways designed to implicate me. After being unable to convince even Manhattan District Attorney Alvin Bragg that a fraud case was feasible, Pomerantz engaged in a media campaign to gin up support for this unwarranted prosecution.

Additionally, Paul Weiss discriminates against its own employees on the basis of race and other categories prohibited by civil rights laws. Paul Weiss, along with nearly every other large, influential, or industry leading law firm, makes decisions around ‘targets’ based on race and sex.

My Administration is committed to ending such unlawful discrimination perpetrated in the name of “diversity, equity, and inclusion” policies and ensuring that Federal benefits support the laws and policies of the United States, including those laws and policies promoting our national security and respecting the democratic process.

Now, the Weiss law firm’s memo in response, from Brad Karp:

Brad Karp

Only several days ago, our firm faced an existential crisis. The executive order could easily have destroyed our firm. It brought the full weight of the government down on our firm, our people, and our clients. In particular, it threatened our clients with the loss of their government contracts, and the loss of access to the government, if they continued to use the firm as their lawyers. And in an obvious effort to target all of you as well as the firm, it raised the specter that the government would not hire our employees.

We were hopeful that the legal industry would rally to our side, even though it had not done so in response to executive orders targeting other firms. We had tried to persuade other firms to come out in public support of Covington and Perkins Coie. And we waited for firms to support us in the wake of the President’s executive order targeting Paul, Weiss. Disappointingly, far from support, we learned that certain other firms were seeking to exploit our vulnerabilities by aggressively soliciting our clients and recruiting our attorneys.

We initially prepared to challenge the executive order in court, and a team of Paul, Weiss attorneys prepared a lawsuit in the finest traditions of the firm. But it became clear that, even if we were successful in initially enjoining the executive order in litigation, it would not solve the fundamental problem, which was that clients perceived our firm as being persona non grata with the Administration. We could prevent the executive order from taking effect, but we couldn’t erase it. Clients had told us that they were not going to be able to stay with us, even though they wanted to. It was very likely that our firm would not be able to survive a protracted dispute with the Administration.

Commentary:

President Donald Trump’s crackdown on lawyers is having a chilling effect on his opponents’ ability to defend themselves or challenge his actions in court, according to people who say they are struggling to find legal representation as a result of his challenges.

[Such executive orders and pressured settlements set] an ominous precedent for future presidents to exploit. . . . [H]ow can a lawyer who is considering representing a politically controversial client know that she will not be targeted the next time control of the White House changes hands? The safest course of action will be to avoid representing clients of any political salience, right or left, even if their cause is just.

Related

Constitutional scholars on the Trump Administration’s threats against Columbia University
We write as constitutional scholars — some liberal and some conservative — who seek to defend academic freedom and the First Amendment in the wake of the federal government’s recent treatment of Columbia University.

The First Amendment protects speech many of us find wrongheaded or deeply offensive, including anti-Israel advocacy and even antisemitic advocacy. The government may not threaten funding cuts as a tool to pressure recipients into suppressing such viewpoints. This is especially so for universities, which should be committed to respecting free speech.

At the same time, the First Amendment of course doesn’t protect antisemitic violence, true threats of violence, or certain kinds of speech that may properly be labeled ‘harassment.’ Title VI rightly requires universities to protect their students and other community members from such behavior. But the lines between legally unprotected harassment on the one hand and protected speech on the other are notoriously difficult to draw and are often fact-specific. In part because of that, any sanctions imposed on universities for Title VI violations must follow that statute’s well-established procedural rules, which help make clear what speech is sanctionable and what speech is constitutionally protected.

Yet the administration’s March 7 cancellation of $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University did not adhere to such procedural safeguards. Neither did its March 13 ultimatum stipulating that Columbia make numerous changes to its academic policies — including the demand that, within one week, it “provide a full plan” to place an entire “department under academic receivership for a minimum of five years” — as “a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.”

Signatories

Steven G. Calabresi
Clayton J. and Henry R. Barber Professor of Law, Northwestern Law School

Erwin Chemerinsky
Dean and Jesse H. Choper Distinguished Professor of Law, Berkeley Law School

David Cole
Hon. George J. Mitchell Professor in Law and Public Policy, Georgetown University Law Center

Michael C. Dorf
Robert S. Stevens Professor of Law, Cornell Law School

Richard Epstein
Laurence A. Tisch Professor of Law, NYU School of Law

Owen Fiss
Sterling Professor Emeritus of Law, Yale Law School

Aziz Huq
Frank and Bernice J. Greenberg Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

Pamela Karlan
Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law, Stanford Law School

Randall Kennedy
Michael R. Klein Professor of Law, Harvard Law School

Genevieve Lakier
Professor of Law, Herbert and Marjorie Fried Teaching Scholar, University of Chicago Law School

Michael McConnell
Richard and Frances Mallery Professor of Law, Stanford Law School

Michael Paulsen
Distinguished University Chair and Professor, St. Thomas Law School

Robert Post
Sterling Professor of Law, Yale Law School

David Rabban
Dahr Jamail, Randall Hage Jamail, and Robert Lee Jamail Regents Chair in Law, University of Texas Law School

Geoffrey R. Stone
Edward H. Levi Distinguished Service Professor of Law, University of Chicago Law School

Nadine Strossen
John Marshall Harlan II Professor of Law Emerita, New York Law School

Eugene Volokh
Thomas M. Siebel Senior Fellow, Hoover Institution, Stanford University

Keith Whittington
David Boies Professor of Law, Yale Law School
SCOTUS denies review in case urging that Sullivan be overruled
- Wynn v. Associated Press (issue: Whether this Court should overturn Sullivan’s actual-malice standard or, at a minimum, overrule Curtis Publishing Co.’s expansion of it to public figures)
On the Trump administration targeting campuses

The United States is home to the best collection of research universities in the world. Those universities have contributed tremendously to America’s prosperity, health, and security. They are magnets for outstanding talent from throughout the country and around the world. The Trump administration’s recent attack on Columbia University puts all of that at risk, presenting the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s. Every American should be concerned.

Until recently, it was a little-known program to help Black and Latino students pursue business degrees.

But in January, conservative strategist Christopher Rufo flagged the program known as The PhD Project in social media posts that caught the attention of Republican politicians. The program is now at the center of a Trump administration campaign to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs in higher education.

The U.S. Education Department last week said it was investigating dozens of universities for alleged racial discrimination, citing ties to the nonprofit organization. That followed a warning a month earlier that schools could lose federal money over “race-based preferences” in admissions, scholarships or any aspect of student life.

The investigations left some school leaders startled and confused, wondering what prompted the inquiries. Many scrambled to distance themselves from The PhD Project, which has aimed to help diversify the business world and higher education faculty.

Zoom webinar on strategies to combat attacks on free speech in academia

Thursday, March 27, 2025, 1:00 – 2:00 PM ET

As efforts to silence dissent grow more aggressive, the immediate and long-term threats to our constitutional freedoms — especially in educational institutions — cannot be ignored.

This virtual panel will bring together top legal minds and policy experts to examine how these actions affect student activists, journalists, and marginalized communities. Together, we’ll explore the legal strategies needed to safeguard First Amendment rights and resist the erosion of civil liberties.

Featured Panelists: Maria Kari, Human Rights Attorney Rep. Delia Ramirez (IL-03) Jenna Leventoff, Senior Policy Counsel, ACLU Stephen F. Rohde, MPAC Special Advisor on Free Speech and the First Amendment Whether you’re a student, educator, advocate, or supporter of civil rights, this is a conversation you won’t want to miss.

Register today and join us in defending the values that define our democracy.

Whittington on diversity statements and college hiring

Keith Whittington

The University of California is the godfather of the use of so-called diversity statements in faculty hiring. I have a piece forthcoming at the Nebraska Law Review arguing that such diversity statement requirements for general faculty hiring at state universities violate the First Amendment and violate academic freedom principles everywhere. It seems quite likely that in practice such diversity statement requirements are also used to facilitate illegal racial discrimination in faculty hiring.

The University of California system’s board of regents has now put an end to the use of such diversity statements at those schools. This is a truly remarkable development. Not unreasonably, this decision is being put in the context of the Trump administration’s extraordinary attack on Columbia University, a move that I think is both lawless and itself a threat to academic freedom. But there’s no question that it got the attention of university leaders across the country, and if it encourages some of them to rededicate themselves to their core institutional mission and its central values then at least some good will come of it. So silver linings and all that.

Trump rails against portrait at the Colorado Capitol

Institute for Free Speech files brief in campaign disclosure-fee case

The case is Sullivan v. Texas Ethics Commission. The issue in the case is whether — and if so, under what circumstances — the First Amendment permits the government to require ordinary citizens to register and pay a fee to communicate with their government representatives.
- Amicus brief here. Counsel of record: Alan Gura. The Institute’s brief argues that the 1954 precedent of United States v. Harriss no longer reflects modern First Amendment jurisprudence and fails to protect the right to speak anonymously about matters of public policy.
Forthcoming book by Princeton’s president on campus free speech

The president of Princeton, a constitutional scholar, reveals how colleges are getting free speech on campuses right and how they can do better to nurture civil discourse and foster mutual respect

Conversations about higher education teem with accusations that American colleges and universities are betraying free speech, indoctrinating students with left-wing dogma, and censoring civil discussions. But these complaints are badly misguided.

In Terms of Respect, constitutional scholar and Princeton University president Christopher L. Eisgruber argues that colleges and universities are largely getting free speech right. Today’s students engage in vigorous discussions on sensitive topics and embrace both the opportunity to learn and the right to protest. Like past generations, they value free speech, but, like all of us, they sometimes misunderstand what it requires. Ultimately, the polarization and turmoil visible on many campuses reflect an American civic crisis that affects universities along with the rest of society. But colleges, Eisgruber argues, can help to promote civil discussion in this raucous, angry world — and they can show us how to embrace free speech without sacrificing ideals of equality, diversity, and respect.

Urgent and original, Terms of Respect is an ardent defense of our universities, and a hopeful vision for navigating the challenges that free speech provokes for us all.

Forthcoming scholarly article on AI and the First Amendment

This paper challenges the assumption that courts should grant outputs from large generative AI models, such as GPT-4 and Gemini, First Amendment protections. We argue that because these models lack intentionality, their outputs do not constitute speech as understood in the context of established legal precedent, so there can be no speech to protect. Furthermore, if the model outputs are not speech, users cannot claim a First Amendment right to receive the outputs.

We also argue that extending First Amendment rights to AI models would not serve the fundamental purposes of free speech, such as promoting a marketplace of ideas, facilitating self-governance, or fostering self-expression. In fact, granting First Amendment protections to AI models would be detrimental to society because it would hinder the government’s ability to regulate these powerful technologies effectively, potentially leading to the unchecked spread of misinformation and other harms.

More in the news
- “VICTORY: Federal court blocks Texas A&M’s unconstitutional drag ban,” FIRE (March 24)
- Eugene Volokh, “Nevada Court Decision in Climate Blogger’s Doxing Lawsuit Against Daily Kos,” The Volokh Conspiracy (March 24)
- Taylor Hertzlich, “FCC’s Brendan Carr warns DEI policies at Paramount, Verizon could threaten mergers,” The New York Post (March 21)
- Julie Carr Smyth, “Appeals court hears dispute over Ohio school district’s pronoun policy,” Free Speech Center (March 21)
- Jeff Zeeman, “American Jews must not give an inch on free speech — even when words hurt us,” FIRE (March 21)
- “Free Speech Arguments – Can Public Schools Compel Preferred Pronoun Usage? (Parents Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District, et al.),” Institute for Free Speech (March 19)
- Sasha Volokh, “Amicus Brief in Georgia Adult-Entertainment Case,” The Volokh Conspiracy (March 19)
2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

Cases decided
- Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
- Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
- TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
Review granted

Pending petitions

Petitions denied

Free speech related
- Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)
Last scheduled FAN

FAN 462: “Executive Watch: Trump’s weaponization of civil lawsuits”

This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
Source link
March 26, 2025
Executive Order Aims to Dismantle Department of Education (Democracy Now!)

President
Donald Trump signed an executive order Thursday instructing Secretary
of Education Linda McMahon to start dismantling her agency, although it
cannot be formally shut down without congressional approval. Since
returning to office in January, Trump has already slashed the Education
Department’s workforce in half and cut $600 million in grants. Education
journalist Jennifer Berkshire says despite Trump’s claims that he is
merely returning power and resources to the states, his moves were
previewed in Project 2025. “The goal is not to continue to spend the
same amount of money but just in a different way; it’s ultimately to
phase out spending … and make it more difficult and more expensive for
kids to go to college,” Berkshire says. She is co-author of the book The
Education Wars: A Citizen’s Guide and Defense Manual and host of the
education podcast Have You Heard.

Source link

March 22, 2025
Trump signs executive order that aims to close U.S. Department of Education

This story was originally published by Chalkbeat. Sign up for their newsletters at ckbe.at/newsletters.

President Donald Trump has signed a much anticipated executive order that he said is designed to close the U.S. Department of Education.

The order Trump signed Thursday tells Education Secretary Linda McMahon to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities” to the “maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law.” At the same time, the order says McMahon should ensure “the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

Despite polling to the contrary, Trump said in his speech Thursday that closing the department is a popular idea that would save money and help American students catch up to other countries. He also said his order would ensure that other federal agencies take over major programs now housed at the Education Department, like those for students from low-income backgrounds and students with disabilities.

“Beyond these core necessities, my administration will take all lawful steps to shut down the department,” Trump said. “We’re going to shut it down, and shut it down as quickly as possible. It’s doing us no good. We want to return our students to the states.”

The executive order represents a symbolic achievement for Trump, who for years has expressed a desire to close the department. Yet the president has already radically transformed the department without relying on such an order. McMahon announced massive layoffs and buyouts earlier this month that cut the department’s staff nearly in half.

Beyond the rhetoric, it’s unclear how exactly the order will impact the department’s work or existence.

By law, only Congress can eliminate a cabinet-level agency authorized by Congress; White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt seemed to acknowledge as much Thursday before Trump signed the order, when she said that the Education Department will become “much smaller.” And during his Thursday remarks, Trump expressed hopes that Democrats as well as Republicans would be “voting” for the department’s closure, although prominent Democratic lawmakers have blasted the idea.

The order does not directly change the department’s annual budget from Congress. And federal law dictates many of the Education Department’s main functions–changing those would require congressional approval that could be very hard to secure.

Still, Trump’s move to dramatically slash the department’s staff could impact its capacity and productivity, even if officially its functions remain in place.

At her confirmation hearing, McMahon promised to work with Congress on a reorganization plan. Project 2025, a prominent blueprint for conservative governance from the Heritage Foundation released before Trump’s second term, says that along with closing the Education Department, the federal government should move the department’s education civil rights enforcement to the Department of Justice, while the collection of education data should move to the U.S. Census Bureau.

In a statement on Thursday, McMahon said closing the Education Department does not mean cutting off funds from those who depend on them.

“We will continue to support K-12 students, students with special needs, college student borrowers, and others who rely on essential programs,” she wrote. “We’re going to follow the law and eliminate the bureaucracy responsibly by working with Congress and state leaders to ensure a lawful and orderly transition.”

The executive order could be challenged in court. Many of Trump’s efforts to remake the federal bureaucracy are already tied up in litigation, including the Education Department layoffs.

The executive order notes that the Education Department does not educate any students, and points to low test scores on an important national assessment as evidence that federal spending is not helping students.

“Closing the Department of Education would provide children and their families the opportunity to escape a system that is failing them,” the order says.

Trump order is triumph for department’s foes

The Republican governors of Florida, Texas, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, Louisiana, Tennessee, Idaho, and Nebraska were present during the signing ceremony. Trump said they “badly” wanted the federal government to give their states more control over education.

“Probably the cost will be half, and the education will be maybe many, many times better,” Trump said. States that “run very, very well,” he said, could have education systems as good as those in Finland, Denmark, Sweden, and Norway–countries that tend to outperform the United States on international reading and math tests.

The Education Department administers billions of dollars in federal assistance through programs such as Title I, which benefits high-poverty schools, and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, or IDEA, which offsets the cost of special education services.

The department also administers financial aid for college students, shares information about best practices with states and school districts, and enforces civil rights laws. And it oversees the school accountability system, which identifies persistently low-performing schools to extra support.

States and school districts already make most education decisions, from teacher pay to curriculum choices.

Conservatives have wanted to get rid of the U.S. Department of Education since it was created by President Jimmy Carter and Congress in 1979, and Trump talked about doing so in his first administration. But those efforts never gained traction.

Conservatives say that for decades the department has failed to adequately address low academic performance. They also see the department as generally hostile to their political and ideological perspectives.

The executive order says that McMahon must ensure that “any program or activity receiving Federal assistance terminate illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ or similar terms and programs promoting gender ideology,” a reference to policies intended to make schools more welcoming for students of color and LGBTQ students.

The department has moved to publicly target and root out diversity-focused practices in schools in recent weeks. And the department has already threatened to withhold federal funding from Maine for allowing trans athletes to compete on teams that match their gender identity.

Public education advocates say critical expertise will be lost and students’ civil rights won’t be protected if Trump further diminishes the department. They also fear that a department overhaul could endanger billions in federal funding that bolsters state and local education budgets.

They say they’re already seeing impacts from layoffs, which hit the Office for Civil Rights, Federal Student Aid, and the Institute of Education Sciences particularly hard.

Even before McMahon took office, the U.S. DOGE Service, the cost-cutting initiative run by billionaire Elon Musk, canceled hundreds of millions of dollars worth of research grants and contracts.

The Education Department already was one of the smallest cabinet-level departments, with around 4,100 employees, before the layoffs. With buyouts and layoffs, the department now employs just under 2,200 people.

Chalkbeat is a nonprofit news site covering educational change in public schools.

Related:
The ED is dead! Long Live the ED!
Linda McMahon is confirmed as education secretary–DOGE and a department overhaul await her

Erica Meltzer, Chalkbeat

Chalkbeat senior national reporter Kalyn Belsha contributed reporting.

Erica Meltzer is Chalkbeat’s national editor based in Colorado. Contact Erica at emeltzer@chalkbeat.org.

Andrew Ujifusa is a story editor at Chalkbeat.

Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

Source link

March 21, 2025
Trump Signs Executive Order Directing Closure of the Department of Education

by CUPA-HR | March 20, 2025

On March 20, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Improving Education Outcomes by Empowering Parents, States, and Communities.” The order directs the secretary of education to “take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education and return authority over education to the States and local communities while ensuring the effective and uninterrupted delivery of services, programs, and benefits on which Americans rely.”

The order additionally states that the secretary of education “shall ensure that the allocation of any Federal Department of Education funds is subject to rigorous compliance with Federal law and Administration policy.” According to the order, this includes compliance with federal requirements to terminate “illegal discrimination obscured under the label ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’” and to terminate programs that promote gender ideology.

With respect to higher education, the executive order asserts that closure of the ED “would drastically improve program implementation.” It specifically discusses ED’s role in managing the federal student loan debt portfolio, and it claims that ED “is not a bank, and it must return bank functions to an entity equipped to serve America’s students.”

It is still unknown how Secretary McMahon will execute this order. Despite Trump’s clear intentions to close ED, Congress would still need to pass legislation to officially dissolve the department. It remains to be seen whether McMahon and the Trump administration will move ED’s subagencies and their functions to other federal agencies as speculated.

More information is needed from ED to understand how this order will be implemented. CUPA-HR will continue to monitor for additional news and guidance from ED as it relates to the order.

Share This Article:

Source link

March 20, 2025
Executive Watch: Trump’s weaponization of civil lawsuits — First Amendment News 462
This is the latest installment of Professor Timothy Zick’s “Executive Watch,” which debuted with First Amendment News 457. This post focuses on civil suits by government figures, mainly by the sitting president. It comes at a time when the legitimacy of the New York Times v. Sullivan case is being challenged, and while efforts to establish a national anti-SLAPP law are being thwarted.

Several future posts are in the works, as well as a Resources Page, so stay tuned. – rklc

Professor Timothy Zick

Presidents and suppressive campaigns: Today’s unprecedented practices

Executive Watch is an effort to record and analyze the many First Amendment-related conflicts and concerns arising during the second administration of President Donald Trump. One of the challenges in assessing the administration’s approach to the press and critics is to identify and explain what is distinct or unique about it. After all, the policies and actions of every administration have raised First Amendment issues and concerns. John Adams had reporters jailed under the Sedition Act, Richard Nixon had his “enemies list,” President Obama’s Department of Justice was criticized for prosecuting reporters in national security cases, and President Biden’s administration was accused of pressuring social media platforms to censor disfavored speech.

However, as I explained in my introductory post for Executive Watch, what is distinct about the current president and administration is the depth and breadth of the campaign they are waging against critics, both inside and outside government.

Among other actions, the president and various government agencies have attacked the press and called for the firing of individual reporters; excluded media outlets from official events for failing to use preferred geographic language; retaliated against civil servants who investigated or prosecuted crimes Trump allegedly committed; punished private law firms for lawful advocacy; used the FCC and other agencies to investigate and sanction media outlets for negative coverage; scrubbed government websites of truthful information about racial health disparities and gender discrimination; threatened to prosecute critics of Elon Musk’s efforts to downsize the federal government; arrested a green card holder for participating in campus protests; and suppressed disfavored speech about diversity, equity and inclusion in workplaces and on university campuses.

That is just a partial list.

Notably, these efforts have been undertaken not just by Trump, but also through actions by a host of federal agencies including the Department of Justice, the Department of Education, the Federal Communications Commission, and the Department of State.

The current situation represents an unprecedented and coordinated effort to use courts, governmental agencies, and even private individuals to engage in retribution, intimidate media and non-media critics, impose official orthodoxies, and punish dissent.

Civil lawsuits as engines of leverage and intimidation

“I spent a couple of bucks on legal fees, and they spent a whole lot more. I did it to make his life miserable, which I’m happy about.” — Donald J. Trump

One aspect of the broader current agenda involves the filing of civil defamation, consumer fraud, and other lawsuits against the press and others who publish disfavored information or opinions critical of Trump or his administration.

Like any other citizen, a political candidate, president, or ex-president has the right to file lawsuits and seek redress for reputational or other harms. Indeed, prior to Trump, at least one ex-president did so. However, the extent to which Trump has relied, and continues to rely, on defamation and other civil lawsuits against media and non-media defendants is a unique aspect of a broader campaign against political critics. No other political candidate or president has wielded the civil lawsuit as a political sword quite as Trump has.

When it comes to civil litigation, Trump is in a league of his own. By one account, Trump has been involved in more than 4,000 civil lawsuits over the years, ranging from business disputes to defamation and other actions. Even for someone like Trump, who has been involved in a variety of complex business ventures, that is a remarkable number of civil actions.

One lesson Trump likely learned from his litigation experience is that lawsuits can be an effective form of leverage in business and other dealings. Indeed, even if a claim has no or little legal merit, it can be useful in terms of exhausting, intimidating, and silencing opponents.

For a long time, many of Trump’s civil lawsuits were business-related. However, since he became a political candidate, Trump’s filing of defamation actions has significantly spiked. As a political candidate and officeholder, he has pursued several defamation lawsuits against media and non-media defendants.

Trump has sued CNN, The Washington Post, and The New York Times, as well as local media outlets, for critical coverage of his campaign and first term as president. For example, he brought a $475 million defamation lawsuit against CNN over the network’s use of the term “the Big Lie” to describe his false claims that he won the 2020 election. That claim was dismissed. More recently, Trump brought a $20 billion civil action against “60 Minutes” and CBS for allegedly editing an interview with Kamala Harris in ways that obscured or improved her answers to questions.

Trump also sued ABC News and George Stephanopoulos for stating that he had been found liable for “rape” in a civil case. Finally, Trump sued The Des Moines Register and its parent company, Gannett, for publishing a flawed poll showing Trump trailing Harris in the 2024 presidential election in Iowa. He also filed suit against the pollster herself, J. Ann Selzer. All of this despite Trump ultimately winning Iowa handily, raising questions about what damages he allegedly suffered.

Trump has also filed civil lawsuits against non-media defendants. For example, he has sued the Pulitzer Board for recognizing The New York Times for its reporting on the Russia investigation. (That suit has been allowed to proceed, at least for now.)

Trump and his lawyers have also been expanding their civil suit repertoire. He sued CBS and the defendants in the Iowa case for consumer fraud and election interference. His lawsuit against CBS also contains a claim under the Lanham Act, which provides civil damages for false advertising. These suspect allegations target core press functions and political speech.

Additionally, Trump has vowed to file many more civil lawsuits against those who publish unflattering opinions or disfavored information. He has claimed such legal action is necessary to “straighten out the press” and punish those he accuses of fraud and election interference.

Poor litigation track record

For all his litigation experience, Trump has a very poor track record in civil lawsuits, particularly those claiming defamation. In fact, he nearly always loses — sometimes very badly. Trump has even been ordered to pay media defendants substantial damages for filing harassing and frivolous defamation lawsuits. Some states have laws that impose liability on plaintiffs for bringing so-called SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) — essentially, defamation actions intended to silence or intimidate critics. Trump has been found liable for damages under such laws.

This is one context in which Trump may not mind being a loser or even paying damages. Weaponizing civil lawsuits and courts is not about restoring Trump’s damaged reputation, recovering damages, protecting consumers, ensuring the integrity of elections, or any other legitimate private or public interest. Rather, they are a means of punishing critics and chilling, through expensive and often frivolous litigation, the publication of unfavorable or unflattering information and opinion.

Civil lawsuits as political weapons

“Donald Trump is abusing the legal system to punish speech he dislikes. If you have to pay lawyers and spend time in court to defend your free speech, then you don’t have free speech.” — Adam Steinbaugh

Like many other aspects of the Trump administration’s agenda, civil lawsuits serve important political purposes. They are part of the campaign to suppress dissent, undermine the press, and entrench executive power.

Decades of litigation have likely convinced Trump that the prospect of defending against frivolous and strategically harassing claims will either convince defendants to settle, trim their critical reporting, or both. In that sense, civil lawsuits are an effective means of intimidating, leveraging, and silencing opponents.

The civil lawsuits communicate political narratives about the press as an institution, hoping to further weaken its public standing. Many of Trump’s civil complaints present hyperbolic and unsupported claims concerning Trump, the press, or both. They also highlight longstanding grievances against the media and other critics. Regardless of their outcome, Trump will be applauded by political supporters for waging war against the press, which Trump continues to describe as “the enemy of the American people.”

In a broader sense, civil lawsuits are part of a campaign to entrench executive power by undermining or eliminating institutions — including the press, agencies, lawyers, and universities — that can check the administration’s political and other narratives. Destroying the credibility of media and non-media fact-checkers and harassing them in civil suits, often through exorbitant demands for damages, serves these larger goals.

Regardless of their merit, Trump’s lawsuits force defendants to consider whether it is worth publishing truthful information or opinions that reflect poorly on him or his administration. The ordinary demands and pressures of civil litigation are even more pronounced when the plaintiff is the president of the United States. Judges may be reluctant to dismiss frivolous claims as a result of Trump’s status, and juries in some jurisdictions may be inclined to side with the president against his critics.

Past as prelude: The Sullivan story and its current importance

Using civil lawsuits as a cudgel against the media and other critics is an abusive practice that threatens to chill communication of opinions and facts. Although unprecedented for a presidential candidate or president, weaponizing defamation and other civil lawsuits to suppress criticism and chill reporting is not a new tactic.

During the Civil Rights Era, local southern officials relied on pro-plaintiff standards to censor and intimidate both media outlets and civil rights activists. Through frequent lawsuits, local and state officials sought to control the narrative about racial segregation.

Recognizing the chilling effect of this litigation tactic, in its 1964 decision New York Times Co. v. Sullivan the Supreme Court adopted a demanding standard of proof applicable to public officials who sued for allegedly defamatory statements about the conduct of their official duties. Under that precedent, public officials must show the statements were made with “actual malice,” i.e., that the defendant knew they were false when published or published them with reckless disregard for their truth. The Court later extended the actual malice standard to suits brought by public figures, including those like Trump who have gained extensive public notoriety.

Sullivan was a direct response to early SLAPPs, which were filed to censor local and national reporting about the extent and effects of racial segregation. As the Court recognized, because no double jeopardy limit applied in the civil context, defamation lawsuits could be even more chilling to a free press than the threat of criminal prosecution.

Anthony Lewis

Indeed, as Anthony Lewis observed in his book about the Sullivan case, by 1964, southern officials had brought $300 million in libel claims against the press for truthfully reporting on civil rights abuses. Sullivan’s protective standard — which the president favors eliminating — has been an effective shield for defendants sued by Trump. Without it, media and non-media defendants may face sizable damage awards for publishing even truthful criticism of Trump or the administration.

To be sure, the press does not always act responsibly. Media outlets and reporters can be held liable for knowingly or recklessly publishing false statements about public officials or figures. At the same time, as anti-SLAPP legislation shows, expensive lawsuits and the threat of civil damages can undermine the ability of the press and others to share vitally important information with the public. Trump and his lawyers have upped the ante with consumer fraud and other claims, which must still be rebutted even if frivolous.

In the hands of political officials, including presidents, abusive civil lawsuits can significantly undermine efforts to check power and educate the public.

Troubling successes — and possible responses

Trump has had some recent success in his civil lawsuits. For example, ABC News settled a defamation lawsuit, agreeing to donate $15 million to Trump’s presidential library and issue an apology for George Stephanopolous’s comments about the civil sexual assault verdict (which the trial judge held was “substantially true” in another Trump defamation lawsuit). CBS and “60 Minutes” are reportedly also considering a settlement, even though legal experts agree the lawsuit is based on a frivolous theory that a news network can be held liable for how it edits interviews.

Meanwhile, Trump has already extracted (if that is the right word) hefty settlements from Meta and X, for seemingly defensible decisions they made to de-platform or restrict Trump based on violations of their terms of service. A judge had dismissed Trump’s action against Twitter (now X), which was based on the First Amendment.

Of course, as law students in my classes know, the First Amendment constrains state action, not the private actions of social media platforms.

WATCH VIDEO: Firing the Watchdogs | 60 Minutes Full Episodes

There are many reasons a defendant might want to settle a civil lawsuit. One reason being to avoid a protracted and costly court proceeding, to avoid discovery, or to avoid the risk of a jury verdict. However, settlement of SLAPPs raise concerns about press obeisance and lack of independence. Rather than defend core First Amendment press prerogatives and functions, large media corporations with regulatory or other business before the Trump administration may be making balance sheet decisions.

As some commentators have suggested, social and media legacy companies may be settling meritless cases to grease the regulatory skids for pending mergers and other potential benefits from the Trump administration. Some have even suggested that some of these settlements may constitute a novel form of political corruption. Thus, one commentator referred to settling frivolous civil lawsuits brought by Trump as “a novel pathway to engage in political bribery.” (Of course, even if the practice fits that description, the administration can simply refuse to enforce political corruption laws against settling defendants.)

There are several means of combatting the weaponization of civil lawsuits. The most direct and obvious is to defend against these lawsuits and offer a robust First Amendment defense. As history shows, weaponizing civil lawsuits has dangerous implications for the freedoms of the press and speech. Trump’s aggressive resort to defamation and other civil lawsuits also highlights the importance of retaining Sullivan’s press-protective standard. Defendants ought to put up substantial and sustained resistance to lawsuit weaponization.

Anti-SLAPP statutes can also provide a deterrent. A federal anti-SLAPP law would make this important protection more widely available. Thus far, Trump has not been much deterred by anti-SLAPP liability. However, making such protections available regardless of jurisdiction would provide all defendants an opportunity to dismiss harassing defamation claims.

There are also actions judges can take to punish and deter abusive civil lawsuits. Judges have the power to dismiss baseless or frivolous claims on their own, and to sanction lawyers who file them. Some commentators have urged judges to refuse to approve media settlements of frivolous claims brought by Trump, on the grounds that they are the product of duress or fraud, or are otherwise against public policy.

Like agency employees, private employers, lawyers, universities, and others who have been subject to executive actions meant to punish or chill expression, media and non-media defendants currently face a critical choice: capitulate or fight.

For the sake of the First Amendment, let us hope the targets of strategic civil lawsuits defend them vigorously.

2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

Cases decided
- Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
- Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
- TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)
Review granted

Pending petitions

Petitions denied

Last scheduled FAN

FAN 461: “Intimidating abridgments and political stunts”

This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.
Source link
March 18, 2025
Federal Appeals Court Lifts Bar on DEI Executive Orders
by CUPA-HR | March 17, 2025

On March 14, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit issued a decision allowing the Trump administration to enforce Executive Orders 14151 and 14173, both of which target “illegal … DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities” in the public and private sectors and in federal contracts. The 4th Circuit’s decision effectively overrules a February 21 preliminary injunction issued in a U.S. District Court in Maryland that had blocked the administration from enforcing some provisions in the orders.

As a reminder, orders 14151 and 14173 revoke prior executive orders, including Executive Order 11246, which required federal contractors to maintain affirmative action plans. Among other things, orders 14151 and 14173 also mandate that:

federal agencies include provisions in federal contracts requiring that contractors agree to comply with nondiscrimination laws and certify they do not operate any DEI programs that violate discrimination laws;

the Office of Management and Budget terminate all “‘diversity,’ ‘equity,’ ‘equitable decision-making,’ ‘equitable deployment of financial and technical assistance,’ ‘advancing equity,’ and like mandates, requirements, programs, or activities, as appropriate;” and

each agency “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations, large non-profit corporations or associations, foundations with assets of 500 million dollars or more, State and local bar and medical associations, and institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars.”

CUPA-HR will continue to share further developments regarding the lawsuits challenging orders 14151 and 14173.

Share This Article:
Source link
March 17, 2025
‘Inaccurate and misleading’: Democrat AGs push back against Trump’s DEI executive order
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility best practices are not illegal, said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, in a multi-state DEIA at work guidance.
- In the Feb. 13 letter, the AGs said the federal government lacks the power to issue executive orders that prohibit “otherwise lawful activities in the private sector or mandates the wholesale removal of these policies and practices within private organizations, including those that receive federal contracts and grants.”
- The AGs of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont joined in issuing the guidance.
Dive Insight:

The letter came as a response to constituent concerns about the continued viability of DEIA, the AGs said, mainly in light of President Donald Trump’s executive orders.

The primary EO in question, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” includes a directive that “order[s] all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”

The executive order alleges that colleges, along with other organizations, have “adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called … ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.’”

Campbell and Raoul said the order “conflates unlawful preferences in hiring and promotion with sound and lawful best practices for promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workforce.”

It’s “inaccurate and misleading,” they said. On Feb. 21, a federal judge for the U.S. District Court of Maryland issued a preliminary injunction, partially blocking Trump’s executive order targeting the public and private sectors.

While the judge did not prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from proceeding with its investigation of private-sector DEI programs, Judge Adam Abelson held that the plaintiffs would likely succeed with their First and Fifth amendment claims, as well as claims alleging violations of the separation of powers clause.

Prior to the most recent guidance, Democrat attorney generals have made it their priority to speak up about DEI: Last summer, the AGs defended the American Bar Association’s diversity requirements for law schools.

More recently, the Democrat AGs said that the U.S. is “on the brink of dictatorship” due to Trump’s executive orders challenging the scope of the Constitution.

A key takeaway for HR? “Properly developed and implemented initiatives aimed at ensuring that diverse perspectives are included in the workplace help prevent unlawful discrimination,” the AGs said.
Source link
February 27, 2025
Preliminary Injunction Issued Against DEI Provisions in Two Executive Orders
by CUPA-HR | February 24, 2025

On February 21, a U.S. district judge issued a preliminary injunction against portions of two of the Trump administration’s executive orders regarding DEI programs. The decision, issued in U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, blocks federal agencies from taking action to withhold federal funding from federal contractors that conduct programs or initiatives related to DEI.

Broadly speaking, “EO 14151: Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferences” and “EO 14173: Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity” state that DEI and DEIA programs and initiatives violate federal civil rights law, and therefore terminate all DEI programs throughout the federal government. EO 14173 orders federal agencies to incorporate clauses in all federal contracts requiring each funding recipient to attest to compliance with all federal antidiscrimination laws and affirm that it does not operate any DEI programs.

The preliminary injunction strikes down three separate provisions across these executive orders:
- EO 14151 requires the federal government to terminate all equity-related grants or contracts within 60 days (known as the “Termination Provision”).
- EO 14173 requires that every grant recipient or federal contractor affirm its compliance with all federal antidiscrimination laws and that it does not operate any DEI programs (known as the “Certification Provision”).
- EO 14173 directs the attorney general, in consultation with other relevant agencies, to promulgate a report with recommendations to enforce civil rights laws and encourage the private sector to end DEI practices. The report is required to identify “the most egregious and discriminatory DEI practitioners in each sector of concern.” It also requires each agency to identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations as a way to deter DEI programs or principles. The EO lists institutions of higher education with endowments over $1 billion as potential targets for the civil compliance investigations (known as the “Enforcement Threat Provision”).
The National Association of Diversity Officers in Higher Education, the American Association of University Professors, Restaurant Opportunities Centers United, and the mayor and city council of Baltimore, Maryland, challenged these three provisions, arguing that they violate free speech rights under the First Amendment and are unconstitutionally vague — violating the Fifth Amendment. Plaintiffs additionally alleged four types of irreparable harm: threat of loss of funds, uncertainty regarding future operations, loss of reputation, and chilled speech.

The court ultimately ruled that the plaintiffs were likely to succeed on their constitutional complaints and adequately demonstrated a sufficient likelihood of irreparable harm. The decision concluded that EO 14173 offers no guidance or notice of what the government now considers illegal DEI, and that plaintiffs showed “substantial evidence of the risks of such arbitrariness,” and that by “threatening the private sector with enforcement actions based on those vague, undefined standards, the Enforcement Threat Provision is facially unconstitutional under the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.”

The preliminary injunction means that federal agencies may not:
- pause, freeze, impede, block, cancel or terminate any awards, contracts or obligations, or change any current obligation terms on the basis of the Termination Provision;
- require any contractor to make any certification or other representation pursuant to the Certification Provision; or
- bring any enforcement action under the False Claims Act in relation to the Enforcement Threat Provision.
The injunction does not speak to actions that federal agencies may have already taken in response to both executive orders. Nonetheless, the Trump administration will likely appeal the ruling. Given that the policies raised in these executive orders will hold widespread implications for federal contractors in the higher education community, CUPA-HR will continue to share further developments.

Share This Article:
Source link
February 24, 2025
Eight critical questions for the new chief executive of UKRI

The appointment of a new chief executive for UK Research and Innovation (UKRI) could not happen at a more crucial time.

With public finances under strain, the case for public investment in R&D needs to be made cogently and needs to focus both on addressing the UK’s five government missions and on sustaining the fantastic research asset which the UK university sector represents. The list of issues for the new appointee will no doubt be lengthy, but we put forward the following as a possible shortlist of priorities.

1. The interface (pipeline) between research councils and Innovate UK

One of the main goals in establishing UKRI was to ensure a smooth pipeline from the research undertaken by the individual research councils to the industrial/end user base thereby bringing both economic and societal benefit. However, despite years of intent this pipeline seems as obstructed as ever. The fundamental question remains: to what extent is the role of Innovate UK to aid the transition of the outcomes resulting from research council funding versus simply supporting UK-based enterprises in their own research?

Currently there are disconnects between the research priorities, often defined by government and implemented by the research councils, and the Innovate UK funding mechanism to ensure they are exploited. There are some exceptions here of course: the Creative Industries Clusters was a good example of a joint initiative between AHRC and Innovate UK which did integrate industry demand to local research strengths.

A key priority for the new chief executive is to join up the pipeline more effectively across the whole range of industry sectors and ensure a very clear role for Innovate UK in partnership with the research councils and the subsequent interface to the National Wealth Fund or British Business Bank.

2. Articulating and agreeing the balance between UKRI spend on government priorities and investment in the research base of the future

As we have argued elsewhere on Wonkhe, the nation needs UKRI to fund both the research required by current government priorities relating to industrial strategies or societal challenges, and invest in the broader research base that, in the words of science minister Patrick Vallance, will feed the “goose that lays the golden egg” of our research base and the opportunities of tomorrow.

Currently, this balance is, at best, hidden from view, suiting neither the needs of government nor the future aspirations of the sector. We urge UKRI to quantify this balance historically and to articulate a proposal to government for moving forward. We also require balance between the budget committed in the long-term to institutes, infrastructure, international subscriptions, and facilities vs. the shorter-term funding into the wider research and innovation community. Balancing these priorities requires a strengthening of the relationship, and open discussion, between UKRI, DSIT and wider government.

3. Ensuring UKRI is relevant to the government’s regional economic development agenda

As part of the government’s economic agenda, driving productivity growth in the tier-2 cities outside the South-East and the wealthier places in the UK is key to executing its growth mission. There is a clear tension here in UKRI acting as the key funding agency for public R&D spending driven solely by excellence, and a regional economic development mission, for which additional criteria apply. This tension must be addressed and not ignored.

The creation of innovation accelerators in which additional funding was provided by government, but UKRI was involved in evaluating the merit of proposals, is a good example of how UKRI can drive change. As the government develops new levers to address and fund regional economic development, UKRI should play a key role in ensuring that this dovetails with the research and innovation base of the nation.

4. Creating a highly skilled workforce

As is becoming clear, the number of doctoral students supported by UKRI continues to fall – an issue highlighted, for example, by Cambridge vice chancellor Deborah Prentice in a recent Guardian interview. This is particularly clear in areas which have traditionally relied upon UKRI funding, such as the engineering and physical sciences. The corresponding research effort is in part bolstered by an increase in the number of fee-paying overseas students, but this does little to create the UK-based workforce industry needs.

UKRI needs to prioritise funding and work with government to find new ways of addressing the skills the nation needs if we are to drive a productive knowledge-based economy. The skills required extend beyond doctoral degrees to include technical professionals and engineers.

5. Sector confidence around REF as a rigorous, fair process, supportive of excellence

The HE sector is in financial turmoil, manifested in the unprecedented number of UK higher education institutions currently implementing severance schemes. Ongoing uncertainties over the REF process, from the portability of outputs and the lack of an essential mechanism to ensure a diversity of authors (current proposals have no cap on the number of outputs that can be submitted from any one individual) to the absence of clarity on the people, culture and environment template’s support for excellence need resolution.

This resolution is required, firstly so that research strategies institutions put in place prior to any census date have time to drive the changes required given that REF is meant to be formative as well as summative; and secondly so that institutions can efficiently deliver their REF returns to a standard and detail a government should expect to provide assurance over the future quality related (QR) spend.

6. The importance and accountability of QR

Virtually everyone in the sector embraces the notion that QR is central to the agility and sustainability of the UK research base. This certainty is matched with uncertainty within government as to the value for money this investment provides. If we are to maintain this level of trust in the sector’s ability to derive benefit from this investment, collectively we need to do a better job at showing how QR is central to the agility of our investment in the research outcomes of tomorrow and not simply a plugging of other, non-research related, financial holes. As both assessor and funder UKRI can lead and co-ordinate this response.

7. Completion of the new funding service (the software needs to work!)

The joint electronic submission system (Je-S) was outdated and potentially no longer supportable. Its back room equivalent, Siebel, even worse. Their replacement, the new funding service is an acceptable portal to applicants but seemingly still provides inadequate assurances for a system from which to make financial commitments. This shortcoming seems almost incomprehensible given it was an in-house development.

Moving beyond the essential financial controls it seems to offer little by way of the AI assistance in the identification of reviewers that the software behind the submission systems for many of our research publications has offered for decades. Whether we lack the skills or investment to solve these issues is unclear, but the inefficiency of the current situation is wasteful of perhaps an even more precious resource, namely the time of UKRI staff to add human value to our research landscape. This seeming lack of skills and the systems we require is worrying too to the future REF exercise, even once the framework is known.

8. Evidencing the effects of change

Of course the world should and must move on. As a funder of research, it is appropriate that UKRI experiments with better ways of funding, becoming an expert in metascience. Changes inspired by ideology are fine, but it is essential that these changes are then assessed to see if the outcomes are those we desired.

One example is the narrative CV, a well-meaning initiative to recognise a wider definition of excellence and an equality of opportunity. Is this what it achieved? Do we acknowledge the risks associated with AI or the unintended consequence of favouring the confident individual with English as their first language? While not advocating a return to the tradition of lists CV, we urge a formal reporting of outcomes achieved through the narrative CV using both quantitative and qualitative data and an evidenced based plan to move forward.

Looking to the future

We realise that criticism is easy and solutions are hard to find. So in case of doubt, we would like to finish with a call out to UKRI’s greatest resource, namely at all levels its committed and highly professional staff. We know at first hand the dedication of its workforce which is committed to fairly supporting the community, the research they do and the impact it creates.

The role of chief executive of UKRI provides vital leadership not just to UKRI but to the sector as a whole, and the sector must unite to stand behind the new incumbent in solving the challenges that lie ahead.

Source link

February 16, 2025
Few students protest Trump’s executive orders on campus

As President Donald Trump churned out more than 80 executive orders over the past three weeks, sending the higher education community into a panic, some students were surprised to see a lack of campus protests—even at institutions traditionally rife with activism.

“I haven’t seen a whole lot, which is kind of uncharacteristic of our campus,” said Alana Parker, a student at American University in Washington, D.C. Though she’s heard of certain student political groups protesting on Capitol Hill, things have been quiet on campus.

“I don’t really know why that is, because, in my opinion, there should be more of an outcry. But from my perspective, I think people feel really disenfranchised and like there’s nothing we can do,” she said.

It’s a stark contrast from two semesters ago, when AU was one of dozens of campuses that made national news after pro-Palestinian students set up encampments in opposition to their universities’ investments in companies with ties to Israel.

Students and faculty at AU—and on campuses across the nation—also protested in 2017 after Trump prohibited individuals from seven majority-Muslim nations from entering the United States, according to a news report from the time.

Angus Johnston, a historian of student protest movements and a professor at Hostos Community College, said that he’s not entirely surprised that campuses seem relatively calm. Over the past 20 years, institutions have grown less and less permissive of student protests, culminating in a harsh crackdown on pro-Palestinian protests in spring 2024—in some cases involving police arrests. Since then, many campuses have introduced new—or enforced existing—rules restricting when, where and how students can demonstrate.

Aron Ali-McClory, a national co-chair of the Young Democratic Socialists of America, said that universities’ restrictions on free speech are “100 percent a factor” in why there aren’t many protests happening on campuses right now.

But they noted that the YDSA is mobilizing, just in different ways. Many campus chapters are currently focused on campaigning for their institutions to become “sanctuary campuses,” in the vein of sanctuary cities, municipalities that do not comply with federal immigration laws. Ali-McClory said the chapters involved in that movement are currently distributing petitions, informing their peers about the movement and handing out “know your rights” materials that aim to inform immigrants of how to handle conversations and interactions with immigration officers.

“Looking at what our YDSA chapters are doing across the country, we’re seeing people pivoting to meet the moment on their campus. A lot of that looks less like, ‘Let’s go out and do a protest’ and more, ‘How do we make material gains when the cards are stacked against us?’” they said.

Parker, the AU student, has also chosen to make her voice heard in a different way. An editor of the student newspaper, The Eagle, she and her colleagues penned a staff editorial calling on the university to speak out against Trump’s executive orders, particularly those targeting immigrants and diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. She said the article seemed to be effective: A few days after its publication, the institution sent an email to the campus community, signed by President Jonathan Alger, outlining resources available for immigrant students and employees.

Alger also addressed DEI, writing, “As we continue fostering an inclusive and welcoming community, we are working with teams across campus to determine the impacts on our inclusive excellence strategy and programs.”

‘A Powerful Force’

A handful of campuses have seen protests, primarily in response to their institutions taking steps to comply with Trump’s executive orders by shuttering DEI offices or removing DEI-related language and resources from webpages, for example.

At Missouri State University, students staged a protest after administrators announced they would close the Office of Inclusive Engagement and end other DEI programs “in response to changes nationwide and anticipated actions regarding DEI at the state level.”

According to the student newspaper, The Standard, 50 students gathered outside the main administrative building on Jan. 31 to call for the removal of the university’s president and to advocate for the passage of two bills that would require Missouri schools to teach about Black history and “the dehumanization of marginalized groups.”

At Stanford University, a group of about 15 students participated in a chalking event, writing messages of dissent, like “DEI makes Stanford Stanford,” on bike paths around White Plaza, a central outdoor area on campus.

“Here at Stanford, the important thing to me was that my leaders at my school knew that there would be people who would resist anything that they did to cave to Trump,” said freshman Turner Van Slyke, who organized the demonstration. “I think those leaders just knowing that there’s going to be resistance can be a powerful force for maintaining decency against Trump.”

Various other student news sources have reported that students at their institutions have joined outside groups in protesting at their state capitols, hoping to register their objections to Trump’s orders with governors and state representatives.

Johnston noted that more protests may erupt elsewhere as students begin to see the ways that the executive orders are impacting their campuses more directly.

“There’s a lot of stuff that is happening now that is essentially a hand grenade or a time bomb that’s going to explode in days or weeks or months,” he said. “To a large extent, I think this stuff is not having direct impact on a lot of [students] as of yet. Some stuff may be beginning to percolate down to the campus level. But a lot of this is real stuff that is happening, but the effects of it are not being felt directly by students just yet.”

Source link

February 14, 2025