Tag: Executive

  • Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power

    Education researchers sue Trump administration, testing executive power

    UPDATE: The hearing scheduled for May 9 has been postponed until May 16 at the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. The court will hear two similar motions at the same time and consider whether to temporarily restore the cuts to research and data collections and bring back fired federal workers at the Education Department. More details on the underlying cases in the article below.

    Some of the biggest names in education research — who often oppose each other in scholarly and policy debates — are now united in their desire to fight the cuts to data and scientific studies at the U.S. Department of Education.

    The roster includes both Grover J. “Russ” Whitehurst, the first head of the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) who initiated studies for private school vouchers, and Sean Reardon, a Stanford University sociologist who studies inequity in education. They are just two of the dozens of scholars who have submitted declarations to the courts against the department and Secretary Linda McMahon. They describe how their work has been harmed and argue that the cuts will devastate education research.

    Professional organizations representing the scholars are asking the courts to restore terminated research and data and reverse mass firings at the Institute of Education Sciences, the division that collects data on students and schools, awards research grants, highlights effective practices and measures student achievement. 

    Related: Our free weekly newsletter alerts you to what research says about schools and classrooms.

    Three major suits were filed last month in U.S. federal courts, each brought by two different professional organizations. The six groups are the Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP), Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP), American Educational Research Association (AERA), Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE), National Academy of Education (NAEd) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). The American Educational Research Association alone represents 25,000 researchers and there is considerable overlap in membership among the professional associations. 

    Prominent left-wing and progressive legal organizations spearheaded the suits and are representing the associations. They are Public Citizen, Democracy Forward and the Legal Defense Fund, which was originally founded by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) but is an independent legal organization. Allison Scharfstein, an attorney for the Legal Defense Fund, said education data is critical to documenting educational disparities and improve education for Black and Hispanic students. “We know that the data is needed for educational equity,” Scharfstein said.

    Related: Chaos and confusion as the statistics arm of the Education Department is reduced to a skeletal staff of 3

    Officers at the research associations described the complex calculations in suing the government, mindful that many of them work at universities that are under attack by the Trump administration and that its members are worried about retaliation.  

    “A situation like this requires a bit of a leap of faith,” said Elizabeth Tipton, president of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness and a statistician at Northwestern University. “We were reminded that we are the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, and that this is an existential threat. If the destruction that we see continues, we won’t exist, and our members won’t exist. This kind of research won’t exist. And so the board ultimately decided that the tradeoffs were in our favor, in the sense that whether we won or we lost, that we had to stand up for this.”

    The three suits are similar in that they all contend that the Trump administration exceeded its executive authority by eliminating activities Congress requires by law. Private citizens or organizations are generally barred from suing the federal government, which enjoys legal protection known as “sovereign immunity.” But under the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, private organizations can ask the courts to intervene when executive agencies have acted arbitrarily, capriciously and not in accordance with the law. The suits point out, for example, that the Education Science Reform Act of 2002 specifically requires the Education Department to operate Regional Education Laboratories and conduct longitudinal and special data collections, activities that the Education Department eliminated in February among a mass cancelation of projects. 

    Related: DOGE’s death blow to education studies

    The suits argue that it is impossible for the Education Department to carry out its congressionally required duties, such as the awarding of grants to study and identify effective teaching practices, after the March firing of almost 90 percent of the IES staff and the suspension of panels to review grant proposals. The research organizations argue that their members and the field of education research will be irreparably harmed. 

    Of immediate concern are two June deadlines. Beginning June 1, researchers are scheduled to lose remote access to restricted datasets, which can include personally identifiable information about students. The suits contend that loss harms the ability of researchers to finish projects in progress and plan future studies. The researchers say they are also unable to publish or present studies that use this data because there is no one remaining inside the Education Department to review their papers for any inadvertent disclosure of student data.

    The second concern is that the termination of more than 1,300 Education Department employees will become final by June 10. Technically, these employees have been on administrative leave since March, and lawyers for the education associations are concerned that it will be impossible to rehire these veteran statisticians and research experts for congressionally required tasks. 

    The suits describe additional worries. Outside contractors are responsible for storing historical datasets because the Education Department doesn’t have its own data warehouse, and researchers are worried about who will maintain this critical data in the months and years ahead now that the contracts have been canceled. Another concern is that the terminated contracts for research and surveys include clauses that will force researchers to delete data about their subjects. “Years of work have gone into these studies,” said Dan McGrath, an attorney at Democracy Forward, who is involved in one of the three suits. “At some point it won’t be possible to put Humpty Dumpty back together again.” 

    Related: Education research takes another hit in latest DOGE attack

    In all three of the suits, lawyers have asked the courts for a preliminary injunction to reverse the cuts and firings, temporarily restoring the studies and bringing federal employees back to the Education Department to continue their work while the judges take more time to decide whether the Trump administration exceeded its authority. A first hearing on a temporary injunction is scheduled on Friday in federal district court in Washington.*

    A lot of people have been waiting for this. In February, when DOGE first started cutting non-ideological studies and data collections at the Education Department, I wondered why Congress wasn’t protesting that its laws were being ignored. And I was wondering where the research community was. It was so hard to get anyone to talk on the record. Now these suits, combined with Harvard University’s resistance to the Trump administration, show that higher education is finally finding its voice and fighting what it sees as existential threats.

    The three suits:

    1. Public Citizen suit

    Plaintiffs: Association for Education Finance and Policy (AEFP) and the  Institute for Higher Education Policy (IHEP)

    Attorneys: Public Citizen Litigation Group

    Defendants: Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and the U.S. Department of Education

    Date filed: April 4

    Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

    Documents: complaint, Public Citizen press release, 

    A concern: Data infrastructure. “We want to do all that we can to protect essential data and research infrastructure,” said Michal Kurlaender, president of AEFP and a professor at University of California, Davis.

    Status: Public Citizen filed a request for a temporary injunction on April 17 that was accompanied by declarations from researchers on how they and the field of education have been harmed. The Education Department filed a response on April 30. A hearing is scheduled for May 9.

    1. Democracy Forward suit

    Plaintiffs: American Educational Research Association (AERA) and the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness (SREE)

    Attorneys: Democracy Forward 

    Defendants: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon and Acting Director of the Institute of Education Sciences Matthew Soldner

    Date filed: April 14

    Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland, Southern Division 

    Documents: complaint, Democracy Forward press release, AERA letter to members

    A concern: Future research. “IES has been critical to fostering research on what works, and what does not work, and for providing this information to schools so they can best prepare students for their future,” said Ellen Weiss, executive director of SREE. “Our graduate students are stalled in their work and upended in their progress toward a degree. Practitioners and policymakers also suffer great harm as they are left to drive decisions without the benefit of empirical data and high-quality research,” said Felice Levine, executive director of AERA.

    Status: A request for a temporary injunction was filed April 29, accompanied by declarations from researchers on how their work is harmed. 

    1. Legal Defense Fund suit

    Plaintiffs: National Academy of Education (NAEd) and the National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME)

    Attorneys: Legal Defense Fund

    Defendants: The U.S. Department of Education and Secretary of Education Linda McMahon 

    Date filed: April 24

    Where: U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia

    Documents: complaint, LDF press release

    A concern: Data quality. “The law requires not only data access but data quality,” said Andrew Ho, a Harvard University professor of education and former president of the National Council on Measurement in Education. “For 88 years, our organization has upheld standards for valid measurements and the research that depends on these measurements. We do so again today.” 

    Status: A request for a temporary injunction was filed May 2.*

    * Correction: This paragraph was corrected to make clear that lawyers in all three suits have asked the courts to temporarily reverse the research and data cuts and personnel firings. Also, May 9th is a Friday, not a Thursday. We regret the error. 

    Contact staff writer Jill Barshay at 212-678-3595, jillbarshay.35 on Signal, or [email protected].

    This story about Education Department lawsuits was written by Jill Barshay and produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for Proof Points and other Hechinger newsletters.

    The Hechinger Report provides in-depth, fact-based, unbiased reporting on education that is free to all readers. But that doesn’t mean it’s free to produce. Our work keeps educators and the public informed about pressing issues at schools and on campuses throughout the country. We tell the whole story, even when the details are inconvenient. Help us keep doing that.

    Join us today.

    Source link

  • Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump’s executive orders — First Amendment News 468 

    Day 100! Abridging the First Amendment: Zick releases major resource report on Trump’s executive orders — First Amendment News 468 

    “Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.” — Pamela Bondi (confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general, Jan. 15, 2025)

    “After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address)

    “Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, executive order)

    So many lies, so many orders, so much suppression. The “flood” of free expression abridgments continues to be dizzying and depressing. 

    Unprecedented! That is the word for this new form of silencing that is spreading like a deadly cancer.

    The rules of the past cease to be honored. Retribution has replaced righteousness. Fear triumphs over courage. A one-party-led Congress has abdicated its authority. Judicial review is derided. And our system of justice as constituted is unable to adequately address the wrongs perpetuated by an authoritarian figure aided by his confederates. A blitzkrieg takeover of the federal government seeks to vest unchecked power in the Executive while normalizing suppression on the vile pretense of advancing free speech and equality — a page right out of Orwell’s “1984.”

    In some respects, we are witnessing what constitutes a threat perhaps as great as the Sedition Act of 1798, the Civil War actions taken by Lincoln, and the World War I, Cold War, and Vietnam War abridgments of free speech. Nonetheless, the number and frequency of such abridgments make it difficult to comprehend the cumulative gravity of this threat to our First Amendment freedoms.

    Within the Trump administration’s first 100 days, the government has ushered in a new era of direct and indirect suppression of speech. Meanwhile, cases are being litigated, individuals and institutions are being silenced, books banned, “settlements” coerced, scientific research squelched, history erased, while lower court rulings struggle to be relevant. And all of this, in its many forms, has occurred in the absence of any near-final resolution by the Supreme Court, as if that too might be slighted someday soon.

    We are beyond any “there are evils on both sides” mentality, much as we were beyond it in 1798. Recall that while John Adams, the lawyer, championed free speech in his writings, he later backed the Alien and Sedition Acts as “the Federalist” president. 

    Calling out tyranny is not partisan; it is American! And yet, many are relatively detached, silent, and clueless.

    Trump’s “flood the zone” tactics have taxed the American mind to such an extent that few can barely, if at all, remember yesterday’s free speech abridgments let alone those of last week or last month. The result: who remembers all of the trees leveled not to mention any big picture of the forest devastated in the process? What to do?

    Enter “First Amendment Watch” and the Zick Resource Report 

    Thanks to Professor Stephen Solomon and Susanna Granieri over at First Amendment Watch (FAW), there is a meaningful way to begin to get a conceptual hold on what has occurred within the first 100 days of the Trump administration and its attacks on free speech.

    Happily, FAW today released what is surely the most important First Amendment resource documenting the numerous First Amendment abridgments committed by the Trump administration within its first 100 days. This invaluable resource was prepared by Professor Timothy Zick. 

    Professor Timothy Zick

    Though the full resource repository is available over at FAW, its table of contents is reproduced below:

    Introduction by Timothy Zick

    I. First Amendment-Related Executive Orders and Memoranda 

    A. Freedom of Speech and Censorship
    B. Foreign Terrorism and National Security
    C. Law Firms
    D. Retribution Against Former Government Officials
    E. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
    F. Gender and Gender Identity
    G. K-12 Education
    H. Museums, Libraries, and Public Broadcasting
    I. Political Donations
    J. University Accreditors 

    II. First Amendment-Related Litigation

    A. Lawsuits Challenging Executive Orders, Guidance, and Policies

    1. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion
    2. Immigration 
    3. Educational Funding
    4. Law Firms
    5. Gender and Gender Identity
    6. Data and Scientific Inquiry
    7. Libraries and Museums
    8. Public Broadcasting

    B. Retaliatory Dismissal and Other Employment Lawsuits
    C. Lawsuits Filed by Media and Journalists
    D. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits Filed By Donald Trump

    III. Commentary and Analysis

    A. Actions Against the Press and Journalists
    B. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits
    C. Broadcast Media
    D. Social Media
    E. Education 

    1. DEI Programming and Initiatives
    2. Antisemitism Investigations and Demands
    3. Academic Freedom
    4. K-12 Curriculum

    F. Immigration Enforcement 

    1. International Students
    2. Foreign Scholars
    3. Immigration Activism

    G. Public Employees
    H. Private Sector

    1. Law Firms
    2. Individual Critics and Enemies

    I. Transparency, Data, and Information

    1. Data, Information, and Scientific Research
    2. Museums and Libraries
    3. Public Broadcasting
    4. Misinformation and Disinformation
    5. “DOGE” and Transparency

    J. Grants and Funding
    K. Protests and Demonstrations

    1. Campus Protests
    2. Public Protests

    L. Governmental Orthodoxy

    1. Race and DEI
    2. Gender and Gender Identity
    3. History and Patriotism

    M. Retribution and Chilling Speech
    N. Investigations
    O. The Bigger Picture
    P. Tracking All Trump 2.0 Lawsuit

    Related

    Coming Next Week

    The next installment of Professor Timothy Zick’s ongoing posts is titled
    “Executive Orders and Official Orthodoxies.”

    Justice Department to go after reporters’ records in government leak cases

    Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General

    Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General on Jan. 15, 2025. (Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com)

    The Justice Department is cracking down on leaks of information to the news media, with Attorney General Pam Bondi saying prosecutors will once again have authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.

    New regulations announced by Bondi in a memo to the staff obtained by The Associated Press on Friday rescind a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.

    The new regulations assert that news organizations must respond to subpoenas “when authorized at the appropriate level of the Department of Justice” and also allow for prosecutors to use court orders and search warrants to “compel production of information and testimony by and relating to the news media.”

    The memo says members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo states.

    Former FCC Chairs attack FCC’s attack on First Amendment principles

    Mobile phone with seal of US agency Federal Communications Commission FCC on screen in front of web page

    (T. Schneider / Shutterstock.com)

    As former chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — one appointed by a Democrat, the other by a Republican — we have seen firsthand how the agency operates when it is guided by its mission to uphold the public interest. But in just over two months, President Donald Trump and his handpicked FCC Chair Brendan Carr have upended 90 years of precedent and congressional mandates to transform the agency into a blatantly partisan tool. Instead of acting as an independent regulator, the agency is being weaponized for political retribution under the guise of protecting the First Amendment.

    Their actions fall into two categories. First, the president used executive orders (EOs) to strip the agency of its independence, making it subservient to the White House. Second, the chairman has exploited the commission’s powers to undermine the very First Amendment rights it is supposed to uphold.

    Mchangama on the ‘New McCarthyism’

    Jacob Mchangama in 2024

    Jacob Mchangama

    Despite being Danish, I’ve always found America’s civil-libertarian free speech tradition more appealing than the Old World’s model, with its vague terms and conditions. For much of my career, I’ve been evangelizing a First Amendment approach to free speech to skeptical Europeans and doubtful Americans, who are often tempted by laws banning “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “disinformation.” That appreciation for the First Amendment is something I share with many foreigners — Germans, Iranians, Russians — who now call America home.

    [ . . . ]

    It’s now clear that the government is targeting noncitizens for ideas and speech protected by the First Amendment. The most worrying example (so far) is a Turkish student at Tufts University, apparently targeted for co-authoring a student op-ed calling for, among other things, Tufts to divest from companies with ties to Israel. One report estimates that nearly 300 students from universities across the country have had their visas revoked so far.

    Instead of correcting this overreach, the government has doubled down. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently announced that it would begin screening the social media posts of aliens “whose posts indicate support for antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity.” Shortly after, the X account of USCIS posted about a “robust social media vetting program” and warned: “EVERYONE should be on notice. If you’re a guest in our country — act like it.” And four days later, White House homeland security adviser Stephen Miller promised to deport “anyone who preaches hate for America.” What that means is anybody’s guess — and seems to depend entirely on subjective assessments.

    [ . . . ]

    Had America been known for deporting, rather than welcoming, dissent, I would never have made it my home. That might not have been much of a loss. But consider this: 35 percent of U.S.-affiliated academic Nobel laureates are immigrants, and nearly half of all American unicorn startups have founders born outside the country. How many of these brilliant minds would have chosen the United States if they risked exile for crossing the speech red lines of the moment?

    As a European who owes my freedom in life thus far to the America that fought Nazism and defeated communism, I feel a responsibility to speak out when this country strays from its founding ideals. I came to America for its freedom, not just to enjoy it, but to defend it — even if that puts me at risk.

    Related

    New scholarly article on commencement speaker provocateurs

    This Article explores an untheorized area of First Amendment doctrine: students’ graduation speeches at public universities or private universities that embrace free speech principles, either by state statute, state constitutional law, or internal policy. Responding to recent graduation speech controversies, it develops a two-tier theory that reconciles a multiplicity of values, including students’ expressive interests, universities’ institutional interests in curating commencement ceremonies and preventing reputational damage, and the interests of captive audiences in avoiding speech they deem offensive or profane. 

    The Article challenges the prevailing view that university students’ graduation speeches implicate individual First Amendment rights. It develops a site-specific understanding of the ritualistic sociology of the university commencement speech, which the Article argues is firmly within the managerial purview of the university. But it also argues that heavy-handed administrative regulation of student graduation speeches has the potential to undermine the academic freedom of students and professors.

    Reflecting on the history of the university commencement speech in the American intellectual tradition, it urges university administrators to exercise their authority to regulate speeches through transparent standards, a longitudinal view, and collaborative negotiation with student speakers.

    It concludes by discussing the conceptual dangers of turning the First Amendment into a metonym for every instance of speech abridgment within a managerial sphere.

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: Rabban and Chemerinsky on academic freedom


    Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law professors who opposed the Trump administration’s funding threats at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds.

    Since then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and nearly 60 other colleges and universities are under investigation with their funding hanging in the balance, allegedly for violations of civil rights law.

    To help us understand the funding threats, Harvard’s recent lawsuit against the federal government, and where universities go from here are:

    • David Rabban — distinguished teaching professor at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
    • Erwin Chemerinsky — distinguished professor of law and dean at UC Berkeley Law.

    More in the news

    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 (9-0: 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

    Emergency Applications

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • 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 467: “Thankfully: Larry David mocks Bill Maher”

    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

  • Accreditors Sound Off on Executive Order

    Accreditors Sound Off on Executive Order

    President Donald Trump followed through on his campaign trail rhetoric Wednesday, taking aim at accreditors in an executive order that targets diversity, equity and inclusion standards; makes it easier for institutions to switch accrediting agencies; and opens the door for new entrants.

    In May 2023, Trump said in a campaign video that accreditors had failed “to ensure that schools are not ripping off students and taxpayers.” He promised to “fire the radical Left accreditors that have allowed our colleges to become dominated by Marxist Maniacs and lunatics,” adding that his administration would accept applications for new accreditors to “impose real standards.” Nearly two years later, he revealed his plan to “fire” accreditors in the executive order.

    The directive accused accreditors of failing to hold institutions accountable for mediocre graduation rates and for leaving students with “enormous debt.” Trump also charged accreditors with having “unlawfully discriminatory practices” related to DEI standards.

    In response, accrediting bodies have suggested that the executive order’s conclusions about their approach to DEI are sweeping and untrue, and argue that new accreditors should be held to the same standards as existing bodies. They also noted their willingness to work with the Trump administration.

    Higher education experts and support organizations were much sharper in their critiques, save for some conservative commentators who applauded the accreditation reforms as necessary.

    Accreditors Weigh In

    The Council of Regional Accrediting Commissions, which represents all major institutional accreditors, pushed back on Trump’s order in a statement Wednesday.

    “Accrediting agencies are instrumental to promoting quality assurance and protecting student and taxpayer investments in higher education,” C-RAC president Heather Perfetti, who also leads Middle States Commission on Higher Education, wrote in the statement. “While we firmly reject President Trump’s mischaracterization of accreditors’ role in the nation’s postsecondary education system, we stand ready to work with the Secretary of Education on policies that will advance our shared mission of enhancing quality, innovation, integrity, and accountability.”

    In an accompanying fact sheet, C-RAC disputed Trump’s claim that DEI standards conflict with state and federal law and that accreditors had failed to hold institutions accountable, among other allegations.

    Other accreditors released their own individual statements.

    “Contrary to claims of lax oversight, [the Accrediting Commission for Community and Junior Colleges] has taken necessary action against institutions that fail to meet ACCJC Standards and has seen continued improvements across the membership in financial stability, completion rates, and compliance with ACCJC Eligibility,” ACCJC president Mac Powell wrote on Wednesday.

    While the Higher Learning Commission quoted from the C-RAC letter, officials also emphasized in a Thursday statement that HLC’s standards “require compliance with all applicable laws.”

    “HLC’s requirements do not mandate decision making or preferences based on federally protected characteristics; prescribe any specific training or programming involving concepts related to diversity, equity or inclusion; nor require that an institution have elements as part of its curriculum involving concepts related to diversity, equity or inclusion,” agency officials wrote.

    The Northwest Commission on Colleges and Universities also emailed a statement from Interim President Jeff Fox on Thursday in which he emphasized that any changes to accreditation as proposed by the Trump administration must not weaken the core mission of accreditors.

    “Accreditation ensures institutions remain accountable to their missions and the students they serve,” Fox wrote in a statement. “NWCCU strongly supports thoughtful reform in higher education that expands access, improves outcomes, and supports all students. At the same time, such reforms must preserve the foundational safeguards of accreditation, which are critical for upholding academic quality, institutional integrity, and the responsible use of public resources.”

    The Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission wrote in an emailed statement that it was assessing how the order might affect its standards.

    “WSCUC remains committed to assuring educational quality, institutional effectiveness, and the success of every student. Our Standards emphasize academic excellence and institutional integrity in service of student success and meaningful student outcomes. We are working diligently to provide clear guidance on our Standards for all accredited and candidate institutions, maintaining our focus on student success,” WSCUC officials wrote.

    (In December WSCUC rejected a proposal to drop DEI language from its standards.)

    In Trump’s Crosshairs

    The executive order also called out three organizations by name.

    The Trump administration specifically took aim at the American Bar Association’s Council of the Section of Legal Education and Admissions to the Bar, the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education, over DEI standards.

    Trump accused the ABA accreditor of violating federal law by asking its members to demonstrate a commitment to diversity and inclusion, which includes efforts to recruit a diverse student body in terms of race, gender and ethnicity. (ABA, as noted in the executive order, suspended enforcement of its DEI standards in February.)

    Contacted by Inside Higher Ed, ABA declined to comment.

    Trump leveled similar criticism at LCME and ACGME, arguing that both maintained an inappropriate focus on diversity and that “standards for training tomorrow’s doctors should focus solely on providing the highest quality care, and certainly not on requiring unlawful discrimination.”

    LCME struck a conciliatory tone in an emailed statement.

    “In agreement with the Executive Order, the LCME shares the Administration’s goal that medical education programs and their graduates be of the highest caliber. In pursuit of this shared goal, the LCME will work with the Administration to provide requested information and to provide evidence of our ongoing commitment to outcomes-based evaluations of medical education program quality with the goal of producing outstanding physicians,” LCME officials wrote.

    An ACGME spokesperson wrote by email that the organization is “currently evaluating the President’s Executive Order and its implications for our accreditation standards.”

    A Range of Reactions

    Trump’s executive order spurred both positive and sharply negative reactions across the higher education sector.

    Andrew Gillen, a research fellow at the conservative Cato Institute, argued that the possible revocation of recognition of “accreditors that require their colleges to discriminate” was “on more solid ground” than “other anti-DEI initiatives from the [Trump] administration.” He also noted that the executive order directs Education Secretary Linda McMahon “to launch an experimental and voluntary quality assurance program,” arguing that “such an experiment could serve as a prototype for a much better accountability system in the future” if properly implemented.

    Career Education Colleges and Universities, a trade association for for-profit institutions, celebrated the executive order on accreditation, as well as another that landed the same day in which Trump promised federal investments in workforce development and to expand apprenticeships.

    “These long-overdue reforms will expedite America’s leadership in manufacturing and the skilled trades, greatly expanding the pipeline of qualified workers for in-demand jobs,” CECU president and CEO Jason Altmire wrote. “With these actions, President Trump has taken a significant step in providing increased opportunity for students to pursue their goals and life passions, while ensuring educational programs are held accountable for student outcomes.”

    Other groups were less sanguine.

    Officials at the Institute for College Access and Success blasted the executive order, arguing that it would open the door to accreditation shopping, allow inappropriate political pressures to seep into college classrooms and undermine data collection to improve student outcomes.

    “The federal government should not dictate what is taught in college classrooms or prevent universities from collecting data that will help them serve their students better,” TICAS president Sameer Gadkaree wrote. “Without data disaggregating performance by race, ethnicity, or sex, accreditors—along with researchers, evaluators, and policymakers—will lack the information they need to truly assess quality.”

    The American Association of University Professors also struck a sharply critical tone, casting the executive order as “yet another attempt to dictate” classroom instruction on college campuses.

    “Threats to remove accreditors from their roles are transparent attempts to consolidate more power in the hands of the Trump administration in order to stifle teaching and research. These attacks are aimed at removing educational decision-making from educators and reshaping higher education to fit an authoritarian political agenda,” AAUP officials wrote in a statement.

    The AAUP also noted the historic role of accreditors in policing predatory institutions, such as the president’s own Trump University, a for-profit institution that shut down in 2010. In 2017, a federal judge approved a $25 million settlement for 6,000-plus students who alleged they were misled by the then–real estate mogul. Trump did not admit to any wrongdoing in the settlement.

    “Accrediting agencies have protected both students and the government from wasting money on scam institutions—like Trump University—that engage in deceit and grift. Trump’s executive order makes both students and the government more vulnerable to such fraud,” AAUP officials wrote.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Latest Executive Orders Target Accreditation

    Trump’s Latest Executive Orders Target Accreditation

    President Donald Trump took aim at college accreditors in an executive order signed Wednesday that targets two accrediting agencies for investigation and suggests others could lose federal recognition altogether.

    The order was one of seven issued Wednesday as Trump nears the end of his first 100 days. Others directed the Education Department to enforce the law requiring colleges to disclose some foreign gifts and contracts, aimed to support historically Black colleges and universities, and outlined several policy changes for K-12 schools. With the accreditation order and the others, Trump and White House officials argued they were refocusing the education system on meritocracy.

    Education Secretary Linda McMahon, who was in the Oval Office for the signing, opened her follow-up statement by praising the accreditation order and saying it would “bring long-overdue change” and “create a competitive marketplace.”

    “America’s higher education accreditation system is broken,” she wrote. “Instead of pushing schools to adopt a divisive DEI ideology, accreditors should be focused on helping schools improve graduation rates and graduates’ performance in the labor market.”

    Some of the immediate public reactions from higher ed groups criticized the accreditation order, describing it as yet another attempt to put more power in the hands of the president and threaten academic freedom.

    The Council of Higher Education Accreditation said Trump’s directive would “affect the value and independence of accreditation,” while the American Association of University Professors said it would “remov[e] educational decision making from educators and reshap[e] higher education to fit an authoritarian political agenda.”

    Overhauling Accreditation

    Rumored for weeks, the accreditation order was perhaps the most anticipated one of those signed Wednesday, and it will likely have widespread ramifications as Trump seeks to scrutinize and reform the system.

    Historically, accreditors have operated under the radar with little public attention, but in recent years conservatives have focused on the agencies and their role in holding colleges accountable. (The accreditors do hold a lot of power, because universities must be accredited by a federally recognized agency in order to access federal student aid.)

    During his presidential campaign, Trump himself called accreditation reform his “secret weapon” and accused accreditors of failing “to ensure that schools are not ripping off students and taxpayers.”

    The order calls for McMahon to suspend or terminate an accreditor’s federal recognition in order to hold it accountable if it violates federal civil rights law, according to a White House fact sheet. The executive order specifically says that requiring institutions “to engage in unlawful discrimination in accreditation-related activity under the guise of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives” would be considered a violation of the law.

    The order also singles out the American Bar Association, which accredits law schools, and the Liaison Committee on Medical Education, which accredits medical schools, and directs cabinet secretaries to investigate them. (The American Bar Association suspended DEI standards for its members in February, as did some other accreditors.)

    Beyond that, McMahon is tasked to “realign accreditation with student-focused principles.” That could include recognizing new accreditors, prioritizing intellectual diversity among faculty and requiring “high-quality, high-value academic programs,” though the fact sheet doesn’t say how that would be measured.

    White House staff secretary Will Scharf said during the event that accreditors have relied on “woke ideology” instead of merit and performance to accredit universities. He didn’t provide evidence for his claims, but the fact sheet cites the national six-year undergraduate graduation rate, which is at 64 percent, as one example of how accreditors have “failed to ensure quality.”

    “The basic idea is to force accreditation to be focused on the merit and the actual results that these universities are providing, as opposed to how woke these universities have gotten,” Scharf said.

    The Trump administration also wants to streamline the process to recognize accreditors and for institutions to change agencies. Some states that have required their public colleges to change accreditors have claimed that the Biden administration made the process too cumbersome.

    Scharf said the order charges the Education Department “to really look holistically at this accreditation mess and hopefully make it much better.”

    Trump didn’t say much about the order or what actions he hopes to see McMahon take next.

    Enforcement of Foreign Gifts

    The president is not the first government official this year who has sought to limit foreign influence on American colleges and universities.

    The House recently passed a bill, known as the DETERRENT ACT, which would amend Section 117 of the Higher Education Act to lower the threshold for what foreign gifts must be reported from $250,000 to $50,000. It also would require the disclosure of all gifts from countries of “concern,” like China and Russia, regardless of amount. The legislation advanced to the Senate in late March following a 241–169 vote.

    Rep. Tim Walberg, a Michigan Republican and chair of the committee that introduced the bill, praised Trump’s action Wednesday, saying it “underscores” a Republican commitment to “promoting transparency.”

    “Foreign entities, like the Chinese Communist Party, anonymously funnel billions of dollars into America’s higher education institutions—exploiting these ties to steal research, indoctrinate students, and transform our schools into beachheads in a new age of information warfare,” Walberg wrote in a statement shortly after Trump’s order was signed. “I am glad the Trump administration understands the grave importance of this threat, and I look forward to working with President Trump to protect our students and safeguard the integrity of America’s higher education system.”

    Colleges’ compliance with Section 117 has been a key issue for Republicans over the years. House lawmakers repeatedly criticized the Biden administration’s efforts to enforce the law, but former education secretary Miguel Cardona defended his agency’s actions. They also tried to pass the DETERRENT Act last session, but it was blocked by Democrats in the Senate.

    The executive order is broader than the DETERRENT Act and does little to distinguish itself aside from directing McMahon to work with the attorney general and heads of other departments where appropriate and to reverse or rescind any of Biden’s actions that “permit higher education institutions to maintain improper secrecy.”

    More Support for HBCUs

    Another order creates within the White House an initiative focused on historically Black colleges and universities and revokes a Biden executive order titled “White House Initiative on Advancing Educational Equity, Excellence, and Economic Opportunity Through Historically Black Colleges and Universities.”

    During his first term, Trump moved an HBCU initiative at the Education Department to the White House as a largely symbolic gesture to show his support for Black colleges. That initiative continued under Joe Biden, though it was returned to the Education Department. Biden also created initiatives focused on Hispanic-serving institutions and tribal colleges. Trump ended those newly created initiatives during his first week in office.

    The executive order also established the President’s Board of Advisors on HBCUs at the Education Department, which appears to already exist. The panel last met in January, according to a Federal Register notice.

    Scharf said the order would ensure that HBCUs are “able to do their job as effectively and as efficiently as possible.”

    Source link

  • Sixty-one media organizations and press freedom advocates contest Perkins Coie executive order — First Amendment News 466

    Sixty-one media organizations and press freedom advocates contest Perkins Coie executive order — First Amendment News 466

    All of the vile executive orders issued by the Trump administration against law firms refer to purported “significant risks” associated with them, and have the same whiff of oppression:

    Below the veneer of such boilerplate claims lies a repressive truth: they’re designed to be punitive, and to produce a fear that leads to robotic subservience. They are but a part of Trump’s enemies list. And his orders are to be executed by his lackey Attorney General Pam Bondi — the same person who once said: “I will fight every day to restore confidence and integrity to the Department of Justice and each of its components. The partisanship, the weaponization will be gone.”

    Mason Kortz (left) and Kendra Albert

    Against that backdrop comes a courageous group of lawyers and press groups led Andrew Sellers, with Mason Kortz joined by Kendra K. Albert as local counsel. 

    Mr. Sellers filed the amicus brief on behalf of 61 media organizations and press freedom advocates in the case of Perkins Coie v. U.S. Department of Justice. At the outset he exposes the real agenda of the authoritarian figure in the White House:

    “The President seeks the simultaneous power to wield the legal system against those who oppose his policies or reveal his administration’s unlawful or unethical acts—who, in many cases, have been members of the press—and then deny them access to the system built to defend their rights. The President could thus ‘permit one side to have a monopoly in expressing its views,’ which is the “antithesis of constitutional guarantees.’”

    Mr. Sellers reminds us that “‘freedom of the press holds an . . . exalted place in the First Amendment firmament,’ because the press plays a vital role in the maintenance of democratic governance. To fulfill that function, the press relies on the work of lawyers. Lawyers assist the press in obtaining access to records and government spaces . . . because the press plays a vital role in the maintenance of democratic governance.”

    Andrew Sellars

    Andrew Sellars

    To honor that principle, Sellers argues that “the press relies on the work of lawyers. Lawyers assist the press in obtaining access to records and government spaces. They advise the press on how to handle sensitive sources and content. And they defend the press against civil and criminal threats for their publications.”

    Among other key points made in this important brief is the following one:

    If the Executive Order stands, many lawyers will be chilled from taking on work so directly in conflict with the President, out of fear for the harm it would cause to their clients whose relationship with the government is more transactional. For the lawyers that remain, the threat of a similar executive order aimed at them or their law firms would practically prevent them from doing their jobs, by denying their access to the people and places necessary to adjudicate their issues. 

    The project was spearheaded by The Press Freedom Defense Fund (a project of Intercept) and the Freedom of the Press Foundation.

    Some of the lawyers who signed this amicus brief include Floyd Abrams, Lee Levine, Seth Berlin, Ashley Kissinger, Elizabeth Koch, Lynn B. Oberlander, David A. Schulz, and Charles Toobin.

    The Table of Contents appears below:

    Introduction & Summary of Argument

    Interests of Amici

    Argument

    1. A Free Press Allows the Public to Check Overreaching Government but Requires Legal Support.
    2. The Oppositional Role of the Press Will Not Function if the Court Allows This executive order.
    3. The government will inevitably use this authoritarian power to target the press.
    4. The executive order will chill lawyers from working with the press.
    5. The lawyers that remain will be unable to do their jobs.
    6. Without a Robust Press, the Public will Lose a Key Vindicator of First Amendment Rights.

    Related

    Pronoun punishment policy in the Trump administration

    You know those email signatures at the end of messages? The ones that include a range of information about the senders — phone numbers, addresses, social media handles. And in recent years, pronouns — letting the recipient know that the sender goes by “she,” “he,” “they” or something else, a digital acknowledgement that people claim a range of gender identities.

    Among those who don’t agree with that are President Donald Trump and members of his administration. They have taken aim at what he calls “gender ideology” with measures like an executive order requiring the United States to recognize only two biological sexes, male and female. Federal employees were told to take any references to their pronouns out of their email signatures.

    That stance seems to have spread beyond those who work for the government to those covering it. According to some journalists’ accounts, officials in the administration have refused to engage with reporters who have pronouns listed in their signatures.

    The New York Times reported that two of its journalists and one at another outlet had received responses from administration officials to email queries that declined to engage with them over the presence of the pronouns. In one case, a reporter asking about the closure of a research observatory received an email reply from Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, saying, “As a matter of policy, we do not respond to reporters with pronouns in their bios.”

    Dare one ask? Is pro-Palestinian speech protected?

    Esha Bhandari

    Esha Bhandari (Photo courtesy of the ACLU)

    Shortly after his inauguration, President Donald Trump vowed to combat antisemitism on U.S. college and university campuses, describing pro-Palestinian activists and protesters as “pro-Hamas,” and threatening to revoke their visas.

    The first target of these threats was Mahmoud Khalil, a pro-Palestinian activist and former student of Columbia University, who was a negotiator for Columbia students during talks with university officials regarding their tent encampment last spring, according to The Associated Press.

    Since his arrest, more than half a dozen scholars, professors, protesters and students have had their visas revoked with threats of deportation. Two opted to leave the country on their own terms, unsure of how legal proceedings against them would play out.

    Free speech and civil liberties organizations have raised concerns over the arrests, claiming the Trump administration is targeting pro-Palestinian protesters for constitutionally protected political speech because of their viewpoints.

    [ . . . ]

    First Amendment Watch spoke with Esha Bhandari, deputy director of the ACLU’s Speech, Privacy and Technology Project, about the First Amendment implications of the Trump administration’s alleged targeting of pro-Palestinian protesters and activists. Bhandari explained how actions taken under the Immigration and Nationality Act need to be consistent with the First Amendment, described the importance of the right to peacefully assemble, and expressed that all Americans, regardless of their viewpoint, should be concerned with the Trump administration’s actions and its chilling of speech.

    [Interview follows]

    David Cole on the war on the First Amendment


    Just released: Oxford University Press handbook on free speech

    Cover of “The Oxford Handbook of Freedom of Speech” edited by Adrienne Stone and Frederick Schauer

    Freedom of speech is central to the liberal democratic tradition. It touches on every aspect of our social and political system and receives explicit and implicit protection in every modern democratic constitution. It is frequently referred to in public discourse and has inspired a wealth of legal and philosophical literature. The liberty to speak freely is often questioned; what is the relationship between this freedom and other rights and values, how far does this freedom extend, and how is it applied to contemporary challenges?

    “The Oxford Handbook on Freedom of Speech” seeks to answer these and other pressing questions. It provides a critical analysis of the foundations, rationales, and ideas that underpin freedom of speech as a political idea, and as a principle of positive constitutional law. In doing so, it examines freedom of speech in a variety of national and supranational settings from an international perspective.

    Compiled by a team of renowned experts in the field, this handbook features original essays by leading scholars and theorists exploring the history, legal framework, and controversies surrounding this tenet of the democratic constitution.

    Forthcoming book on free speech and social media platforms

    Northeastern University Professor John Wihbey

    Northeastern University Professor John Wihbey

    Why social media platforms have a responsibility to look after their platforms, how they can achieve the transparency needed, and what they should do when harms arise.

    The large, corporate global platforms networking the world’s publics now host most of the world’s information and communication. Much has been written about social media platforms, and many have argued for platform accountability, responsibility, and transparency. But relatively few works have tried to place platform dynamics and challenges in the context of history, especially with an eye toward sensibly regulating these communications technologies.

    In ”Governing Babel,” John Wihbey articulates a point of view in the ongoing, high-stakes debate over social media platforms and free speech about how these companies ought to manage their tremendous power.

    Wihbey takes readers on a journey into the high-pressure and controversial world of social media content moderation, looking at issues through relevant cultural, legal, historical, and global lenses. The book addresses a vast challenge — how to create new rules to deal with the ills of our communications and media systems — but the central argument it develops is relatively simple. The idea is that those who create and manage systems for communications hosting user-generated content have both a responsibility to look after their platforms and have a duty to respond to problems. They must, in effect, adopt a central response principle that allows their platforms to take reasonable action when potential harms present themselves. And finally, they should be judged, and subject to sanction, according to the good faith and persistence of their efforts.

    Franks and Corn-Revere to discuss ‘Fearless Speech’

    Coming this Thursday over at Brooklyn Law School:

    Book Talk: Dr. Mary Anne Franks’ Fearless Speech

    Featuring:

    • Dr. Mary Anne Franks
      Eugene L. and Barbara A. Bernard Professor in Intellectual Property, Technology, and Civil Rights Law, George Washington Law School; President and Legislative & Tech Policy Director, Cyber Civil Rights Initiative

    • Robert Corn-Revere
      Chief Counsel, Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE)

    Moderators

    • William Araiza, Stanley A. August Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

    • Joel Gora, Professor of Law, Brooklyn Law School

    Discussants

    • Ron Collins, Co-founder of the History Book Festival and former Harold S. Shefelman Scholar, University of Washington Law School

    • Sarah C. Haan, Class of 1958 Uncas and Anne McThenia Professor of Law, Washington and Lee University School of Law

    Lukianoff’s TED talk

    Greg Lukianoff delivering his TED Talk on April 9, 2025

    FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff (Photo by Gilberto Tadday / TED)

    Last Wednesday, FIRE’s Greg Lukianoff delivered his first TED talk at TED 2025 in Vancouver. He spoke on why so many young people have given up on free speech and how to win them back. As he noted in a recent post for his Substack newsletter, The Eternally Radical Idea:

    “After months of seemingly endless writing, rewriting, and rehearsing, I’m very happy with how it turned out! (Many thanks to Bob Ewing, Kim Hemsley, Maryrose Ewing, and Perry Fein for helping me prepare. Couldn’t have done it without them!)

    We’re not yet sure when the full talk will be available online, but we’ll keep you posted!”

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: The plight of global free speech


    We travel from America to Europe, Russia, China, and more places to answer the question: Is there a global free speech recession?

    Guests:

    More in the news

    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 (9-0: 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

    Emergency applications

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “It Is Ordered that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito & Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 465: “‘Executive Watch’: The breadth and depth of the Trump administration’s threat to the First Amendment”

    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

  • ‘Executive Watch’: The breadth and depth of the Trump administration’s threat to the First Amendment — First Amendment News 465

    ‘Executive Watch’: The breadth and depth of the Trump administration’s threat to the First Amendment — First Amendment News 465

    Given the Trump administration’s continued and varied assaults on the First Amendment, it is vital to monitor those attacks and then realize the gravity of the “sweeping and draconian sanctions” imposed by unconstitutional executive fiat. Vigilance is especially important, as New York Times investigative reporter Michael S. Schmidt has noted, because “Mr. Trump has employed tactics including lawsuits, executive orders, regulations, dismissals from government jobs, withdrawal of security details and public intimidation to take on a wide range of individuals and institutions he views as having unfairly pursued him or sought to block his agenda.” 

    Mindful of such matters, this installment of “Executive Watch” by professor Timothy Zick provides the most comprehensive and informed account of the current threats facing us up to now. 

    Of course, yet more posts are forthcoming. Meanwhile, it is worth heeding the sound advice recently offered by Dean Erwin Chemerinsky: “despite the risks of speaking out, silence itself comes at enormous cost.”

    — rklc

    My introductory post, which was published a little more than a month after Donald Trump took office for the second time, identified various areas in which his administration’s actions threatened First Amendment rights. At this point, even before the first 100 days of the second Trump administration have elapsed, we now have a much fuller picture of the nature and scope of the threat — and it’s even worse than we thought. 

    Media stories and commentary have covered a range of Trump administration policies and actions that threaten speech and press rights. Commentators have examined the attacks on media, law firms, government employees, and universities, among others. My last post discussed Trump’s abuse of the civil lawsuit to punish the media and others.

    Considered in isolation, these actions raise troubling First Amendment concerns. But the whole threat to the First Amendment is far greater than the sum of its damaging parts. Combined, the administration’s actions represent a whole-of-government and whole-of-society effort to control whether and how Americans talk about certain ideas. 

    Trump 1.0 and the First Amendment

    As it concerns the First Amendment, the fundamental difference between Trump 1.0 and Trump 2.0 is the extraordinary use of the levers of governmental power to suppress, dictate, and coerce viewpoints the president disfavors.

    During the first administration, the threat to the First Amendment emanated primarily from the president’s own statements and threatened actions. Trump talked about “opening up” the libel laws to make it easier to sue media defendants. He waged a constant war on the press, which he referred to as “the enemy of the people.” He demanded loyalty, attacked those who disagreed with his views on patriotism and dissent, and threatened to punish media outlets by revoking their licenses. He also threatened to shut down social media platforms that fact-checked him.

    Prof. Timothy Zick

    During the 2016 presidential election, Trump called for de-naturalizing and jailing protesters who burned the U.S. flag. As president, he routinely denigrated protesters. During the Black Lives Matter demonstrations, Trump considered invoking the Insurrection Act to call up U.S. military personnel to quell protest-related civil unrest. He sent federal agents to Portland and other cities to police and quell protests. At one point during the demonstrations, Trump reportedly asked his then-secretary of defense why protesters couldn’t be shot. And, of course, after he lost the 2020 election he used his own speech to incite the Capitol insurrection on Jan. 6, 2021.

    It was clear during his first term that Trump had little or no tolerance for dissent, and a strong desire to impose his will on the media and other institutions. However, for the most part, he either didn’t or couldn’t effectuate that agenda. Perhaps this was because members of his administration talked him out of it, or perhaps because he was not yet familiar with the levers of power.

    Trump 2.0 and executive orders

    Trump 2.0 has been a vastly different story. Past presidents, including Trump, have used executive orders to exercise or augment their executive powers. They have set important agendas for the executive branch of government. However, no president has ever used executive orders to attempt to control what Americans can discuss, or how they speak about concepts regarding diversity, patriotism, anti-Semitism, gender, and other matters of public concern. And no president has been as successful at extending such an agenda across not just the federal bureaucracy but nearly every aspect of society.

    Thus far, President Trump has issued eighteent Executive Orders, plus several accompanying “Fact Sheets,” that implicate First Amendment rights. Although some of the Orders are vague and/or thin on specifics, many target expression based on its viewpoint – a quintessential violation of the First Amendment.  

    • Five of the Executive Orders target law firms based on their representation of clients and advocacy for causes the President disfavors.
    • Three Orders prohibit universities, companies, and others receiving federal funds from maintaining “Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion” (DEI) policies and practices – including training, teaching, and supporting those ideas.
    • Trump’s Orders also target “anti-Semitic” speech by federal grantees and encourage universities to monitor “pro-jihadist protests” and campus “radicalism.”
    • An Executive Order requires that K-12 schools adopt “patriotic” curricula and further vows to withhold funding from any schools that teach that the United States is “fundamentally racist, sexist or otherwise discriminatory.”
    • Other Orders provide that resident aliens who express “hatred for America” or “bear hostile attitudes toward [American] citizens, culture, government, institutions, or founding principles” are subject to deportation.
    • Two of Trump’s Executive Orders single out transgender individuals, banning them from military service and imposing restrictions on the genders they can use on U.S. passports. These Orders raise important equal protection concerns, but also bar individuals from communicating about their own gender identity.
    • Finally, the Administration’s cost-cutting and desire to control the flow of information have deeply affected the availability and distribution of information in the United States. Trump has ordered the disbanding of Voice of America and Radio Free Europe, important outlets for furthering American interests abroad. Trump’s spending cuts have also decimated libraries, which are critical distributors of information. Trump recently issued an Executive Order that purports to remove “anti-American ideology” from the Smithsonian Museum.

    TRUMP’S FIRST 80 DAYS
    Executive orders affecting free speech and press: 18
    Federal agencies involved in enforcement: 20
    Lawsuits raising First Amendment challenges: 30

    The whole-of-government campaign

    Standing alone, Trump’s executive orders represent a serious threat to the First Amendment. But the orders are backed by agency enforcement powers that drastically expand the danger.

    Think of the executive orders as a general blueprint for an ideological and retributive campaign aimed at punishing enemies for speech, imposing governmental orthodoxy regarding race, gender, and other matters, and controlling the distribution of information. That blueprint is being enforced by all federal agencies under the president’s command. So far, that includes some twenty separate agencies, including:

    • The Federal Bureau of Investigation
    • The Department of Justice
    • The Department of Health and Human Services
    • The Department of Education
    • The General Services Administration
    • The Department of Homeland Security
    • The State Department
    • U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
    • U.S. Customs and Border Patrol
    • The Federal Communications Commission
    • The Office of Personnel Management
    • The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
    • The United States Agency for Global Media
    • The Federal Trade Commission 

    In contrast to Trump 1.0, during Trump 2.0 the entire agency alphabet soup is fully committed to enforcing executive orders that require adoption of official orthodoxies and ideologies, or punish individuals or institutions for their viewpoints. Pursuant to these executive orders, federal agencies have investigated employers and universities based on their support for DEI, targeted law firms based on their clients and causes, arrested international students based on their political advocacy, investigated broadcast stations based on the content of their shows, and removed scientific papers from public databases because they include forbidden words about gender or diversity. 

    Agencies across government are involved in enforcing Trump’s executive orders in areas ranging from private business to immigration. Ironically, the president’s ability to control and punish expression is due, in large part, to the size of the federal government he has targeted for downsizing or eradication.

    The whole-of-society impact of the executive orders

    Trump’s executive orders bind all federal agencies under his command. Agencies across regulatory areas have moved swiftly to scrub websites of offensive DEI language. Their efforts to comply with Trump’s directive have at times been comical. The Defense Department apparently removed material about the Enola Gay, the aircraft that dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, because of its name. Agencies have also removed information about Jackie Robinson and other material that celebrates the accomplishments of black people and women. Taking a “chainsaw” approach to language in public-facing websites, agencies have removed information that does not comport with the president’s preferred terms and viewpoints.

    “In a pre-election poll, respondents ranked ‘free speech’ among the top issues that were ‘very important’ in influencing their vote for president.”

     FIRE/NORC poll of 1,022 Americans conducted Oct. 11-14, 2024

    The federal government is an important source of information for issues relating to public health, the armed forces, employment, and other matters. Governments can determine what messages they want to communicate, including on websites they control, but those efforts can have harmful effects on the distribution of information to the public. 

    Trump’s orders have also limited the availability of information, both at home and abroad. They have silenced the nation’s voice in international spheres, cut off aid to libraries, and even demanded that museums change exhibits that convey “anti-American ideology.” Again, no president has ever used executive orders to so comprehensively control what can be seen, heard, or viewed. 

    Trump’s executive orders have also affected millions of individuals, entities, and institutions beyond federal agencies. Indeed, it is hard to overstate the breadth and depth of the activities covered by the existing executive orders — and they continue to be issued almost daily. The orders have already extended into every boardroom, classroom, breakroom, and laboratory in the United States. Businesses have shut down activities recognizing the value of a diverse workforce. Universities have scrubbed websites and materials of any references to the values of diversity in education. Legal counsel at some hospitals have even warned staff not to use “triggering” words like “vulnerable” or “diverse” to describe patients. 

    How Trump has expanded his power over expression

    Four things account for the extraordinary scope and effect of the Trump administration’s campaign to control what Americans see, hear, and say regarding gender, race, and American history.

    First, in contrast to Trump 1.0, the president has relied more extensively on executive orders as a means of governing. Trump’s more than 100 executive orders cover everything from the types of straws that can be used in federal buildings, the legitimate causes law firms can pursue, and the content of displays at the Smithsonian Museum.

    “There . . . can be no question that the demands the administration is making of Harvard are intended to suppress protected expression, of various kinds. To avoid the loss of federal funds, Harvard will have to refrain from advocating for, or empowering others to advocate for, the viewpoint that diversity, equality, and inclusion are important educational and social values. It will have to change how it oversees faculty research and teaching, and what kinds of scholarly viewpoints it hires and promotes. And it will have to suppress student speech and association, including core political expression, more severely than it has chosen to do so far—or at least it will have to promise to do so.”

    Genevieve Lakier

    Second, the orders use the threat of lost federal funding as an enforcement mechanism. Federal funding touches nearly every aspect of American life. That includes education at all levels, health care, immigration, the practice of law, scientific research, and even farming. 

    Third, because the executive orders lack any meaningful specificity about concepts and ideas it targets, including “DEI” and “anti-Semitism,” no federal grantee can be sure which words, phrases, or ideas will result in a denial of critical funding. This lack of clarity has produced significant uncertainty at universities, hospitals, businesses, and other funding recipients. And that uncertainty has led to anticipatory compliance on a scale that federal anti-discrimination and other laws do not require.

    Fourth, the administration has not provided the process required by federal law to deny or remove federal funding. This enhances the chill of agency enforcement by speeding up the denial of funds, leaving grantees with little recourse to contest allegations or charges prior to loss of funding.

    Fifth, for many of the above reasons, the Orders have engendered a repressive fear in federal fund recipients — a fear, as Ronald Collins points out, that is “born of direct or veiled demands for loyalty” and the specter of punishment for dissent. Thus, words and phrases must be removed, lectures canceled, and “deals” inked that trade away law firms’ First Amendment rights for relief from facially retributive and unconstitutional Executive Orders. 

    To be sure, some will challenge these executive orders on First Amendment grounds. Indeed, nearly 30 lawsuits raising First Amendment claims have already been filed. But many more grantees will decide, as Columbia University and the Paul Weiss law firm recently have, to negotiate a settlement or comply with unlawful orders. Many others will comply in advance, lest they remain targets of the president’s ire and risk their funding and livelihoods. 

    This underscores just how widespread the effects on First Amendment rights and principles will turn out to be. By virtue of their breadth, vagueness, and procedural violations, Trump’s executive orders and threats of agency enforcement will produce far more suppression of speech than normal agency action — which is limited by, among other things, resource considerations and legal process requirements. Although lawsuits are an important check, the chilling and suppressive effects of the Trump administration’s campaign are much broader and deeper than courts alone can address or resolve. 

    The daily chaos of Trump 2.0 can readily distract us from the fuller picture in terms of threats to free speech. As Professor Stephen Vladeck has correctly observed, “it seems that chaos and disruption are themselves central to President Trump’s objective.” However courts ultimately rule after tiresome and delayed litigation, much damage will already be done, some of it even irreversible.  

    Make no mistake: What we have seen in the early days of Trump 2.0 is an unprecedented government-wide and society-wide broadside against fundamental First Amendment commitments. And there is no indication that the Trump administration’s campaign is going to end any time soon. 

    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 with special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 464: “Free speech in an age of fear: The new system loyalty oaths”

    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

  • FSA Executive Retires and Acting Under Secretary Takes Over

    FSA Executive Retires and Acting Under Secretary Takes Over

    The responsibilities of acting under secretary James Bergeron doubled as the Department of Education announced Wednesday that he will not only oversee the regulatory duties related to higher ed but manage the entire Office of Federal Student Aid.

    Even in the wake of major layoffs, FSA remains the largest office in the department. It oversees the Free Application for Federal Student Aid, the allocation of Pell Grants and—at least for now—management of the $1.7 trillion student loan portfolio.

    FSA had been led for much of the last year by Denise Carter, who is now retiring after more than 30 years working in the federal government. Carter also served as acting education secretary earlier this year. The department didn’t say in the news release why Carter was retiring now; the agency has offered early retirement offers and buyouts as part of an effort to reduce the workforce.

    Carter said in the release she was grateful for the opportunity to serve her country.

    “As I move on, I hope we as a nation commit to ensuring every student has the support needed to achieve extraordinary educational outcomes,” Carter added. “The economic strength of our nation depends on their success.”

    Source link

  • ‘We simply could not practice law . . . if we were still subject to the executive order’ – First Amendment News 463

    ‘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

    “Upholding the First Amendment Webinar: Strategies to Combat the Attack 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

    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

    Portrait of President Donald Trump in Colorado State 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

    Cover of the book "Terms of Respect: How Colleges Get Free Speech Right" by Christopher Eisgruber

    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

    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

  • Executive Order Aims to Dismantle Department of Education (Democracy Now!)

    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

  • Trump signs executive order that aims to close U.S. Department of Education

    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

    Latest posts by eSchool Media Contributors (see all)

    Source link