The Department of Education has delayed the semiannual convening of its accreditation advisory committee for the second time this year, according to an email sent to committee members and obtained by Inside Higher Ed.
The meeting of the National Advisory Committee on Institutional Quality and Integrity, originally slated to take place in July, had already been pushed back to Oct. 21. Now, as a result of the government shutdown, it’s been rescheduled for Dec. 16.
“As many of you know, most department staff, including those supporting NACIQI, have been furloughed and the Department has suspended operations except for specific excepted activities,” Jeffrey Andrade, deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation, wrote in the email. “The Department will be publishing a notice in the Federal Register shortly announcing this change of meeting date.”
Inside Higher Ed reached out to the department for direct comment on the delay but did not get a response prior to publication.
The meeting was slated to include Under Secretary Nicholas Kent’s first comments on accreditation since he took office, as well as compliance reports from five different accreditors. Three of those agencies are institutional: the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, the New England Commission of Higher Education, and the Western Association of Schools and Colleges Senior College and University Commission. The other two are programmatic: the Accreditation Commission for Midwifery Education and the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy.
And while it wasn’t formally listed on the committee’s agenda, this meeting also likely would have served as the unveiling of six new Trump-appointed committee members.
When department officials announced the first delay in July, observers noted that by the time the rescheduled meeting took place, the terms of six of the committee’s 18 members would be over. With key decisions about the future of higher education accreditation looming, many policy experts took this as a sign that the Trump administration was trying to stack the panel in its favor.
Now, the new appointees will likely go unnamed for another two months, and the compliance reports will remain unchecked until the next meeting. And though neither of these agenda items is quite as high-stakes as a recognition review—the process by which independent accrediting agencies are granted the power to gate-keep federal student aid—one expert feared it could lead to a backlog in future evaluations.
“While [the accreditation agencies] are coming up before NACIQI on this compliance report, they are also likely in the process of having their regular recognition reviewed again,” said Antoinette Flores, the director of higher education accountability and quality at New America, a left-leaning think tank. “So it adds to the burden and could lead to compounding issues.”
Flores, who served in the same role as Andrade during the Biden administration, is worried that the delay could not only slow down future reviews but also hamper current ones, putting certain agencies and the institutions they serve at risk. When an agency is placed under compliance review, it has 12 months to fix the problem and prove it is meeting the committee’s criteria, she explained. So, if it hasn’t proven it’s meeting those criteria within that period, technically the agency’s authorization could be at stake.
Flores said she’s particularly worried for Middle States Commission and the New England Commission, because they each received letters from the Trump administration earlier this year pressuring them to take action against member institutions’ alleged noncompliance with civil rights laws. Neither accreditor has done so, and they won’t be able to present their compliance reports before the 12-month deadline.
“So is the agency in compliance? Is its recognition going to continue? … That’s kind of the underlying question,” Flores said.
Others are far less concerned.
Kyle Beltramini, a policy research fellow at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, a right-leaning policy organization, said that to his knowledge there’s never been a time when NACIQI failed to meet and review an agency’s compliance or recognition before the deadline.
So while it remains unclear what would happen if the meeting never took place or the agencies were unable to present their compliance reports before deadline, Beltramini believes that any consequences of the delay will be minimal.
“I don’t think what we’re going to see is the nuclear option of an accreditor losing their authorization,” he said. “It’s partially because of the fact that even if that’s what the administration wanted to do—which I don’t think that that’s the case—they just don’t have the full majority on the committee.” (Although, technically, the under secretary and secretary of education do not have to follow the committee’s guidance.)
Either way, if and when the meeting occurs, Beltramini anticipates that it will set the tone for how the Trump administration plans to approach accreditation moving forward.
“There is a broad and bipartisan agreement that there needs to be change to the system, and what you’re going to see, more and more often, is NACIQI attempting to hold the accreditors accountable by asking them questions and getting them on the record in ways that may make them uncomfortable,” he said.
Hello! This is Christina Samuels, the early education editor here at Hechinger.
By now, I hope you’ve had a chance to read my colleague Jackie Mader’s story about the important role that Head Start plays in rural communities. While Jackie set her story in western Ohio, she also interviewed Head Start parents and leaders in other parts of the country and collected their views for a follow-up article.
In a fortunate bit of timing, the advocacy group First Five Years Fund published the results of a survey it commissioned on rural Americans and their feelings on child care access and affordability. Like the people Jackie interviewed, the survey respondents, more than half of whom identified as supporters of President Donald Trump, said they had very positive views of Head Start. The federally funded free child care program received positive marks from 71 percent of rural Republicans, 73 percent of rural independents and 92 percent of rural Democrats.
The survey also found that 4 out of 5 respondents felt that finding quality child care is a major or critical problem in their part of the country. Two-thirds of those surveyed felt that spending on child care and early education programs is a good use of taxpayer dollars, and a little more than half said they’d like to see more federal dollars going to such programs.
First Five Years Fund was particularly interested in getting respondents to share their thoughts on Head Start, said Sarah Rubinfield, the managing director of government affairs for First Five Years Fund. The program has been buffeted by regional office closures and cuts driven by the administration’s Department of Government Efficiency.
“We recognize that these are communities that often have few options for early learning and care,” Rubinfield said.
In the survey, rural residents said they strongly supported not just the child care offered by Head Start, but the wraparound services such as healthy meals and snacks and the program’s support for children with developmental disabilities. Though Head Start programs are federally funded, community organizations are the ones in charge of spending priorities.
“Rural voters want action. They support funding for Head Start and for child care. They want Congress to do more,” Rubinfield said. Though the “big beautiful bill” signed into law in July expands the child care tax credit for low-income families, survey respondents “recognized that things were not solved,” she added.
The First Five Years Fund survey was released just a few days before a congressional standoff led to a government shutdown. The shutdown is not expected to touch Head Start immediately, said Tommy Sheridan, the deputy director of the National Head Start Association, in an interview with The New York Times. The 1,600 Head Start programs across the country receive money at different points throughout the calendar year; eight programs serving about 7,500 children were slated to receive their federal funding on Oct. 1, Sheridan told the Times. All should be able to continue operating, as long as the shutdown doesn’t last more than a few weeks, he said.
“We’re watching with careful concern but trying not to panic,” Rubinfield said. “We know the impacts may not be immediate, but the longer this goes on, the harder the impacts may be for families and programs.”
This story about rural Americans was produced by The Hechinger Report, a nonprofit, independent news organization focused on inequality and innovation in education. Sign up for the Hechinger newsletter.
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.
All rule-making sessions for the Department of Education were held online from the start of the COVID pandemic to the beginning of the second Trump administration.
J. David Ake/Getty Images
If the government shuts down Wednesday, it’s not clear whether the Department of Education will be able to continue with the meetings it had planned to iron out a batch of regulatory changes this week.
The advisory rule-making committee began its work Monday and was originally slated to continue through Friday. But at the start of Monday’s meeting, department officials noted that if the government runs out of funding Oct. 1, the remainder of the session would be delayed and the plan would be to resume virtually in two weeks. (This was consistent with a pending notice that was posted to the Federal Register in the morning.)
That all changed once again moments before Monday’s meeting ended when Jeffrey Andrade, the deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation, said the department was reconsidering its earlier statement and that the negotiated rule-making committee might be able to continue operating in person through the end of the week.
“There is a possibility that we can work through this,” Andrade said, adding that he had just received word of the possibility himself.
The department is planning to furlough nearly 87 percent of its employees, according to its shutdown contingency plan. But officials are planning to keep employees who are working on the rule-making process on board as well as those working to implement Congress’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed in July.
This rule-making session is focused on clarifying the details of new graduate loan caps and a consolidated version of the multiple existing income-driven repayment plans.
Going into this week’s meetings, multiple higher education experts said that finalizing new regulations before the caps and repayment plans take effect July 1, 2026, would be difficult no matter what. A government shutdown, one added, could throw a wrench into the already tight timeline.
“With such a crunched timeline for finishing the rules in the first place, this makes the department’s job much more challenging,” said Clare McCann, managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University.
One of this week’s rule-making committee members, who spoke with Inside Higher Ed on the condition of anonymity, said that while they were still uncertain how the rest of the week will play out, Andrade’s last-minute announcement gave them hope.
“I’m not sure what to make of it and will be waiting for clearer answers in the morning,” the committee member said. “But I know the department is working hard to get as much done as possible.”
That said, if the session does end up moving online, it wouldn’t be too out of the ordinary for department staff members. All sessions prior to the start of the second Trump administration were held online since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020.
The real challenge, McCann noted, would likely be having enough staff to facilitate the session, regardless of its modality.
“Certainly the department will be able to keep some of this moving, but they will undoubtedly also have some employees who are not considered essential and are furloughed during a shutdown,” McCann said. “It takes many people at the department to make a rule making happen, and so any loss of personnel is going to present a challenge, even if they’re able to keep some of the core team that’s involved.”
Under the contingency plan, student aid distributions will not be paused and loan payments will still be due. The department will, however, pause civil rights investigations and cease grant-making activities, though current grantees will still be able to access funds awarded by Sept. 30.
All rule-making sessions for the Department of Education were held online from the start of the COVID pandemic to the beginning of the second Trump administration.
Screenshot/Alexis Gravely
The Education Department’s current rule-making session, in which committee members are determining how to implement new student loan policies, will be delayed by two weeks if Congress fails to pass legislation to keep the government open, Trump officials announced Monday morning.
“There is the possibility—which seems to be growing by the hour—of a lapse in appropriations,” one department official said during the rule-making session’s commencement Monday. “Have no fear, however,” he added, “we do have a contingency plan for that.”
The official, Jeffrey Andrade, deputy assistant secretary for policy, planning and innovation, went on to explain that if the government does shut down Oct. 1, the remainder of the session would take place online from Oct. 15 to 17. (The plans were also posted to the Federal Register on Monday.)
Managing a virtual negotiated rule-making session, however, would be nothing new to the department staff, as all sessions prior to the start of the second Trump administration have been held online since the COVID-19 pandemic broke out in 2020.
“Again, fingers crossed,” Andrade said. “But the oddsmakers, when I last checked, were in the high 60s in favor of them not passing a continuing resolution in time. So that’s a plan.”
The department was already facing a tight timeline to negotiate the various regulatory changes, and some are worried that the two-week delay could further complicate the effort.
“A government shutdown throws a wrench into the rule making,” said Clare McCann, managing director of policy for the Postsecondary Education and Economics Research Center at American University. “Even assuming a shutdown is over in two weeks, as the department hopes, almost all of the Education Department’s staff will be furloughed in the meantime and unable to continue working on the draft regulations. With such a crunched timeline for finishing the rules in the first place, this makes the department’s job much more challenging.”
If the government were to shut down, about 87 percent of the Education Department’s nearly 2,500 employees would be furloughed, according to the agency’s contingency plan. The department is planning to keep on employees who are working on the rule-making process and to carry out other provisions in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which was signed into law over the summer.
Student aid distributions will not be paused and loan payments will still be due, but the department will cease grant-making activities and pause civil rights investigations. Grantees, though, can still access funds awarded over the summer and before Sept. 30.
Edan Kauer is a former FIRE intern and a sophomore at Georgetown University.
Elliston Berry was just 14 years old when a male classmate at Aledo High in North Texas used AI to create fake nudes of her based on images he took from her social media. He then did the same to seven other girls at the school and shared the images on Snapchat.
Now, two years later, Berry and her classmates are the inspiration for Senator Ted Cruz’s Take It Down Act (TIDA), a recently enacted law which gives social media platforms 48 hours to remove “revenge porn” once reported. The bill considers any non-consensual intimate imagery (NCII), including AI deepfakes, to fall under this category. But despite the law’s noble intentions, its dangerously vague wording is a threat to free speech.
Artificial intelligence, free speech, and the First Amendment
FIRE offers an analysis of frequently asked questions about artificial intelligence and its possible implications for free speech and the First Amendment.
That may sound like a no-brainer, but deciding what content this text actually covers, including what counts as “arousing,” “humiliating,” or “degrading” is highly subjective. This law risks chilling protected digital expression, prompting social media platforms to censor harmless content like a family beach photo, sports team picture, or images of injuries or scars to avoid legal penalties or respond to bad-faith reports.
Civil liberties groups such as the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) have noted that the language of the law itself raises censorship concerns because it’s vague and therefore easily exploited:
Take It Down creates a far broader internet censorship regime than the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which has been widely abused to censor legitimate speech. But at least the DMCA has an anti-abuse provision and protects services from copyright claims should they comply. This bill contains none of those minimal speech protections and essentially greenlights misuse of its takedown regime … Congress should focus on enforcing and improving these existing protections, rather than opting for a broad takedown regime that is bound to be abused. Private platforms can play a part as well, improving reporting and evidence collection systems.
Nor does the law cover the possibility of people filing bad-faith reports.
In the 2002 case Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, the Court said the language of the Child Pornography Protection Act (CPPA) was so broad that it could have been used to censor protected speech. Congress passed the CPPA to combat the circulation of computer-generated child pornography, but as Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in the majority opinion, the language of the CPPA could be used to censor material that seems to depict child pornography without actually doing so.
While we must acknowledge that online exploitation is a very real issue, we cannot solve the problem at the expense of other liberties.
Also in 2002, the Supreme Court heard the case Ashcroft v. ACLU, which came about after Congress passed the Child Online Protection Act (COPA) to prevent minors from accessing adult content online. But again, due to the broad language of the bill, the Court found this law would restrict adults who are within their First Amendment rights to access mature content.
As with the Take It Down Act, here too were laws created to protect children from sexual exploitation online, yet established using vague and overly broad standards that threaten protected speech.
But unfortunately, stories like the one at Aledo High are becoming more common as AI becomes more accessible. Last year, boys at Westfield High School in New Jersey used AI to circulate fake nudes of Francesca Mani, who is 14 years old, and other girls in her class. But Westfield High administrators were caught off guard as they had never experienced this type of incident. Although the Westfield police were notified and the perpetrators were suspended for up to 2 days, parents criticized the school for their weak response.
So to Speak podcast: ‘Robotica: Speech Rights & Artificial Intelligence’
A year later, the school district developed a comprehensive AI policy and amended their bullying policy to cover harassment carried out through “electronic communication” which includes “the use of electronic means to harass, intimidate, or bully including the use of artificial intelligence “AI” technology.” What’s true for Westfield High is true for America — existing laws are often more than adequate to deal with emerging tech issues. By classifying AI material under electronic communication as a category of bullying, Westfield High demonstrates that the creation of new AI policies are redundant. On a national scale, the same can be said for classifying and prosecuting instances of child abuse online.
While we must acknowledge that online exploitation is a very real issue, we cannot solve the problem at the expense of other liberties. Once we grant the government the power to silence the voices we find distasteful, we open the door to censorship. Though it is essential to address the very real harms of emerging AI technology, we must also keep our First Amendment rights intact.
AI speech is speech, and the government shouldn’t get to rewrite it. But across the country, officials are pressuring AI developers to bend outputs to their political preferences.
That danger isn’t theoretical. In July, Missouri’s (now former) Attorney General Andrew Bailey sent OpenAI a letter threatening to investigate the company. In it, Bailey accused their AI chatbot ChatGPT of partisan bias after it ranked President Donald Trump lowest among recent presidents on anti-Semitism. Calling the answer “objectively” wrong, Bailey’s letter cites Trump’s relocation of the U.S. embassy to Jerusalem, the Abraham Accords, and his Jewish family ties as proof the ranking defies “objective facts.”
Although no lawsuit was filed, the looming threat no doubt put considerable pressure on the company to revise its outputs — a preview into how common and far-reaching such tactics will become if courts ever say, as some critics of AI are arguing, that AI speech isn’t explicitly protected by the Constitution.
Lawsuits against Character.AI — another chatbot geared more towards companionship and casual conversation — such as Garcia v. Character Technologies, Inc., show that judges are already being asked to decide whether AI outputs are speech or something else entirely. If courts adopt the view that AI isn’t protected by the First Amendment, nothing would stop government officials from just mandating outputs rather than applying pressure. That’s why FIRE filed an amicus curiae “friend-of-the-court” brief in this litigation to emphasize that the First Amendment shields this expressive technology.
Free expression shouldn’t rise and fall with the party in power, forcing AI engineers to reshape their models to fit every new political climate.
The First Amendment’s protections don’t vanish simply because artificial intelligence is involved. AI is another medium (or tool) for expression. The engineers behind it and the users who prompt it are practicing their craft in much the same way writers, directors, and journalists are practicing theirs. So when officials pressure AI developers to alter or delete outputs, they’re censoring their speech.
By framing ChatGPT’s ranking as “consumer misrepresentation,” Bailey tried to turn protected political speech into grounds for a fraud investigation. Instead of using consumer protection laws for their intended purpose — to, for example, investigate faulty toasters or false advertising — Bailey’s gambit bends them into mechanisms for censoring AI-generated speech. The letter signals to every developer that just one politically sensitive answer could yield a government investigation.
The irony here is striking: Bailey represented the state of Missouri in Murthy v. Missouri, the high-profile lawsuit accusing the Biden administration of jawboning social-media platforms into removing COVID-19 content. In that case, Bailey argued the federal government’s nudging violated the First Amendment because it coerced private actors to police speech the government couldn’t ban outright.
Voters want AI political speech protected – and lawmakers should listen
New polling shows voters fear AI — but fear government censorship more. As lawmakers push new rules, are they protecting elections or silencing speech?
Government pressure is already reshaping AI in other ways. OpenAI’s new policy now warns that your ChatGPT conversations may be scanned, reviewed, and possibly reported to the police. This means users are faced with a choice of whether to risk a visit from law enforcement or forgo the benefits these AI tools offer. Absent robust First Amendment safeguards, the result is government censorship (including jawboning) on one side, and surveillance on the other. Both narrow the space for open inquiry that AI ought to expand.
FIRE’s answer is for the government to first apply the First Amendment appropriately to AI speech, and then improve government transparency to ensure the government is doing so. Our Social Media Administrative Reporting Transparency (“SMART”) Act would require federal officials to disclose their communications with an interactive computer service (like a chatbot) about moderating content. This way users, developers, and the public can see when officials try to influence what AI says. Similar state-level reforms could ensure that no government coercion occurs in the dark.
Free expression shouldn’t rise and fall with the party in power, forcing AI engineers to reshape their models to fit every new political climate. If we want AI to widen the marketplace of ideas, strong First Amendment protections are the place to start.
Jason Clare said TEQSA can only act either as a sledgehammer or a feather. Picture: Martin Ollman
The federal government has published a consultation paper calling for suggestions to reform the Tertiary Education Quality and Standards Agency (TEQSA) Act, which determines the regulator’s powers.
Please login below to view content or subscribe now.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The Trump administration acted illegally when it delayed and canceled billions of dollars of biomedical research grants, despite Congress appropriating funds to the National Institutes of Health, the Government Accountability Office said on Tuesday.
Between February and June, the watchdog agency estimates the NIH awarded about $8 billion less in funds for research grants and awards compared to the prior year and cut more than 1,800 active grants as it attempted to follow President DonaldTrump’s directive to weed out “equity-related” projects.
The GAO’s report concludes the administration violated the Impoundment Control Act, which requires the president to provide notice before delaying or blocking congressionally directed spending. GAO can file a lawsuit in an attempt to restore the grants. However, the watchdog agency has not yetopted to do so in its dealings with Trump.
Dive Insight:
NIH grants came under scrutiny this winter following a series of executive orders directing federal agencies to terminate “equity-related” grants or contracts, federal funding of projects supporting “gender ideology” and DEI programs.
The NIH began carrying out these directives in February. In addition to the grant cuts, the agency also dragged its feet on approving new projects, GAO found. From late January to early March, the NIH paused grant reviews entirely, delaying funds from being allocated to hospitals and universities.
When contacted for comment, a spokesperson for the HHS referred Healthcare Dive to the agency’s testimony to GAO. The testimony states that NIH has since “moved rapidly to reschedule and hold meetings impacted by the short pause, and to process grant applications.”
The HHS said between March 24 and June 30, NIH scheduled or held 837 peer review meetings — 186 more than for the same period the year prior.
Still, GAO said that the department hadn’tadequately explained its decision to pause the review process in the first place, despite its resumption of grant review.
“If the executive branch wishes to make changes to the appropriation provided to NIH, it must propose funds for rescission or otherwise propose legislation to make changes to the law for consideration by Congress,” the watchdog group wrote in its report. The HHS had done neither, the GAO said, adding: “In short, HHS has offered no evidence that it did not withhold amounts from obligation or expenditure, and it has not shown that the delay was a permissible programmatic one.”
The report also suggests the Trump administration may be continuing efforts to block NIH funds from flowing to medical research.
The office said the Office of Management and Budget asked NIH to “pause the issuing of grants, research contracts and training” in late July. There are reports that decision was later reversed, but GAO said it could not confirm whether the pause was lifted.
Following the release of the report, Democratic lawmakers called for the Trump administration to resume funding NIH grants as Congress specified, warning that medical research progress is at stake.
“Cutting off investments Congress has made into research that saves millions of lives is as backward and as inexcusable as it gets,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., in a statement. “It is critical President Trump reverse course, stop decimating the NIH, and get every last bit of this funding out.”
This report is not the first time Trump’s funding cuts have been challenged.
Researchers, unions and a coalition of 16 states sued over the NIHcuts, with academics saying they needed the funds to perform critical medical research, including learning about alcohol’s impact on Alzheimer’s risk and suicide prevention among LGBTQ+ youth experiencing homelessness. In June, a U.S. district judge ordered the NIH to reinstate the plaintiffs’ canceled funds. However, litigation remains ongoing after the Trump administration appealed that ruling.
GAO has the potential to bring its own suit against the NIH, but it will likely be a last resort, according to reporting by the New York Times. The watchdog group has previously found the administration violated the ICA on a range of topics and opted not to sue.
Alexandre de Moraes, the polarizing Brazilian Supreme Court Justice, is no friend to free speech. Though he is a popular figure within Brazil among those who see him as a protector of democracy, he has aggressively wielded his authority to censor, especially on the internet, with little transparency.
From his position in Brazil’s Supreme Court, de Moraes has doggedly pursued wide swaths of speech and speakers off and on the internet, as well as the tech companies hosting them. In a highly public incident last year, Brazil blocked X — and even threatened VPN users accessing it with massive fines — over the company’s noncompliance with de Moraes’ orders.
The actions of de Moraes, and Brazil’s Supreme Court more broadly, have repeatedly drawn the ire of the Trump administration. But chief among President Trump’s grievances is the prosecution of his political ally, former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is accused of attempting a coup to overturn his 2022 election loss to President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
How has the Trump administration responded?
Last month, the administration enacted a series of punishments against Brazil’s leadership and de Moraes specifically. In a July 30 executive order, Trump announced tariffs and other sanctions due to Brazil’s prosecution of Bolsonaro and other actions that “conflict with and threaten the policy of the United States to promote free speech and free and fair elections at home and abroad.” The order follows Trump’s weeks-earlier threat of tariffs over the “witch hunt” against Bolsonaro.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio also revoked the visas of de Moraes “and his allies on the court” and their families. And under the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act, usually reserved for the most serious human rights abuses, the Department of the Treasury announced sanctions targeting any of de Moraes’s U.S. assets.
Unprincipled, partisan free speech advocacy is no free speech advocacy at all
There is plenty to debate about how to best protect free speech on the global internet, and around the world more generally, and what actions the United States can take in its defense. But, even though Brazil’s adversarial relationship with free expression is deeply alarming, it’s impossible to ignore the incongruity of the Trump administration putting itself in the position of diagnosing and treating government censorship.
Physician, heal thyself.
The opening months of Trump’s second term in office have offered a nonstop, headspinning bonanza of violations, threatened and enacted, against Americans’ First Amendment rights.
I write regularly in the Free Speech Dispatch about the myriad threats to freedom of expression, from Russia to the UK to India to Hong Kong. It’s painfully, brutally clear we need leadership to push back against the wave of global repression that threatens all of our rights. But that leadership must practice what it preaches and avoid simply using concerns about free speech as a pretext to fight partisan political battles. On both counts, this administration has failed.
You will make no converts to the free speech cause by proving right the critics who suspect its advocates are guided by partisan aims, not principled ones. Instead, you will breed cynicism and harm the very cause you claim to support.
This same posturing marred Vice President JD Vance’s objections to European censorship, an ugly trend that’s in dire need of principled critiques. Instead, Vance claimed that under Trump, the “new sheriff in town,” the administration “may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer them in the public square.”
The ugly reality is that the U.S. is rapidly ceding its moral authority to criticize foreign governments’ censorship, like that emanating from Brazil’s Supreme Court, when its own president and agencies are gleefully flouting the First Amendment and free speech principles day in and day out.
Perhaps most baffling was the administration’s objection to the Brazilian government’s targeting of Paulo Figueiredo, a Brazilian journalist, and “U.S. resident, for speech he made on U.S. soil.” Readers may also be able to think of some more government officials targetingimmigrants legally residing in the U.S. for protected speech made on U.S. soil — and they’re doing so from our White House and State Department, not thousands of miles away.
Global censorship is a real challenge, and it’s only getting worse. But until the U.S. removes the censorial beam from its own eye, we may find that other nations are unmoved by our criticisms and cures. Or, they may perhaps even be interested in doling them out to us.
For the last 15 years, science teacher Jeff Grant has used information on climate change from the federal website Climate.gov to create lesson plans, prepare students for Advanced Placement tests and educate fellow teachers. Now, Grant says, he is “grabbing what [he] can” from the site run by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s Climate Program Office, amid concerns that the Trump administration is mothballing it as part of a broader effort to undermine climate science and education.
“It’s just one more thing stifling science education,” said Grant, who teaches at Downers Grove North High School in the Chicago suburbs.
Since early May, all 10 editorial contributors to Climate.gov have lost their jobs, and the organization that produces its education resources will soon run out of money. On June 24, the site’s homepage was redirected to NOAA.gov, a change NOAA said was made to comply with an earlier executive order on “restoring gold standard science.” Those steps follow many others the president has made to dismantle federal efforts to fight climate change, which his administration refers to as the “new green scam.”
Former employees of Climate.gov and other educators say they fear that the site, which will no longer produce new content, could be transformed into a platform for disinformation.
“It will make it harder for teachers to do a good job in educating their students about climate change,” said Glenn Branch, deputy director of the nonprofit National Center for Science Education. “Previously, they could rely on the federal government to provide free, up-to-date, accurate resources on climate change that were aimed at helping educators in particular, and they won’t be able to do so if some of these more dire predictions come to pass.”
Such concerns have some foundation. For example, Covid.gov, which during the Biden administration offered health information and access to Covid-19 tests, has been revamped to promote the controversial theory that the coronavirus was created in a lab. The administration has also moved aggressively to delete from government sites other terms that are currently out of favor, such as references to transgender people that were once on the National Park Service website of the Stonewall National Memorial, honoring a major milestone in the fight for LGBTQ+ rights.
Kim Doster, director of NOAA’s office of communications, declined to answer specific questions but shared a version of the statement posted on the NOAA website when Climate.gov was transferred. “In compliance with Executive Order 14303, Restoring Gold Standard Science, NOAA is relocating all research products from Climate.gov to NOAA.gov in an effort to centralize and consolidate resources,” it says.
Related: Want to read more about how climate change is shaping education? Subscribe to our free newsletter.
Climate.gov, founded in 2010 to support earth science instruction in schools, had become a go-to site for educators and the general public for news and information about temperature, sea level rise and other indicators of global warming.
For many educators, it has served a particularly key role. Because its resources are free, they are vital in schools that lack resources and funding, teachers and experts say.
Rebecca Lindsey, Climate.gov’s lead editor and writer, was one of several hundred NOAA probationary employees fired in February, then rehired and put on administrative leave, before being terminated again in March. The rest of the content production team — which included a meteorologist, a graphic artist and data visualizers — lost their jobs in mid-May. Only the site’s two web developers still have their jobs.
A screenshot of the Sea Level Rise Viewer, an interactive NOAA that’s listed as a resource on Climate.gov, a government climate website. Credit: NOAA Office for Coastal Management
Lindsey said she worries that the government “intended to keep the site up and use it to spread climate misinformation, because they were keeping the web developers and getting rid of the content team.”
In addition, the Climate Literacy and Energy Awareness Network, the official content provider for the education section of the site, has not received the latest installment of its three-year grant and expects its funds to run out in August.
“We won’t have funding to provide updates, fix hyperlinks and make sure that new resources are being added, or help teachers manage or address or use the resources,” said Anne Gold, CLEAN’s principal investigator. “It’s going to start deteriorating in quality.”
CLEAN, whose website is hosted by Carleton College, is now searching for other sources of money to continue its work, Gold said.
With the June 24 change redirecting visitors from Climate.gov to NOAA.gov/climate, the website for the first time falls under the purview of a political appointee: Doster. Its previous leader, David Herring, is a science writer and educator.
Melissa Lau, an AP environmental science teacher in Piedmont, Oklahoma, said the relocated site was “really difficult to navigate.”
As someone who lives in Tornado Alley, Lau said, she frequented CLEAN and NOAA sites to show her students localized, real-time data on storm seasons. She said she is concerned that teachers won’t have time to track down information that was shifted in the website’s move and, as a result, may opt not to teach climate change.
The executive order on “restoring gold standard science” that appears to have triggered the shift gives political appointees the authority to decide what science information needs to be modified to align with its tenets.
While the disclaimer posted to NOAA.gov seems to imply that Climate.gov did not meet this requirement, educators and researchers said that the site and its CLEAN education resources were the epitome of a gold standard.
“I want to stress that the reason why CLEAN is considered the gold standard is because we have such high standards for scientific accuracy, classroom readiness and maintenance,” Gold said. “We all know that knowledge is power, and power gives hope. … [Losing funding] is going to be a huge loss to classrooms and to students and the next generation.”
This is only the latest attack by the Trump administration on education around climate change. This month, the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s website, GlobalChange.gov, was shut down by the administration, after the program was defunded in April. The website once hosted an extensive climate literacy guide, along with all five iterations of the National Climate Assessment — a congressionally required report that informed the public about the effects and risks of climate change, along with local, actionable responses.
The Department of Commerce, which oversees NOAA, has cut other federal funding for climate research, including at Princeton University, arguing that these climate grant awards promoted “exaggerated and implausible climate threats, contributing to a phenomenon known as ‘climate anxiety,’ which has increased significantly among America’s youth.”
“The more you know [about climate change], the more it’s not a scary monster in the closet,” said Lauren Madden, professor of elementary science education at the College of New Jersey. “It’s a thing you can react to.” She added, “We’re going to have more storms, we’re going to have more fires, we’re going to have more droughts. There are things we can do to help slow this. … I think that quells anxiety, that doesn’t spark it.”
And climate education has broad public support — about 3 in 4 registered voters say schools should teach children about global warming, according to a 2024 report from the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. Similarly, 77 percent of Americans regard it as very or somewhat important for elementary and secondary school students to learn about climate change, according to a 2019 study. And all but five states have adopted science standards that incorporate at least some instruction on climate change.
As a result, many science teachers rely on federal tools and embed them in their curriculum. They are worried that the information will no longer be relevant, or disappear entirely, according to Lori Henrickson, former climate integration specialist for Washington state’s education department. Henrickson, who lost her job this June as the result of state budget cuts, was in charge of integrating climate education across content areas in the state, from language arts to physical education.
The .gov top-level domain connotes credibility and accessibility, according to Branch: “It is also easier for teachers facing or fearing climate change denial backlash to cite a reliable, free source from the federal government.”
With Climate.gov’s future uncertain, educators are looking to other resources, like university websites and tools from other countries.
“I’m sure there will continue to be tools, and there will be enough people who will be willing to pay to access them,” Madden said. But, she added, “they probably won’t be as comprehensive, and it won’t feel like it’s a democratic process. It’ll feel like: If you or your employer are willing to chip in for it, then you’ll have access.”
“I feel like with all the federal websites, I’m constantly checking to see what’s still up and what’s not,” Madden said.
Bertha Vazquez, education director for the Center of Inquiry, an organization that works to preserve science and critical thinking, said she worried that the disappearance of climate information could leave U.S. students behind.
“The future of the American economy is not in oil, the future of the American economy is in solar and wind and geothermal. And if we’re going to keep up with the international economy, we need to go in that direction,” she said. But while the U.S. should be leading the way in scientific discovery, Vazquez said, such work will now be left to other countries.
Lau said she felt helpless and frustrated about Climate.gov’s shutdown and about the “attack on American science in general.”
“I don’t know what to do. I can contact my legislators, but my legislators from my state are not going to be really open to my concerns,” she said. “If students next year are asking me questions about [science research and funding], I have to tell them, ‘I do not know,’ and just have to leave it at that.”
Contact editor Caroline Preston at 212-870-8965, via Signal at CarolineP.83 or on email at [email protected].
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.
