On Nov. 24, the Pentagon announced it would initiate a review of Sen. Mark Kelly, a retired Navy captain. The announcement comes six days after Kelly and other elected officials released a video calling on U.S. troops to refuse illegal orders. The group did not identify any specific illegal orders. Notably, service members already take an oath to uphold the Constitution.
The Pentagon’s decision follows a Truth Social post from President Trump, saying that the video was “SEDITIOUS BEHAVIOR, punishable by DEATH.” He later walked back the post, saying, “I would say they’re in serious trouble. I’m not threatening death, but I think they’re in serious trouble. In the old days, it was death. That was seditious behavior.”
The following statement can be attributed to Greg Lukianoff, president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression:
The Pentagon’s actions are clear retaliation for something Sen. Kelly is entirely within his rights to say. America’s servicemembers already take an oath to uphold the Constitution, which includes not following illegal orders. The argument that the video’s message is sedition, or otherwise unprotected by the First Amendment, is flatly wrong.
An auditor said that staffing vacancies at Texas Southern University had contributed to financial mismanagement.
Istockphoto.com/michelmond
Texas governor Greg Abbott and lieutenant governor Dan Patrick have ordered an investigation of Texas Southern University, a historically Black institution in Houston, after a state audit found evidence of financial mismanagement and bookkeeping inconsistencies, The Texas Tribune reported. Patrick also said he would look into freezing state funding to the institution.
The audit found 700 invoices, totaling $280 million, linked to contracts that were listed as expired in the institution’s database. Another 800 invoices, worth $160 million, were dated before the purchases were approved, the Tribune reported. TSU was also months late in turning in financial statements for the past two fiscal years.
The auditor attributed the errors to staffing vacancies, poor asset oversight and weak contracting processes.
TSU officials said they had already fixed some of the issues outlined in the audit.
“Texas Southern University has cooperated with the state auditor in evaluating our processes,” officials said in a statement. “The University enacted corrective measures prior to the release of the interim report, including a new procurement system. We look forward to gaining clarity and continuing to work with the state auditor to ensure transparency for all taxpayers of Texas.”
A federal judge on Friday ordered Ten Commandments posters be removed from Lakeside School District, two days after he permitted the Garland County district to be added to a lawsuit challenging a new state law requiring the displays.
Following passage of Act 573 of 2025 this spring, public schools are now required to “prominently” display a “historical representation” of the Ten Commandments in classrooms and libraries. The posters must be donated or bought with funds from voluntary contributions. The law also requires them to be displayed in public colleges and universities and other public buildings maintained by taxpayer funds.
Seven Northwest Arkansas families of various religious and nonreligious backgrounds filed a lawsuit in June challenging the constitutionality of the statute. The families allege the state law violates the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,” and its Free Exercise Clause, which guarantees that “Congress shall make no law … prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].”
Supporters of the law have argued the tenets have historical significance because they influenced the country’s founders in creating the nation’s laws and legal system.
U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks granted a preliminary injunction in August that blocked implementation of the statute in four districts — Bentonville, Fayetteville, Siloam Springs and Springdale.
Brooks later allowed the Conway School District to be added to the suit as a defendant and district families as plaintiffs. He also ordered Ten Commandments posters be removed from the district’s schools and converted a temporary restraining order against the district into a preliminary injunction.
A temporary restraining order temporarily halts an action and may be issued immediately, without informing all parties and without holding a hearing. It’s intended to last until a court holds a hearing on whether to grant a preliminary injunction, according to Cornell Law School.
After Brooks granted permission Wednesday to add Lakeside School District as a defendant and Christine Benson and her minor child as plaintiffs in the case, attorneys for the plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction on Thursday.
Brooks granted the temporary restraining order Friday and held the preliminary injunction in abeyance. He also temporarily blocked Lakeside from complying with the law and ordered the district to remove Ten Commandments displays from its schools by 5 p.m. Monday.
“A temporary restraining order should issue as to Lakeside School District No. 9,” Brooks wrote in Friday’s order. “Lakeside Plaintiffs are identically situated to the original Plaintiffs: They advance the same legal arguments, assert the same constitutional injuries, and request the same relief.”
Defendants and the attorney general’s office, which intervened in the case, have until Nov. 3 to submit briefs to address why the existing preliminary injunction should not be modified to include Lakeside School District as a defendant, according to Friday’s order.
Arkansas Advocate is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Arkansas Advocate maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Sonny Albarado for questions: [email protected].
Did you use this article in your work?
We’d love to hear how The 74’s reporting is helping educators, researchers, and policymakers. Tell us how
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
A federal judge has ordered leaders at the University of South Dakota to temporarily reinstate Phillip Michael Hook,a tenured art professor it sought to fire over a social media post critical of Charlie Kirk.
On Sept. 12, the university notified Hook he would be placed on administrative leave and that it intended to terminate his contract over a private Facebook post he shared criticizing Kirk the day of the conservative firebrand’s killing.
Hook is suing university leaders, alleging they unconstitutionally retaliated against him over his political speech.The professor’s case has a “fair chance of prevailing,” U.S. District Judge Karen Schreier said Wednesday in granting the temporary restraining order.
Dive Insight:
Hook is just one of an increasing number of college employees who have been reprimanded or fired over their speech about Kirk following his killing on Sept. 10. And a growing number of the educators affected are taking their cases to court. Schreier’s ruling this week represented one of the first court actions in such a lawsuit.
The federal judge said Hook must prove he made his comments as a citizen on “a public matter of concern” and that the University of South Dakota’s actions came as a result of that speech.
Hours after Kirk was killed, Hook said on his private Facebook account that he had no “thoughts or prayers” for Kirk.
In 2012, Kirk founded Turning Point USA, a conservative advocacy group geared toward young people, and became a prominent figure on college campusesin the process. Many of his political beliefs — such as opposition to race-conscious college admissions and gun control — fell in line with those of the conservative movement more broadly.
But his comments on some issues regularly prompted significant outcry and backlash, such as when he called Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson a “diversity hire” and said “prowling Blacks go around for fun to go target White people.” He also espoused the great replacement theory, which labels immigration policies as part of a plot to undermine the power and influence of White people.
“I’m sorry for his family that he was a hate spreading Nazi and got killed. I’m sure they deserved better,” Hook said in his Facebook post. “But geez, where was all this concern when the politicians in Minnesota were shot? And the school shootings? And Capitol Police?”
A few hours later, Hook deleted the post and shared “a public apology to those who were offended” by it on the same account. He published both posts while he was off work, according to court documents.
However, Hook’s original comments gained significant attention after conservative politicians shared a screenshot of them online.
Jon Hansen,the Republican speaker for South Dakota’s House and a 2026 candidate for governor, on Sept. 12 called Hook’s speech disgusting and “unbecoming of someone who works for and represents our University.”
“Yesterday, after seeing the post, I immediately reached out to USD President Sheila Gestring and called on the professor to be fired. I understand that the professor is likely to be terminated from his position,” Hansen said on social media.
A few hours later, South Dakota Gov. Larry Rhoden said Hook’s post made him “shaking mad” and that the South Dakota Board of Regents intended to fire the professor, a decision he applauded.
The same day, Hook received a letter from Bruce Kelley, the university’s fine arts dean, notifying him of the university’s “intent to terminate” his employment.
The letter alleged that Hook had violated two university policies, according to court documents.
One bans “neglect of duty, misconduct, incompetence, abuse of power or other actions” that diminish trust in faculty or prevent them from doing their job. The other requires that faculty “at all times be accurate, show respect for the opinions of others and make every effort to indicate when they are not speaking for the institution.”
University of South Dakota officials said this week that, over the two days between Hook’s post and Kelley’s letter, the university and the South Dakota Board of Regents received hundreds of messages criticizing Hook’s comments and calling for his removal.They confirmed that one such call came from Hansen.
However, the federal judge who ordered Hook’s temporary reinstatement said the officials failed to show that the reaction to the professor’s private comments disrupted his lessons or the university’s operations.
The Sept. 12 letter “identifies Hook’s social media post as the single piece of evidence it used to support its decision to terminate Hook’s position,” Schreier wrote.
Kelley had placed Hook on administrative leave until Sept. 29, when a personal conference was to be held to “discuss this matter and intended disciplinary action.”
Hook sued Kelley and Gestring, along with board president Tim Rave, on Tuesday seeking to have their decision ruled unconstitutional.
Schreier’s order will remain in effect until Oct. 8, when the court is scheduled to hear arguments over a more permanent preliminary injunction. The temporary restraining order allows for the Sept. 29 meeting to still occur, should the defendants choose.
NIH director Jay Bhattacharya said that among other priorities, the agency will focus on artificial intelligence and “ensuring evidence-based health care for children and teenagers identifying as transgender.”
Jim Watson/AFP/Getty Images
The National Institutes of Health’s director ordered employees to “conduct an individualized review of all current and planned research activities,” including active grants and funding opportunity announcements, according to images of a document provided to Inside Higher Ed. The review comes amid concerns that the NIH won’t distribute all of its allocated grant money by the time the federal fiscal year ends Sept. 30, meaning those dollars will return to the U.S. Treasury.
The document images, provided by a source who wished to remain anonymous due to fear of retaliation, show that NIH director Jay Bhattacharya sent the memo Friday and that the review is effective immediately. According to the memo, “relevant NIH personnel” must review grants, funding opportunity announcements, contracts, contract solicitations, applications for new and competing renewal awards, intramural research and research training programs, cooperative agreements, and “other transactions.”
The order is part of a larger memo in which Bhattacharya outlined “select agency priorities” and said projects that don’t align with these priorities may be “restricted, paused, not renewed, or terminated.” The focuses are, among other things, artificial intelligence, “furthering our understanding of autism” and “ensuring evidence-based health care for children and teenagers identifying as transgender.”
In response to a request for an interview about the review and why it’s needed, the NIH press team sent a public statement from Friday, in which Bhattacharya listed the priorities.
Regarding health care for transgender youth, he said, “There are clearly more promising avenues of research that can be taken to improve the health of these populations than to conduct studies that involve the use of puberty suppression, hormone therapy, or surgical intervention.” He says that “by contrast, research that aims to identify and treat the harms these therapies and procedures have potentially caused … and how to best address the needs of these individuals so that they may live long, healthy lives is more promising.”
Bhattacharya’s letter comes after President Trump, earlier this month, ordered senior appointees at federal agencies to annually review discretionary grants “for consistency with agency priorities.”
Joanne Padrón Carney, chief government relations officer for the American Association for the Advancement of Science, said in a statement to Inside Higher Ed that the president’s budget request for fiscal year 2026 already outlined a set priorities for the rest of the current year.
“Switching gears at this stage reinforces confusion, diminishes trust, and increases concerns within the scientific community,” Carney added. “It joins the long list of tactics risking impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds rather than funding biomedical research that is essential for the people’s well-being.”
Judge Stephanie Gallagher declared in the Thursday ruling that the Department of Education broke the law when it tried to withhold grant funding from institutions that practiced DEI based on one of the president’s executive orders and a related guidance letter.
In her opinion, Gallagher focused less on the legality of the attempt to ban DEI itself, but rather the process through which the president and secretary of education tried to do so.
“This court takes no view as to whether the policies at issue in this case are good or bad, prudent or foolish, fair or unfair. But, at this stage too, it must closely scrutinize whether the government went about creating and implementing them in the manner the law requires. Here, it did not,” the judge wrote. “By leapfrogging important procedural requirements, the government has unwittingly run headfirst into serious constitutional problems.”
That said, she did explain the ways Trump’s policy violated the Constitution, saying, “The government cannot proclaim that it ‘will no longer tolerate’ speech it dislikes because of its ‘motivating ideology’—that is a ‘blatant’ and ‘egregious’ violation of the First Amendment.”
Gallagher’s decision followed a motion for summary judgment that was filed by the plaintiffs, the American Federation of Teachers and the American Sociological Association, after they won a preliminary injunction that blocked parts of Trump’s anti-DEI policy since April. (Gallagher was appointed by Trump during his first presidency in 2018.)
Since the Education Department’s anti-DEI guidance was enjoined, the Trump administration has made other attempts to block the same academic practices. Most recently, the Department of Justice published a nine-page memo that stated that DEI is unlawful and discriminatory.
Still, AFT president Randi Weingarten viewed the ruling as a “huge win” against Trump’s “draconian attacks on the essence of public education.”
“This decision rightly strikes down the government’s attempt to dictate curriculum, and, in so doing, upholds the purpose and promise inherent in our public schools,” Weingarten said in a news release.
A class action suit led byresearchers in the University of California system spurred the ruling.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Genaro Molina/Los Angeles Times/Getty Images | US District Court for the Northern District of California
The National Science Foundation restored grants it recently suspended for researchers at the University of California, Los Angeles, following a court order late Tuesday, a spokesperson for the agency said.
The NSF and UCLA didn’t tell Inside Higher Ed how much funding had been restored, but the Los Angeles Times reported it’s roughly $81 million.
UCLA is the latest target of the Trump administration’s use of mass federal research grant suspensions to pressure prominent universities to change policies and pay restitution, ranging from tens of millions of dollars for Brown University to the billion-dollar demand of UCLA. Federal agencies justify cutting off grants by accusing targeted institutions of failing to address pro-Palestine protesters’ alleged antisemitism, and accusing universities of other transgressions, such as letting transgender women compete in women’s sports or promoting racial preferences.
But this is the first known court order blocking one of those blanket funding freezes. Harvard University also challenged the administration’s decision to suspend more than $2.7 billion in funds, but a judge has a yet to rule in that case.
UCLA didn’t sue, though.
Instead, the ruling came from a lawsuit that UC researchers filed in early June against President Trump, the NSF and other federal agencies and officials that challenged previous NSF grant terminations.
On June 23, U.S. District Court judge Rita F. Lin, of the Northern District of California, issued a preliminary injunction restoring grants that the administration terminated en masse via form letters that didn’t provide grant-specific explanations for the terminations. When the NSF recently cut off grants again, specifically to UCLA, the researchers’ attorneys alleged the agency violated the preliminary injunction.
Lin agreed, writing in an opinion Tuesday that the new “suspensions have the same effect, and are based on the same type of deficient explanations, as the original terminations.”
The NSF wrote in a July 30 letter justifying the new suspensions that “NSF understands that [UCLA] continues to engage in race discrimination including in its admissions process, and in other areas of student life, as well as failing to promote a research environment free of antisemitism and bias.” Two days later, the NSF sent a second letter, alleging that UCLA furthermore “engages in racism” and “endangers women by allowing men in women’s sports and private women-only spaces.”
According to Lin, the NSF argued that its recent funding cuts “are not within the scope of the preliminary injunction because it suspended, rather than terminated, the grants.” She said the agency argued that suspensions, unlike terminations, “can be lifted once the grantee takes certain corrective actions.”
However, Lin said the NSF had labeled these “suspensions” as “final agency decision[s] not subject to appeal.”
“There is no listed end date for the suspensions, nor is there any path for researchers to restore funding for their project. If any curative action is actually feasible, it would need to be undertaken by UCLA,” the judge wrote. “In other words, researchers have no guarantee that funding will ever be restored and no way to take action to increase the likelihood of restoration.”
She added that “NSF claims that it could simply turn around the day after the preliminary injunction issued, and halt funding on every grant that had been ordered reinstated, so long as that action was labeled as a ‘suspension’ rather than a ‘termination.’ This is not a reasonable interpretation of the scope of the preliminary injunction.”
Researchers told the court that as a result of the latest suspensions, “projects are already losing talented graduate students, staff will soon be laid off, and years of federally funded work will go to waste,” Lin wrote. Researchers also said the defunded projects include “multi-year research into global heat extremes, a project to address environmental challenges in the Southwestern United States, and another to enhance veteran participation and leadership in STEM fields,” the judge added.
A UC system spokesperson said in an email Wednesday that, “while we have not had an opportunity to review the court’s order and were not party to the suit, restoration of National Science Foundation funds is critical to research the University of California performs on behalf of California and the nation.”
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
A federal judge on Tuesday ordered the National Science Foundation to restore potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in federal research grants to the University of California.
Researchers at the university system in June brought a class-action lawsuit against NSF and other federal agencies over their termination of $324 million in funding, and quickly won a temporary injunction restoring the grants.
This week, U.S. District Judge Rita Lin concluded NSF violated that order by cutting funding to the University of California, Los Angeles in late July over allegations related to antisemitism and other concerns. An NSF spokesperson said in an email Wednesday the agency has reinstated UCLA’s funding in response to the order.
Dive Insight:
On June 4, several University of California researchers sued President Donald Trump and his administration over mass cuts to research funding spearheaded by the newly created Department of Government Efficiency.
Plaintiffs argued that the funding cuts violated key constitutional principles, including separation of powers, freedom of speech and right to due process, in addition to multiple federal statutes.
“Before President Trump took office, federal agency grant making proceeded under the authority of Congress, which created agencies through its constitutionally assigned exclusive legislative power, and appropriated taxpayer funds for specific public purposes that the agencies were tasked to execute,” the researchers said in their complaint.
They added that after taking office, Trump “attempted to seize direct control of federal agencies by bypassing Congress and upending the statutory and regulatory system under which federal agencies have historically and legally operated.”
Later that month, Lin concluded that the researchers would likely win their case on its merits and issued a preliminary injunction directing the Trump administration to restore terminated funding to University of California institutions and barring agencies from cutting their funding without grant-specific explanations.
But in late July, NSF “indefinitely suspended” numerous grants to UCLA, as attorneys for the plaintiffs noted in court filings. In the suspension notices, the agency cited allegations of widespread campus antisemitism and “illegal race-based preferences in admissions” — claims now common in the administration’s attacks on higher education.
The University of California system last week entered negotiations with the Trump administration in an effort to restore more than half a billion dollars in total research funding. When announcing the talks, UC President James Milliken called the UCLA cuts “a death knell for innovative work” that “do nothing to address antisemitism.”
The funding cuts came shortly after the U.S. Department of Justice alleged UCLA had violated civil rights law by failing to adequately address antisemitism.
The Los Angeles Times put the figure of NSF’s cut funding to UCLA specifically at $300 million. As one UCLA professor recounted in court papers filed Monday, the indefinite suspension orders had immediate and permanent effects, including stalled research and the loss of a potential graduate student worker to another project.
NSF argued in court that its indefinite suspensions did not violate Lin’s earlier injunction, which the agency said applied to grant terminations. But in Tuesday’s order, Lin concluded that the two terms were equivalent in practice.
“NSF may have re-labeled its action a ‘suspension,’but it is a distinction without a difference in this case,” Lin wrote. “After all, a terminated grant can be reinstated, just as a suspension can be ‘lifted.’ And a suspension, if it is of indefinite length, is functionally identical to a termination from the researcher’s perspective.”
President Donald Trump issued an executive action Thursday directing colleges to prove they are not considering race in admissions.
Brendan Smialowski/AFP/Getty Images
President Donald Trump issued an executive action Thursday afternoon mandating colleges and universities submit data to verify that they are not unlawfully considering race in admissions decisions.
The order also requires the Department of Education to update the Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System to make its data more legible to students and parents and to “increase accuracy checks for data submitted by institutions through IPEDS,” penalizing them for late, incomplete or inaccurate data.
Opponents of race-conscious admissions have hailed the mandate as a victory for transparency in college admissions, but others in the sector have criticized its vague language and question who at the department is left to collect and analyze the data.
“American students and taxpayers deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity of our Nation’s institutions of higher education, including confidence that they are recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists, and other critical workers vital to the next generations of American prosperity,” the order reads. “Race-based admissions practices are not only unfair, but also threaten our national security and well-being.”
It’s now up to the secretary of education, Linda McMahon, to determine what new admissions data institutions will be required to report. The administration’s demands of Columbia and Brown Universities in their negotiations to reinstate federal funding could indicate what the requirements will be. In its agreement with Brown, the government ordered the university to submit annual data “showing applicants, admitted students, and enrolled students broken down by race, color, grade point average, and performance on standardized tests.” Colleges will be expected to submit their admissions data for the 2025–26 academic year, according to the order.
What resources are in place to enforce the new requirements remains to be seen. Earlier this year the administration razed the staff at the Department of Education who historically collected and analyzed institutional data. Only three staff members remain in the National Center for Education Statistics, which operates IPEDS.
‘It’s Not Just as Easy as Collecting Data’
Since taking office, the Trump administration has launched a crusade against diversity, equity and inclusion in higher education, often using the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling against race-conscious admissions as a weapon in the attacks.
Students for Fair Admissions, the anti–affirmative action advocacy group that was the plaintiff in the 2023 cases, called the action a “landmark step” toward transparency and accountability for students, parents and taxpayers.
“For too long, American colleges and universities have hidden behind opaque admissions practices that often rely on racial preferences to shape their incoming classes,” Edward Blum, SFFA president and longtime opponent of race-conscious admissions, said in a press release.
But college-equity advocates sounded the alarm, arguing that the order—which also claims that colleges have been using diversity and other “overt and hidden racial proxies” to continue race-conscious admissions post-SFFA—aims to intimidate colleges into recruiting fewer students of color.
“I will say something that my members in the higher education community cannot say. What the Trump administration is really saying is that you will be punished if you do not admit enough white students to your institution,” Angel B. Pérez, CEO of the National Association for College Admission Counseling, told Inside Higher Ed.
Like many of Trump’s other orders targeting DEI, that mandate relies on unclear terms and instructions. It does not define “racial proxies”—although a memo by the Department of Justice released last week provides examples—nor does it outline what data would prove an institution is or is not considering race in its admissions process.
In an interview with Inside Higher Ed, Paul Schroeder, the executive director of the Council of Professional Associations on Federal Statistics, questioned the government’s capacity to carry out the president’s order.
“Without NCES, who’s going to actually look at this data? Who’s going to understand this data? Are we going to have uniform reporting or is it going to be just a mess coming in from all these different colleges?” Schroeder said.
“It’s not just as easy as collecting data. It’s not just asking a couple questions about the race and ethnicity of those who were admitted versus those who applied. It’s a lot of work. It’s a lot of hours. It’s not going to be fast.”
A federal judge ordered that Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University graduate and student protest leader who was detained by ICE agents in March, be released from a detention center in Louisiana. News outlets reported that he walked out of the detention center around 6:40 Central time Friday evening.
U.S. District Judge Michael Farbiarz ruled on Friday that Khalil, a legal permanent resident who has not been accused of any crime, should be released on bail and that continuing to hold him was highly unusual and could constitute “unconstitutional” punishment for his political beliefs. The Trump administration had sought to keep Khalil imprisoned based on a minor alleged immigration infraction after another judge ruled earlier this month that it could not continue to hold him purely based on the State Department’s claim that his continued presence in the U.S. posed a foreign policy threat.
