Leslie Dunton-Downer has spent much of her career asking a deceptively simple question. How do ideas travel across time, languages, borders, and political systems?
In seeking to answer this question, Leslie’s writing traces the long arc of human communication. That’s why FIRE is pleased to welcome Leslie to our Advisory Council, where her work as a writer, producer, and scholar will bring a rich, interdisciplinary perspective to the fight for free expression.
Her books on Shakespeare, opera, and the history of English explore how language evolves from shared cultural inheritance into a global force. In The English Is Coming!: How One Language Is Sweeping the World, she follows English from its Proto-Indo-European roots to its modern role as a global lingua franca, examining what’s gained, and lost, when a language dominates worldwide conversation.
Across disciplines and formats, Leslie’s career circles core concerns over who gets to speak, who gets to listen, and what forces shape that exchange.
As an opera librettist, Leslie’s work has premiered internationally, from Ligeia in Evian under the baton of Mstislav Rostropovich to projects in Paris, Berlin, Aspen, and Santa Fe. She has also produced albums of sacred and secular music from Tajikistan’s Gorno-Badakhshan region for the French label Buda Musique, helping preserve and share cultural traditions far outside the Western mainstream.
When Edward Snowden’s disclosures exposed the scale of modern surveillance, Leslie responded not with a white paper, but with a public conversation. Working with transmediale and NK Projekt, she co-produced The Magical Secrecy Tour, a bus tour through Berlin that invited passengers to explore and debate the city’s many cultures of surveillance — showcasing her creative range as well as her commitment to public discourse on privacy and free expression, issues that are central to FIRE’s work.
Leslie’s academic credentials are no less impressive. She studied Ancient Greek and oral literature for her undergraduate degree and went on to complete a PhD in comparative literature at Harvard University, where she was also a lecturer and fellow. She has served on the boards of educational nonprofits in both the United States and the European Union, and was a Daimler Fellow at the American Academy in Berlin, reflecting a long-standing commitment to public education and intellectual exchange.
Across disciplines and formats, Leslie’s career circles core concerns over who gets to speak, who gets to listen, and what forces shape that exchange. Those questions sit squarely at the heart of FIRE’s mission, and we look forward to her contributions as we continue to defend and expand the space for open debate and creative expression in an increasingly surveilled and polarized world.
Morris Brown College president Kevin James fought to regain the college’s accreditation. Now he’s out of a job without explanation.
Morris Brown College
Morris Brown College, a historically Black institution in Georgia, removed its president, effective immediately, after seven years on the job, the Board of Trustees announced Monday.
In a news release, the board thanked Kevin James for his leadership.
James “played a meaningful role in guiding the institution through critical seasons of growth, resilience, and transformation,” the release read. The board “wishes him well in his next chapter.”
The board’sannouncement offered no explanation for James’s termination.
“Morris Brown College remains firmly committed to its students, its mission, and its long-term strategic vision,” Bishop Michael Mitchell, chair of the Board of Trustees, said in a statement. “This transition in leadership will help to ensure continuity as we move forward with the important work of strengthening and advancing the College.”
Under James’s tenure, the struggling college regained accreditation after nearly 20 years without it, restoring students’ access to federal financial aid. Enrollment also grew from about 20 students to more than 540, James wrote in a Facebook post Monday.
He said the Board of Trustees terminated his contract, which is slated to end in 2029, “without providing specific cause or substantive explanation” after a positive annual evaluation and strong performance reviews throughout his presidency.
He stressed that the timing is “troubling” for the college,which faces an accreditation-reaffirmation review injust a few weeks.
“I dedicated myself fully to the restoration and resurgence of Morris Brown College, and I stand firmly behind the progress we achieved together,” James wrote. “While I am deeply disappointed by the Board’s decision, I am grateful for the overwhelming support I have received from alumni, faculty, staff, students, and community partners. Thank you for believing in the vision and the work.”
The board named trustee Nzinga Shaw as the college’s interim leader.
Each passing year gets busier and busier for FIRE, and this year was no different. The numbers alone say a lot: With a current caseload of 34 litigation cases and 300 more non-litigation advocacy matters, 50 amicus brief submissions, and 21,500 media mentions (and counting!) under our belt, FIRE is bringing the heat everywhere.
Our big — and growing! — community of supporters enabled us to go big and be bold, to stand up to bullies, to stand up for everyday Americans, and to fight for that precious right to free speech that we all love and cherish. We are proud to serve as the nation’s premier free speech watchdog and achieve victories like those highlighted below.
In Court
FIRE notched major litigation victories this year, proving our prowess in court as America’s leading First Amendment defender.
These are just some of the cases our team of in-house First Amendment attorneys are litigating directly, but we can’t forget the 50 amicus briefs filed to advance the law.
Demonstrating our ability to defendexpressive rights without ever setting foot in court, FIRE notched nearly 80 victories defending the First Amendment rights of everyday Americans in 2025.
As usual, our cases ran the gamut from defending a student threatened with discipline for wearing a TPUSA hat, to rallying the residents of a New Jersey town to defeat an ordinance requiring a $2 million insurance policy if residents wanted to demonstrate, to fighting for a student journalist who was kicked off campus for publishing criticism of the campus administration.
At the Institute of American Indian Arts, criticism of school officials is ‘bullying’
Administrators kicked the Young Warrior’s editor out of student housing and put him on probation for publishing student work critical of school officials.
In 1999, we started our work on campus because the American university is ground zero for censorship. It’s the place where we see illiberal trends emerge and generations indoctrinated with “free speech for me but not for thee” attitudes. It’s vital we defend and promote the values of free expression on campus so we can secure them for our country and Americans everywhere.
This year, FIRE met with dozens of campus leaders, resulting in the reform of more than 30 campus policies impacting over 1 million students. We added four new institutions to our list of “green light” schools that maintain no restrictive speech policies, making this the first school year in our history when we tracked more schools that protect speech in their policies than schools that significantly restrict it.
And, FIRE continues to shape the next generation of free speech leaders. We hosted 22 interns, 14 legal clerks, 100 undergrads at our Student Network Summer Conference, and 200 high schoolers at our second annual week-long summer camp, the Free Speech Forum. Our programs are free to attend and leave young people inspired. Here’s what just one had to say:
Before FIRE . . . I could not engage in a civil conversation over controversial topics. After FIRE, I’ve had many civil conversations over the same or different topics. What’s different? I listen, I ask, then I speak.
Thought Leadership
Guiding the national conversation back to nonpartisan free speech principles, FIRE was everywhere this year, warning politicians across the political spectrum that practicing censorship will come back to haunt them, combating the “words are violence” cliche, and explaining that “hate speech” is protected speech. Our staffers placed op-eds in leading publications like The Wall Street Journal, MSNBC, and Reason; and The New York Times ran a front-page profile of FIRE and featured FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff on an episode of The Daily.
Greg was on the speaking circuit nonstop this year. The highlight was his TED Talk, which introduced hundreds of thousands to FIRE’s mission. Check it out if you haven’t yet!
Thank You!
As a nonprofit organization, these achievements are only possible thanks to the generosity of our supporters. If you’ve already donated this year, please know that we sincerely appreciate your support. If you haven’t yet, please consider joining our growing movement of principled, nonpartisan free speech defenders by making a donation before the end of the year.
Drag shows are inherently expressive and protected under the First Amendment. That’s what a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit held back in August, reversing a district court’s decision that had upheld West Texas A&M University’s campus-wide drag show ban.
Yet several weeks later, the Fifth Circuit elected to vacate the panel’s decision and rehear the case en banc, meaning the full Court will consider whether the First Amendment permits government officials to ban a drag show because they disagree with the show’s message. As FIRE fights to preserve the panel’s decision upholding the right of public university students to engage in expressive conduct, a broad coalition of free speech advocates has rallied to file “friend of the court” briefs in support.
Here’s what happened: West Texas A&M University maintains Legacy Hall as an open forum for students and the public to interact and engage in expression. FIRE’s client in this case is Spectrum WT, a long-recognized student organization that seeks to provide support for and promote acceptance of the LGBTQ+ student body. To that end, Spectrum WT hosts a wide range of campus events, both social and educational, to raise awareness of issues important to LGBTQ+ students and foster a strong sense of community and acceptance.
The Constitution prohibits University officials from censoring student expression on campus because they happen to disagree with its underlying message.
Several years ago, Spectrum WT began planning a charity drag performance to be held at Legacy Hall. Proceeds from the event would benefit the Trevor Project, an organization dedicated to suicide prevention in the LGBTQ+ community.
But eleven days before the performance’s scheduled date, the university’s President, Walter Wendler, canceled the event. In a lengthy public statement, Wendler announced that “West Texas A&M will not host a drag show on campus,” even while conceding that drag performance is “artistic expression” and that “the law of the land” requires him to let the show go on. According to Wendler, he opposes drag’s underlying “ideology,” believing it “demeans” women and that there is “no such thing” as a “harmless drag show.”
West Texas A&M President cancels student charity drag show for second time
West Texas A&M President Wendler enforced his unconstitutional prior restraint by canceling a student-organized charity drag show for the second time.
That’s when FIRE stepped in. Our country’s universities are bastions of free expression, exploration, and self-discovery. They are uniquely places where young adults may have their opinions tested and viewpoints expanded. And the Constitution prohibits university officials from censoring student expression on campus because they happen to disagree with its underlying message.
That was what the Fifth Circuit panel held when it heard this case on appeal. Yet several weeks later, the court decided to vacate the panel’s decision and consider the case a second time. So the fight to preserve First Amendment protections for students’ artistic performance, regardless of whether university officials agree with the message, continues.
Last week, a bipartisan coalition of university professors, prominent legal scholars, and no fewer than thirteen organizations filed five amicus briefs in support of Spectrum WT:
The ACLU of Texas and Equality Texas highlight the district court’s doctrinal errors in upholding Wendler’s blanket drag ban, including the court’s failure to recognize the message, history, and context of drag performance and its reliance on a standard for protected expression the Supreme Court has explicitly rejected. As the ACLU of Texas and Equality Texas explain: “The district court’s narrowing of the First Amendment’s protective scope sets an alarming precedent, which, if left uncorrected, could extend beyond the drag performance at issue in this case.”
The First Amendment Lawyers Association argues that the lower court’s decision violates the “bedrock First Amendment principle” that government officials may not censor speech merely because they dislike the message. They emphasize how this violation is even more egregious in the university setting, “where speech rights are particularly important.” As FALA describes, Wendler “suppressed protected speech, impoverished public discourse, and denied students and the broader community the right to engage, critique, and learn in a free marketplace of ideas.”
The CATO Institute and renowned legal scholars Eugene Volokh and Dale Carpenterdescribe the applicable legal doctrine to explain why it ultimately does not matter whether Legacy Hall is classified as a limited public forum or nonpublic forum: because Wendler’s viewpoint discrimination is impermissible everywhere. They argue that drag performance is clearly protected expression under the First Amendment and that Wendler violated that protection by censoring drag performance because he disagrees with its message.
A coalition of eight professors specializing in LGBTQ+ studies delve into the history of drag performance as artistic expression. They describe how drag has long existed as a medium to celebrate the LGBTQ+ community and defy gender norms and stereotypes. They argue that its message is unmistakable among the general public, and that Wendler’s sole motivation in censoring this artistic expression was his personal disagreement with that message.
Free speech is more than just a constitutional right — it’s the foundation of democracy and social progress. In today’s divided political climate, defending this right has never been more important. That’s why FIRE’s Free Speech Forum is bringing together passionate young leaders who are ready to become tomorrow’s defenders of free expression.
Not your average summer camp
The Free Speech Forum is an immersive, week-long experience designed for rising 10th through 12th graders who want to strengthen their understanding of free speech and the First Amendment. From June 21–27, 2026, students will gather in Washington, D.C. for an unforgettable program that combines expert-led learning, hands-on skill building, and meaningful peer connections.
This isn’t just about classroom sessions — it’s about becoming part of a movement.
What to expect
Dynamic workshops with leading free speech experts
Advocacy training to sharpen your voice
Field trips to iconic sites like the U.S. Capitol and the Supreme Court
Interactive cohort activities
College prep and career development sessions
Networking with advocates, policymakers, and fellow students who share your passion
From the moment you arrive, you’ll meet your counselor and the students in your cohort where you can start building lasting friendships. Wind-down time is built into each day, so you’ll have the space you need to recharge.
Who should apply?
College-bound students with a passion for free speech and advocacy
Those eager to explore a career in law or First Amendment work
Students enrolled in grades 9–11 at the time of application
Applicants who will be at least 15 years old at the program’s start and no older than 18 when it ends
What does it cost? It’s completely free! FIRE covers registration, housing, and meals. Students are responsible for their own travel arrangements to and from Washington, D.C., but free transportation is provided between Ronald Reagan National Airport or Union Station and the university where the event will be hosted.
Need help with travel expenses? A limited number of need-based scholarships are available. Students accepted into the program will receive details about how to apply.
How do I apply? Applications are now open! The application deadline is March 30, 2026. Due to the competitive nature of the program, we strongly recommend applying early.Important: To submit your application, you’ll need to create a CampInTouch account. When you click the application link on our website, you will be taken to the CampInTouch login page, where you can log in or sign up for a new account before beginning your application.
This is your chance to:
Dive deep into the history and future of the First Amendment
Learn from leaders in advocacy, education, and policy
Build confidence in explaining the importance of free speech to others
Develop the skills to defend free expression in your community, on campus, and beyond
Northeast Technical College fired its president last week, reversing course on a resignation agreement accepted by the board just two weeks earlier that would have reportedly kept him in the job until June.
Kyle Wagner, president of the public college in South Carolina since 2016, submitted his resignation Nov. 11 and then went on medical leave, according to Queen City News. But two weeks later, NETC’s governing board rescinded the agreement and fired the longtime president with little explanation, the local news outlet reported. The decision was effective immediately.
The board also voted to immediately begin a search for the college’s next president.
Wagner’s firing comes after a tumultuous year for the college and the president. Last December, Northeastern Technical College was sanctioned by its accreditor, the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools Commission on Colleges, for compliance concerns that included not employing adequate numbers of full-time faculty members, among other issues cited in a report.
That same month, the South Carolina Office of the State Inspector General determined that Northeastern Tech had placed some high school students in a dual-enrollment program in additional classes, unbeknownst to them, which resulted in unexpected bills from the college.
College employees, including Wagner, benefited financially from the mistake, according to the OIG’s office.
“NETC failed one or more invisible students, transforming them, via a flawed fast track scheme, into ghost students—haunting the reliability of NETC’s enrollment numbers. Inflated enrollment numbers provided additional funding to NETC which served select faculty and staff justifying salary increases and/or bonuses,” Inspector General Brian Lamkin wrote in his report. “Due to the inadequacies of NETC staff, some students were left with grade discrepancies, issues with financial aid eligibility at future institutions, and unreconciled student account balances.”
Local politicians called for Wagner to resign late last year, citing the accreditation and dual-enrollment issues. Despite lawmakers’ concerns, then–board chairman Dan Bozard said in January that they backed Wagner “without reservation.” But some 11 months later, that support has evidently diminished.
Contacted by LinkedIn, Wagner did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed. College officials also did not respond to a media inquiry about Wagner’s reported firing.
First Amendment advocates are condemning Indiana University’s decision this week to suspend print publication of the Indiana Daily Student, a move that comes after administrators fired its adviser for allegedly rejecting demands to censor the student newspaper.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression called the decision “outrageous,” while officials at the Student Press Law Center cast the move as a classic case of censorship. Editors at the newspaper say they want to work with the university to address the issue but pledged “to resist as long as the university disregards the law.”
“Any other means than court would be preferred,” wrote IDS editors Mia Hilowitz and Andrew Miller in an op-ed Wednesday.
The decision is the latest flare-up between student journalists and institutions. Earlier this year, Purdue University ended its partnership with the student paper, citing “institutional neutrality.” The move also echoes Texas A&M University’s unilateral decision in 2022 to end its student newspaper’s print edition.
The IDS editors first brought attention to the firing of Director of Student Media Jim Rodenbush in a Tuesday op-ed. They accused IU of ousting Rodenbush after he refused to follow directions from administrators to censor a homecoming edition of the newspaper. Administrators reportedly told Rodenbush the newspaper was only to contain information about homecoming and “no traditional front page news coverage.” But when he resisted, and editors at the Indiana Daily Student pressed Media School administrators for clarity, Rodenbush was fired.
A termination letter shared with Inside Higher Ed and signed by Media School dean David Tolchinsky accused Rodenbush of a “lack of leadership” and inability “to work in alignment with the University’s direction for the Student Media Plan,” which he called “unacceptable.” Tolchinsky added that Rodenbush “will not be eligible for rehire at Indiana University.”
The termination letter sent to Jim Rodenbush.
After Rodenbush was ousted, administrators canceled publication of the newspaper, citing a plan adopted last year that outlined a shift for the student newspaper from print to digital platforms.
“In support of the Action Plan, the campus has decided to make this shift effective this week, aligning IU with industry trends and offering experiential opportunities more consistent with digital-first media careers of the future,” Tolchinsky wrote in an email to student editors obtained by Inside Higher Ed.
Indiana administrators deny that the university censored the paper, despite telling the student publication not to publish news. IU officials say that the newspaper retains full editorial control.
Accelerating a Shift
In a statement shared with Inside Higher Ed and attributed only to an IU spokesperson, officials wrote, “Indiana University Bloomington is committed to a vibrant and independent student media ecosystem.” The statement added that the shift from print to digital is geared toward “prioritizing student experiences that are more consistent with today’s digital-first media environment while also addressing a longstanding structural deficit at the Indiana Daily Student.”
Chancellor David Reingold also pointed to the action plan in his statement, noting that “the campus is completing the shift from print to digital effective this week.” He added that the decision “concerns the medium of distribution, not editorial content,” and IU upholds “the right of student journalists to pursue stories freely and without interference.”
Tolchinsky, President Pamela Whitten and members of the Board of Trustees did not respond to requests for comment from Inside Higher Ed. IU did not answer specific questions sent by email.
Although Indiana officials have denied censoring the student newspaper, some officials were concerned about the optics of shutting down coverage, according to the Indiana Daily Student.
When Rodenbush pushed back on the directive to censor the newspaper in a Sept. 25 meeting, Ron McFall, assistant dean of strategy and administration at the Media School, reportedly asked, “How do we frame that, you know, in a way that’s not seen as censorship?”
McFall did not respond to a request for comment from Inside Higher Ed.
‘Textbook Case of Censorship’
Rodenbush told Inside Higher Ed in a phone interview that he was surprised by his firing and open to exploring all legal options. He also cast the happenings at IU not as a business decision but pure censorship.
“This is a textbook case of censorship,” Rodenbush said.
He also disputed the notion that what happened was part of a shift to a digital product. In fact, Rodenbush argued, that shift largely already happened when university administrators decided last year to scale back the publication of the print edition from weekly to seven editions across the spring semester. Those seven printings were special editions, Rodenbush said, given that those “are generally our biggest revenue generators.” Special editions this year have been printed as supplemental sections, or essentially inserts into the regular editions of the paper.
Prior to the fall semester, Rodenbush said, he never heard concerns from administrators about that practice until they objected to publishing the homecoming edition as an insert in the regular newspaper in September. When asked to ban news coverage from the homecoming edition, Rodenbush told Media School administrators, including Tolchinsky, he “wasn’t going to participate in censoring the paper,” which he said led to his firing.
Hilowitz and Miller, the IDS editors, also disputed the notion that the cancellation of the print publication, which was communicated to them by Tolchinsky, was anything but censorship.
“IU decided to fire Jim Rodenbush after he did the right thing by refusing to censor our print edition. That was a deliberate scare tactic toward student journalists and faculty. The same day, the Media School decided to fully cut our physical paper, fully ensuring we couldn’t print news. We’re losing revenue because of that decision,” they wrote in a joint emailed statement.
The duo accused IU of trying to “irrationally justify” censorship as a “business decision.”
Mike Hiestrand, senior legal counsel at the Student Press Law Center, told Inside Higher Ed that IU’s actions amount to content-based censorship and are “a clear violation of the First Amendment.”
Asked to weigh in on IU’s response, Hiestrand commented, “No censor wants to be called a censor,” but “that’s clearly the case.” He added that being told not to publish certain information is “as content-based an action of censorship as you can get.” In an interview at a media conference in Washington, D.C., with hundreds of student journalists and advisers in attendance, Hiestrand said that there has been a sense of shock and outrage from attendees over the situation.
“I think there’s shock that this happened here. We have strong laws that protect against this,” Hiestrand said.
Free Speech Under Fire
The censorship flap comes amid broad criticism of the state of free expression at IU, which FIRE ranked as one of the nation’s worst institutions on campus speech. Of 257 universities, FIRE ranked IU at 255 in its free speech rankings.
IU has seen a flurry of campus speech controversies since Whitten became president in 2021.
“Censoring a student publication after it reported on a university’s dismal record on free speech isn’t just a stunning display of lack of self-awareness, it’s a violation of the First Amendment,” FIRE student press program officer Dominic Coletti said in a statement. “If Indiana University is embarrassed about its terrible showing in the College Free Speech Rankings, it should put down the shovel and start caring more about its students’ constitutional rights than its own image.”
The university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors urged administrators to reconsider their decisions to fire the adviser and cut the print edition, saying the situation further deteriorates IU’s commitment to free speech.
“In refusing to be cowed by demands to voluntarily abrogate constitutionally protected rights, Director Rodenbush and the Indiana Daily Student have indeed shown themselves out of alignment with a University Administration that has consistently silenced dissenting voices with a seeming disregard for First Amendment protections,” the chapter said in a statement.
This latest controversy is also gaining national attention from big-name donors such as Mark Cuban, the billionaire entrepreneur and IU alum. Cuban, who previously donated money to support the Indiana Daily Student, called out administrators in a post on X.
“Not happy. Censorship isn’t the way,” Cuban wrote Wednesday. “I gave money to [the] IU general fund for the IDS last year, so they could pay everyone and not run a deficit. I gave more than they asked for. I told them I’m happy to help because the IDS is important to kids at IU.”
The U.S. Department of Education has terminated nearly every employee in the Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in a sweeping wave of layoffs that began Friday, according to the union representing agency staff—a move that advocates say will devastate services for millions of students with disabilities.
While the agency has not provided official numbers, reports from staff and managers indicate that most employees below the leadership level in the division were eliminated, said Rachel Gittleman, president of the American Federation of Government Employees Local 252. Employees in the college access program known as TRIO, housed in a different office, were also let go.
The union has challenged the firings in court, arguing they “double down on the harm to K-12 students and schools across the country,” Gittleman told USA TODAY.
Education Department spokespeople did not respond to requests for comment. However, Education Secretary Linda McMahon has previously stated that safeguarding students with disabilities and ensuring their access to legally mandated educational resources is a top priority. “I would like to see even more funding go to the states for that,” she told CNN in March.
In a Friday court filing, the Justice Department confirmed that more than 460 Education Department employees had been laid off, cutting roughly one-fifth of the agency’s workforce. The terminations, which have affected more than half a dozen federal agencies, are part of a broader Trump administration effort to pressure congressional Democrats to end the ongoing government shutdown. Nearly 90% of the Education Department remains furloughed.
The agency eliminated nearly every employee responsible for administering funding under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)—the primary federal law supporting students with disabilities. The staffer expressed uncertainty about how these programs will continue to function.
Secretary McMahon has suggested that oversight of IDEA funding might be better positioned within the Department of Health and Human Services rather than at the Education Department, though officially moving it would require congressional action.
The mass firings have drawn sharp criticism from education equity advocates who warn of dire consequences for vulnerable students.
“The Trump administration’s attack on public education continued this weekend as students with disabilities are at risk of losing the services, supports, and oversight that protect their civil rights,” said Denise Forte, president and CEO of The Education Trust.
“The administration’s unfathomable decision to fire all employees who administer the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) abandons the 7.5 million students with disabilities and their families,” Forte continued. “Roughly 15% of public school students have a disability, and federal enforcement of IDEA is crucial to ensuring that these students receive a free and appropriate public education.”
Forte said that the layoffs will have particularly significant consequences for students of color with disabilities, who already face greater barriers to accessing services and are subjected to disproportionately harsher discipline.
“This is a direct assault on all parents of and students with disabilities and all students and families who know that an excellent education system is a diverse and inclusive one,” Forte said. “I call on the Trump administration to reverse these cuts immediately.”
The firings come amid widespread disruption across the Education Department, which has also experienced problems with financial aid administration following earlier rounds of layoffs.
As of Friday afternoon, it remained unclear how many staff members would be affected.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Tierney L. Cross/Getty Images | BraunS and Prostock-Studio/iStock/Getty Images
Staff members at the Department of Education will be affected by the mass layoffs taking place across the federal government, a spokesperson said Friday.
Russell Vought, director of the Office of Management and Budget, has threatened the layoffs for weeks, citing the government shutdown. Vought wrote on social media Friday that his promised reduction in force had begun.
A department spokesperson then confirmed in an email to Inside Higher Ed that “ED employees will be impacted by the RIF.” The spokesperson did not clarify how many employees will be affected or in which offices. Other sources say no one who works in the Office of Federal Student Aid will be laid off.
Trump administration officials said in a court filing that an estimated 466 employees were given reduction-in-force notices. About 1,100 to 1,200 employees at the Department of Health and Human Services also got laid off. Overall, more than 4,200 workers across eight agencies were fired.
At the Education Department, the estimated layoffs will leave the department with just over 2,001 employees. The agency, which President Trump wants to close, already lost nearly half its career staff members during a first round of mass layoffs in March. In the wake of those layoffs, former staffers warned that the cuts would lead to technical mishaps, gaps in oversight and a loss of institutional knowledge. College administrators have also reported delays and issues in getting communications and updates from the department, though agency officials say critical services have continued.
The federal workers’ union and multiple outside education advocacy groups challenged the first round of layoffs in court. Lower courts blocked the RIF, but the Supreme Court overturned those rulings in July. Affected staff members officially left the department in August.
Another lawsuit challenged this latest round when Vought threatened the layoffs – before the pink slips had even been distributed today. It was filed at the end of September.
The union representing Education Department employees as well as sources with connections to staffers who were still working at the department as of Friday morning said that the latest round of cuts will at least affect staff members from the offices of elementary and secondary education and communications and outreach. A union representative added that all of the employees in the communications office’s state and local engagement division were laid off.
A senior department leader, who spoke on condition of anonymity, told Inside Higher Ed that the layoffs were directed by OMB and came as a surprise.
“Last week the [education] secretary’s office had said no RIFs at all,” the senior leader explained. “We heard on Tuesday that OMB sent over a list of people for ED to RIF … ED apparently edited it and sent it back.”
In neither case were cuts planned for the Office of Federal Student Aid, which manages the Pell Grant and student loans, the senior leader added.
Rachel Gittleman, president of the union that represents Education Department employees, promised in a statement to fight the layoffs.
“This administration continues to use every opportunity to illegally dismantle the Department of Education against congressional intent,” Gittleman said. “They are using the same playbook to cut staff without regard for the impacts to students and families in communities across the country … Dismantling the government through mass firings, especially at the ED, is not the solution to our problems as a country.”
Through late September and into the first 10 days of the shutdown, both Vought and President Trump used the threat of further RIFs to try to convince Democrats in the Senate to acquiesce and sign the Republicans’ budget stopgap bill. But Democrats have stood firm, refusing to sign the bill unless the GOP meets their demands and extends an expiring tax credit for health insurance.
Health and Human Services Department spokesperson Andrew G. Nixon wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed earlier on Friday that “HHS employees across multiple divisions” received layoff notices. But he didn’t provide an interview or answer written questions about whether the layoffs include employees at the National Institutes of Health, a major funder of university research.
Nixon wrote that “HHS under the Biden administration became a bloated bureaucracy” and “all HHS employees receiving reduction-in-force notices were designated non-essential by their respective divisions. HHS continues to close wasteful and duplicative entities, including those that are at odds with the Trump administration’s Make America Healthy Again agenda.”
Democrats and some Republicans have warned against the layoffs. Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican who chairs the powerful appropriations committee, opposed the layoffs in a statement while also blaming Democrats in the shutdown.
“Arbitrary layoffs result in a lack of sufficient personnel needed to conduct the mission of the agency and to deliver essential programs, and cause harm to families in Maine and throughout our country,” she said.
But Democrats in particular have argued that firing federal workers during a shutdown is unconstitutional.
“No one is making Trump and Vought hurt American workers—they just want to,” Sen. Patty Murray, a Washington State Democrat and vice chair of the appropriations committee, said in a statement Friday afternoon. “A shutdown does not give Trump or Vought new, special powers to cause more chaos or permanently weaken more basic services for the American people … This is nothing new, and no one should be intimidated by these crooks.”
Rep. Bobby Scott, a Virginia democrat and ranking member of the House Education and Workforce Committee, pointed out in a statement that the administration has had to rehire employees who were fired earlier this year.
“In addition to wasting millions of taxpayer dollars to fire and rehire government employees, arbitrarily firing government employees means there are fewer people to help administer essential programs,” he said. “Moreover, I fear the lasting impact of mass firings will be an incredible loss of invaluable institutional knowledge. Furthermore, random and chaotic layoffs will make it difficult to recruit qualified employees in the future.”
The directors felt they were fired as part of the administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion and for political reasons.
Wesley Lapointe/The Washington Post via Getty Images
Four directors at the National Institutes of Health who were placed on administrative leave earlier this year have now been fired, Sciencereported.
The ousted leaders led the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, the National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities, and the National Institute of Nursing Research. Tara Schwetz, the deputy director for program coordination, planning and strategic initiatives, was also fired. The directors were put on leave in the spring around the same time that the administration laid off thousands at the Department of Health and Human Services.
Science reported that the directors felt they were targeted as part of the administration’s crackdown on diversity, equity and inclusion and for political reasons. Jeanne Marrazzo, the former NIAID director, took over for Anthony Fauci, a frequent target for Republicans who took issue with his approach to the COVID-19 pandemic. Marrazzo filed a whistleblower complaint in early September that in part accused NIH leadership of downplaying the value of vaccines, The New York Timesreported.
“It’s not surprising, but it’s still incredibly disappointing,” Marrazzo told Science. “I would have been quite happy to serve under the new administration as long as we were allowed to do our jobs.”
