A federal district court in Massachusetts found yesterday that the government violated Harvard University’s First Amendment rights, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it stripped the university of billions in federal funding last April. At the time, the Trump administration’s explanations for the cuts strongly suggested its actions were based on hostility towards Harvard’s political viewpoint, though the government eventually shifted to an argument that they were an effort to fight campus anti-Semitism.
Much of the opinion covers a dispute about what court has jurisdiction to hear the case. But when it comes to the First Amendment and Title VI, the court’s reasoning echoes what FIRE has saidpublicly and in our own amicus brief in the Harvard case: Pursuing the worthy end of fighting anti-Semitic and other unlawful discrimination on campus does not justify flatly unlawful and unconstitutional methods.
Here are FIRE’s three quick takeaways about this decision and what it means for campus rights.
Government cannot force private institutions like Harvard to punish speech protected by the First Amendment
Like many universities, Harvard receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year in research grants and student aid. That money comes with both formal legal requirements and less-formal leverage over how the university operates.
In a letter it sent to Harvard in April, the federal government tried to use this leverage to make sweeping demands of Harvard if it wished to continue receiving federal funds, including prohibiting the admission of international students deemed “hostile” to “American values,” political litmus tests in the name of viewpoint diversity, and even the derecognition of pro-Palestinian student groups.
As our nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, if Harvard was unwilling to defend its rights in court, it was unlikely that any other institution would have the fortitude to do so.
But as FIRE’s amicus brief pointed out, “the government cannot strongarm private actors into punishing speech that the First Amendment protects from state intrusion,” noting that the Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle just last year in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, . In Vullo, the NRA accused New York state financial services chief Maria Vullo of using state power to coerce companies not to do business with the NRA because of the state’s opposition to the organization’s pro-gun viewpoint.
The district court read the law the same straightforward way. Comparing the government’s actions at each step to the actions at issue in Vullo, the court found:
Defendants (like Maria Vullo) urged and threatened Harvard (in the position of the insurer) to hire faculty and make curricula and research choices that better aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints, to the detriment of professors and researchers with competing views (like the NRA). Pursuant to Vullo, using this type of coercion to suppress speech, third-party or otherwise, is not permissible.
Whether it’s a state or federal official doesn’t matter: They may not use their power to coerce private actors to unconstitutionally do the government’s bidding.
Feds must follow Title VI if it wants to strip funding for Title VI violations
FIRE has also expressed alarm about the government’s failure to follow the procedures Congress prescribed when stripping funding from Harvard (and other universities) in the name of fighting race, color, and national origin discrimination (including anti-Semitic discrimination) under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Being stripped of federal funding under civil rights law has long been seen as a nuclear option. The loss would likely shut down all but the richest colleges and universities by barring them not just from federal research grants but also from federal student aid, such as Pell grants and federally subsidized loans. That’s why Title VI requires the government to give institutions like Harvard “notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to come into compliance voluntarily before the government can terminate funding,” as we wrote in our amicus brief. Yet the government skipped the process and failed to do so.
Again, predictably, this failure did not escape the court. It outlined the same procedures to which FIRE pointed in its brief, noting that it was “undisputed” that the government did not comply with them before freezing and terminating funding. Rejecting the government’s arguments that it could “combat anti-Semitism” at Harvard by terminating funding under different provisions, the court found that “Congress has…passed a law that explicitly provides for when and how an agency can terminate federal funding to address this type of discrimination—and that law is Title VI, which dictates that ‘no such action shall be taken until the department or agency’ has gone through the appropriate procedures.”
Harvard’s free speech record is terrible, but be thankful one university found its spine
FIRE has always been a critic of Harvard’s handling of student and faculty free speech issues. When I say always, I mean that literally. As we told the court, Harvard’s repeated failure to honor student and faculty rights over decades was a major contributor to Boston civil liberties lawyer (and Harvard Law alumnus) Harvey Silverglate’s decision to co-found FIRE in 1999. But none of Harvard’s problems excuse the government’s decision to make these unlawful, unconstitutional demands.
FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration
Harvard vs. Trump isn’t just a headline, but a battle to decide whether the government can use funding to force ideological conformity. In this explainer, FIRE makes clear why not.
Harvard should be commended for standing up for its legal rights rather than settling under this intense government pressure. As our nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, if Harvard was unwilling to defend its rights in court, it was unlikely that any other institution would have the fortitude to do so.
The decision should also serve as a needed wake-up call for government agencies charged with enforcing our civil rights laws. As we wrote with regard to Columbia University, which recently settled with the government under similar circumstances, there’s plenty of reason to have legitimate concerns about Title VI violations on college campuses. But Title VI requires that the federal government follow the appropriate procedures for a reason. When followed in good faith, the process increases the chance of just outcomes for colleges, students, and faculty while combatting unlawful discrimination. Federal agencies must follow our Constitution and laws while they do their important work.
A federal judge delivered a sweeping victory for academic freedom Wednesday, ruling that the Trump administration’s freeze of $2.2 billion in federal grant funds to Harvard University was illegal and unconstitutional.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs determined that the administration imposed the funding freeze in retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to comply with demands that would have violated First Amendment protections, including ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and screening international students for ideological biases.
The ruling vacates all freezing orders affecting Harvard and bars Trump administration officials from enforcing those orders going forward.
The administration froze Harvard’s federal grants on April 14, just hours after the university rejected a list of ten demands. While only one demand related to antisemitism concerns, six others targeted ideological and pedagogical issues, including restrictions on who could lead, teach, and be admitted to the university, as well as what could be taught.
Judge Burroughs noted that the “swift termination” of funding occurred before the administration had learned anything substantive about antisemitism on campus or Harvard’s response efforts, suggesting the antisemitism concerns were “at best arbitrary and, at worst, pretextual.”
The funding freeze halted work on critical research projects spanning multiple fields, including studies on tuberculosis, NASA astronauts’ radiation exposure, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and a predictive model to help Veterans Administration emergency room physicians assess suicidal veterans. Burroughs ruled that none of these affected projects had any connection to antisemitism.
The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) celebrated the ruling as a landmark victory for higher education.
“This is a huge win for all of American higher education, for science, and for free and critical thought in this country,” said Dr. Todd Wolfson, National AAUP President. “Time and again, Trump has tried to restrict speech and cripple lifesaving university research. As today’s victory shows, Trump’s war on higher education is unconstitutional.”
Veena Dubal, National AAUP General Counsel, characterized the administration’s actions as “cynical and lawless, leveraging claims of discrimination to bludgeon critical research and debate.”
The Harvard AAUP chapter also praised the outcome. “This historic ruling underscores the importance of free inquiry, truth, and the rule of law in a democratic society,” said Kirsten Weld, AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter President.
Harvard President Dr. Alan Garber had previously stated that “no government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
The Education Department pushed back against the ruling through spokesperson Madi Biedermann, who criticized Burroughs as “the same Obama-appointed judge that ruled in favor of Harvard’s illegal race-based admissions practices” before the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those practices.
“Cleaning up our nation’s universities will be a long road, but worth it,” Biedermann said, suggesting the administration may continue its broader efforts to reshape higher education policies.
The ruling establishes important precedent for protecting academic freedom and research independence from political interference. Legal experts note that the decision reinforces constitutional limits on government retaliation against educational institutions for their speech, curriculum choices, and admissions policies.
AAUP leaders said that the victory demonstrates the importance of collective action in defending academic freedom, with faculty and administrators standing together against what they characterize as authoritarian overreach into university governance and research priorities.
In a nearly daily barrage, President Trump and his MAGA forces heave fireballs at science and higher education. In the last weeks alone, the administration has been busy hurling a demand for a billion dollars from the University of California, Los Angeles; axing proven mRNA vaccine research; and demanding colleges submit expanded sex and race data from student applications, among other startling detonations. Amid the onslaught of these unsettling developments, it would be easy to miss the decisive change in conventional scientific and scholarly practice, one so vast that it threatens to overturn our revered American research achievements.
On Aug. 7, Trump issued an executive order that uproots more than a half century of peer review, the standard practice for funding federal scientific grants. Taking approval out of the hands of experts, the new rule makes grant approval contingent upon the assent of political puppets who will approve only those awards the president finds acceptable.
When I first came upon the order, I was immediately struck by how closely it resembles the unquestioned authority granted to senior political appointees in Soviet Russia and Communist China. As if dictated by commissars, the new rule requires officials to fund only those proposals that advance presidential priorities. Cast aside, peer review is now merely advisory.
It took my breath away, suddenly realizing how completely threatening the new order is to the very foundations of the democratic practice of research and scholarship. As Victor Ambros, Nobel laureate and co-discoverer of microRNA, aptly put it, the order constitutes a “a shameless, full-bore Soviet-style politicization of American science that will smother what until now has been the world’s pre-eminent scientific enterprise.”
Decades ago, long before I entered higher ed, I worked at a small publishing company in New York that translated Russian scientific and technical books and journals into English. As head of translations, I’d travel once or twice a year over many years to Moscow and Leningrad (now, once again, St. Petersburg) to negotiate with Soviet publishers to obtain rights to our English translations.
One evening in the late ’60s, I invited a distinguished physicist to join me for dinner at a Ukrainian restaurant not far from my hotel in Moscow. We talked for some time openly over a bottle of vodka about new trends in physics, among other themes. As dinner drew to a close, he let his guard down and whispered a confidence. Mournfully, he told me he’d just received an invitation to deliver the keynote address at a scientific conference in England, but the Party official at his institution wouldn’t permit him to travel. I still remember the sense of being privy to a deep and troubling secret, reflected in the silence that followed and the palpable unease at the table. Shame enveloped him.
Over a couple of dozen years of frequent trips to the Soviet Union and Communist China, I never met a single Party official. My day-to-day interactions were with administrators, editors, researchers and faculty who managed scientific publishing or were involved in teaching, research or other routine matters. The Party secretary remained hidden behind a curtain of power as in The Wizard of Oz.
On one rare occasion in the 2010s, at a graduation ceremony at a local technical university in Beijing where I ran a couple of online master’s degrees in partnership with Stevens Institute of Technology, a student seated next to me in the audience drew near and identified a well-dressed official several rows ahead of us up front. “The Party secretary,” he revealed in hushed tones. I saw the officer later at the reception, standing by himself with a dour expression, as faculty, students and family members bustled about at a distance.
One afternoon at that university in Beijing, I came upon a huddle of faculty in a corner office. As they chatted quietly among themselves in Mandarin, I took a seat at the far end of the room to give them privacy. But I could make out that a man in the group was disturbed, his face flushed and his eyes close to tears. Later, I approached one of the faculty members in the group with whom I’d grown close and asked what had troubled his colleague.
“Oh,” he replied. “He often gets upset when the Party secretary objects to something we’re doing. He worries that our joint program is in jeopardy.”
These personal reflections, based on my limited encounters with scientists and faculty, do not reveal the full extent of the control over scientific research exerted by Party functionaries. But if you compare the president’s new order with that of the Party’s authority in Soviet Russia and Communist China, you’ll find they’re all out of the same playbook.
The order’s demand for political appointee approval takes decisions out of the hands of apolitical, merit-based peer-review panels. In the Soviet Union and China, adherence to the Party line and loyalty to the regime was (or is) paramount, with grant funds being used to advance ideological or state power. Similarly, the president’s order establishes a party line, stating that federal money cannot be used to support racial preferences, “denial … of the sex binary in humans,” illegal immigration or initiatives deemed “anti-American.”
Relegating peer review is no small matter. It is at the center of modern science, distributing responsibility for evaluating scholarly work among experts, rather than holding this responsibility in the fist of authority. Even though peer review is under criticism today for its anonymity and potential biases, among other perplexing features, when researchers referee proposals, they nevertheless participate in a stirring example of collaborative democracy, maintaining the quality and integrity of scholarship—characteristics anathema to far-right ideologues.
Of all the blasts shattering American science and higher education since the president assumed office in January, this executive order may be the most devastating. It is not one of Trump’s random shots at research and scholarship, but an assault on democracy itself.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The Trump administration violated Harvard University’s First Amendment rightsand didn’t follow proper procedures when it froze $2.2 billion of the university’s federal funding earlier this year, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughsalso ruled that the federal government acted arbitrarily and capriciously when halting the funds. The judicial branch must ensure important research isn’t improperly terminated, she wrote,“even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.”
Burroughsstruck down the Trump administration’s freeze orders and grant termination letters, opening the door for Harvard’s funding to be reinstated. But a White House spokesperson said the Trump administration will immediately move to appeal the decision and keep Harvard “ineligible for grants in the future,” in apparent defiance of the ruling.
Dive Insight:
In April, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts to Harvard, hours after the university’s leadershiprebuked its demands for changes to its admissions, hiring, governance and campus policies.
The federal government carried out the freeze under the auspices of the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, which has alleged that the Ivy League institution has not done enough to fight antisemitism on its campus.Subsequent grant termination letters from multiple federal agencies repeated those claims.
But Burroughs questioned that rationale in her decision Wednesday, saying a connection between the federal government’s stated motivations and actions was “wholly lacking.”
The evidence does not “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard,” the judge wrote in her 84-page ruling. “Even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”
U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon also told Harvard in a May 5 letter that it would cut the university off from all future research grants — an order that Burroughs also permanently blocked.
Burroughs also cast doubt on the Trump administration’s argument that its revocation of Harvard’s funding had nothing to do with university President Alan Garber’srefusal to comply with extensive federal ultimatums.
Among several wide-ranging requirements, the Trump administration sought to have Harvard hire a third party to audit programs and departments that it described as fueling “antisemitic harassment” or reflecting “ideological capture.” It also called for “meaningful governance reform” within the university, such as reducing the power of faculty engaged in activism.
The ultimatums and cut-off funds prompted Harvard to sue the federal government in April. It argued that the Trump administration violated its free speech by pulling funding for refusing to comply with viewpoint-based demands and that the government didn’t follow the proper procedures for terminating the grants.
Despite the Trump administration assertions that Harvard’s pulled funding was unrelated, Burroughs said its own members undercut its argument.
“Numerous government officials spoke publicly and contemporaneously on these issues, including about their motivations, and those statements are flatly inconsistent with what Defendants now contend,” the judge wrote.
Burroughs cited social media posts from President Donald Trump two days after the task force announced the funding freeze.
“Harvard is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds,” he wrote on April 16.
That post and others like it demonstrated that Trump’s ongoing concern was “untethered from antisemitism,” Burroughs said.
But a White House spokesperson doubled down on Wednesday, saying the federal government’s actions against the university are intended to “hold Harvard accountable.”
“To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years,” White House Assistant Press Secretary Liz Huston said in an email.Burroughs was “always going to rule in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts,” she added.
In late April, Harvard published two long-awaited reports about the climate of its Massachusetts campus — one on antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias and another on anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian bias.
The reports found that Jewish, Israeli and Zionist students and employees at Harvard — along with their Muslim, Arab and Palestinian peers — at times felt shunned or harassed while at the university during the 2023-24 academic year.
“Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did,” Burroughs wrote before noting that the university is “currently, even if belatedly, taking steps it needs to take to combat antisemitism and seems willing to do even more if need be.”
But the federal government failed to consider this, the judge wrote.
“The agencies considered little, if any, data regarding the antisemitism problem at Harvard” and disregarded “substantial policy and other changes” the university enacted to address the issue, Burroughs said.
They also “failed to weigh the importance of any particular grant or to evaluate whether a particular grant recipient had engaged in antisemitic behavior before cutting off critical research,” she said.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
George Mason University’s governing board said late last week that it wants to negotiate with the Trump administration to resolve allegations that it violated civil rights law.
In late August, the U.S. Department of Education alleged that George Mason has illegally used race and other protected characteristics in hiring and promotions, a conclusion reached just six weeks after the agency announced a probe into the university.
An attorney for university President Gregory Washington, who is at the center of the probe, hasrepudiated the agency’s allegations, describing them as “a legal fiction.” Washington’s attorney will also be involved in talks with the Education Department, according to the board’s statement.
Dive Insight:
Over a period of weeks this summer, the Trump administration ramped up pressure on George Mason. The departments of Education and Justiceopened at least four probes between them into the university, often citing comment from Washington in support of diversity initiatives.
Washington’s attorney, Douglas Gansler, took the Education Department to task for how quickly it determined George Mason violated the law.
“It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and ‘findings’ have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process, including only two interviews with university academic deans,” Gansler wrote.
The attorney also described some of the evidence cited by the Education Department as “gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington” that didn’t lead to policy changes.
For example, when the Education Department concluded that George Mason violated civil rights law, it linked to a statement Washington made in 2021 in support of having faculty reflect the diversity of the student body and broader community. The department took the statement as expressing “support for racial preferencing” in hiring.
But, as Gansler highlighted, Washington specifically said in the statement that the diversity principles he was promoting were “not code for establishing a quota system.”
Gansler also warned the university’s board against requiring Washington to apologize, which was among the demands made by the Education Department. The lawyer pointed out that such an apology could open the university up to liability.
Through all of this, George Mason’s board of visitors — headed by Charles Stimson, who holds leadership positions at The Heritage Foundation, a right-wing think tank — has been relatively quiet.
To represent it in dealings with the Trump administration, the board hired Torridon Law, which was co-founded by William Barr,formerly U.S. attorney general during the first Trump administration. The firm also has several prominent Republican lawyers on staff.
In July, the university’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors voted no confidence in the board and called its response to the Trump administration’s actions to that point “inadequate and deeply troubling.”
And yet, in August — at a meeting that the AAUP chapter warned could set the stage for Washington’s ouster — George Mason’sboard voted to give the leader a raise.
Since then, Democrat members of a Virginia Senate committee have blocked six appointeesto George Mason’s board picked by the state’s Republican governor, Glenn Youngkin. The move has left the board of visitors without a quorum for conducting official business.
In announcing plans to negotiate with the Education Department, the board said Friday that it “remains committed to ensuring that George Mason complies with all federal civil rights law and remains hopeful that a favorable resolution can be reached.”
George Mason is just the latest in an expanding set of colleges targeted by the Trump administration over allegations related to racial preferencing, campus antisemitism and policies supporting transgender student athletes.
The Trump administration’s aggressive stance toward higher education institutions is contributing to a precipitous drop in support among college-educated voters, with new polling data revealing the president’s approval rating among graduates has fallen to historic lows.
President Donald J. TrumpAccording to Gallup polling, Trump’s approval rating among college graduates plummeted from 34% in June to just 28% by August, with disapproval climbing to 70%. This represents a concerning trend for Republicans as they look toward the 2026 midterm elections, particularly given the growing influence of college-educated voters in key suburban swing districts.
The administration’s education policies have taken aim at what Trump characterizes as liberal bias and antisemitism on college campuses. Harvard University has faced the most severe federal intervention, with the White House canceling approximately $100 million in federal contracts and freezing $3.2 billion in research funding. The administration has also moved to block international student enrollment and threatened to revoke the institution’s tax-exempt status while demanding sweeping reforms to admissions processes and curricular oversight.
Similar measures have been enacted against Columbia University, the University of Pennsylvania, and Cornell University over issues ranging from pro-Palestinian campus activism to policies regarding transgender athletes in women’s sports. Harvard officials have characterized these interventions as an unprecedented assault on academic freedom and institutional autonomy.
The crackdown has generated significant campus unrest and drawn comparisons to Cold War-era loyalty investigations, raising questions about the federal government’s appropriate role in higher education governance.
The polling data reflects broader dissatisfaction with the administration’s educational approach. Only 26% of college graduates approve of Trump’s handling of education policy, while 71% disapprove. A separate AP-NORC survey from May found that 56% of Americans nationwide disapprove of the president’s higher education agenda.
However, the policies resonate strongly within Trump’s Republican base, with roughly 80% of Republicans approving his higher education approach—a higher approval rate than his economic policies garner. About 60% of Republicans express significant concern about perceived liberal bias on college campuses, aligning with the administration’s framing of universities as ideologically compromised institutions.
The Republican coalition shows some internal division on enforcement mechanisms, with approximately half supporting federal funding cuts for non-compliant institutions while a quarter oppose such measures and another quarter remain undecided.
While political controversies dominate headlines, economic concerns remain the primary driver of public opinion on higher education. Sixty percent of Americans express deep concern about college costs, a bipartisan worry that transcends ideological divisions around campus politics.
Current data from the College Board and Bankrate show average annual costs of $29,910 for in-state public university students, $49,080 for out-of-state students, and approximately $61,990 for private nonprofit institutions when including room, board, and additional expenses. Financial aid reduces these figures to average net prices of $20,800 at public universities and $36,150 at private colleges.
These costs reflect decades of sustained increases. EducationData.org reports that public in-state college costs have risen from $2,489 in 1963 to $89,556 in 2022-23 (adjusted for inflation). Over the past decade alone, in-state public tuition has increased by nearly 58%, while out-of-state and private tuition have risen by 30% and 27% respectively.
The economic pressures extend beyond college costs to post-graduation employment prospects. While overall unemployment among adults with bachelor’s degrees remains low at 2.3%, recent graduates face significant challenges. Bureau of Labor Statistics data shows that only 69.6% of bachelor’s degree recipients aged 20-29 were employed in late 2024, with unemployment among 23-27-year-olds reaching nearly 6%—substantially above the 4.2% national average.
These employment difficulties contribute to broader economic anxiety, with 39% of college graduates describing national economic conditions as “poor” and 64% reporting job search struggles.
The confluence of political and economic pressures creates a challenging landscape for Republicans heading into the 2026 midterms. College-educated voters represent a growing and increasingly decisive demographic, particularly in suburban areas that often determine control of swing seats.
The Trump administration, since returning to power in 2025, has escalated attacks on the foundations of democracy, the environment, world peace, human rights, and intellectual inquiry. While the administration has marketed itself as “America First,” its policies have more often meant profits for the ultra-wealthy, repression for the working majority, and escalating dangers for the planet.
Below is a running list of 100 of the most dangerous actions and policies—a record of how quickly a government can dismantle hard-won protections for people, peace, and the planet.
I. Attacks on the Environment
Withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement—again.
Dismantling the EPA’s authority to regulate greenhouse gases.
Opening federal lands and national parks to oil, gas, and mining leases.
Gutting protections for endangered species.
Allowing coal companies to dump mining waste in rivers and streams.
Rolling back vehicle fuel efficiency standards.
Subsidizing fossil fuel companies while defunding renewable energy programs.
Suppressing climate science at federal agencies.
Greenlighting pipelines that threaten Indigenous lands and water supplies.
Promoting offshore drilling in fragile ecosystems.
Weakening Clean Water Act enforcement.
Dismantling environmental justice programs that protect poor communities.
Politicizing NOAA and censoring weather/climate warnings.
Undermining international climate cooperation at the UN.
Allowing pesticides banned in Europe to return to U.S. farms.
II. Undermining World Peace and Global Stability
Threatening military action against Iran, Venezuela, and North Korea.
Expanding the nuclear arsenal instead of pursuing arms control.
Cutting funding for diplomacy and the State Department.
Withdrawing from the World Health Organization (WHO).
Weakening NATO alliances with inflammatory rhetoric.
Escalating drone strikes and loosening rules of engagement.
Providing cover for authoritarian leaders worldwide.
Walking away from peace negotiations in the Middle East.
Blocking humanitarian aid to Gaza, Yemen, and other war-torn areas.
Expanding weapons sales to Saudi Arabia despite human rights abuses.
Using tariffs and sanctions as blunt instruments against allies.
Politicizing intelligence briefings to justify military adventurism.
Abandoning refugee protections and asylum agreements.
Treating climate refugees as security threats.
Reducing U.S. participation in the United Nations.
III. Attacks on Human Rights and the Rule of Law
Expanding family separation policies at the border.
Targeting asylum seekers for indefinite detention.
Militarizing immigration enforcement with National Guard troops.
Attacking reproductive rights and defunding women’s health programs.
Rolling back LGBTQ+ protections in schools and workplaces.
Reinstating bans on transgender service members in the military.
Undermining voting rights through purges and voter ID laws.
Packing the courts with extremist judges hostile to civil rights.
Weaponizing the Justice Department against political opponents.
Expanding surveillance powers with little oversight.
Encouraging police crackdowns on protests.
Expanding use of federal troops in U.S. cities.
Weakening consent decrees against abusive police departments.
Refusing to investigate hate crimes tied to far-right violence.
Deporting long-term immigrants with no criminal record.
IV. Attacks on Domestic Peace and Tranquility
Encouraging militias and extremist groups with dog whistles.
Using inflammatory rhetoric that stokes racial and religious hatred.
Equating journalists with “enemies of the people.”
Cutting funds for community-based violence prevention.
Politicizing natural disaster relief.
Treating peaceful protests as national security threats.
Expanding federal use of facial recognition surveillance.
Undermining local control with federal overreach.
Stigmatizing entire religious and ethnic groups.
Promoting conspiracy theories from the presidential podium.
Encouraging violent crackdowns on labor strikes.
Undermining pandemic preparedness and response.
Allowing corporations to sidestep workplace safety rules.
Shutting down diversity and inclusion training across agencies.
Promoting vigilante violence through online platforms.
V. Attacks on Labor Rights and the Working Class
Weakening the Department of Labor’s enforcement of wage theft.
Blocking attempts to raise the federal minimum wage.
Undermining collective bargaining rights for federal workers.
Supporting right-to-work laws across states.
Allowing employers to misclassify gig workers as “independent contractors.”
Blocking new OSHA safety standards.
Expanding exemptions for overtime pay.
Weakening rules on child labor in agriculture.
Cutting unemployment benefits during economic downturns.
Favoring union-busting corporations in federal contracts.
Rolling back protections for striking workers.
Encouraging outsourcing of jobs overseas.
Weakening enforcement of anti-discrimination laws in workplaces.
Cutting funding for worker retraining programs.
Promoting unpaid internships as a “pathway” to jobs.
VI. Attacks on Intellectualism and Knowledge
Defunding the Department of Education in favor of privatization.
Attacking public universities as “woke indoctrination centers.”
Promoting for-profit colleges with predatory practices.
Restricting student loan forgiveness programs.
Undermining Title IX protections for sexual harassment.
Defunding libraries and public broadcasting.
Politicizing scientific research grants.
Firing federal scientists who contradict administration narratives.
Suppressing research on gun violence.
Censoring federal climate and environmental data.
Promoting creationism and Christian nationalism in schools.
Expanding surveillance of student activists.
Encouraging book bans in schools and libraries.
Undermining accreditation standards for higher education.
Attacking historians who challenge nationalist myths.
Cutting humanities funding in favor of military research.
Encouraging political litmus tests for professors.
Treating journalists as combatants in a “culture war.”
Promoting AI-driven “robocolleges” with no faculty oversight.
Gutting federal student aid programs.
Allowing corporate donors to dictate university policy.
Discouraging international students from studying in the U.S.
Criminalizing whistleblowers who reveal government misconduct.
Promoting conspiracy theories over peer-reviewed science.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
The Trump administration on Thursday proposed capping the length of time international students can stay in the U.S. at four years,regardless of the length of their studies, per a plan published in the Federal Register.
International student visas, known as F visas, typically allows them to stay in the U.S. for as long as it takes to finish their programs. Bachelor’s and master’s degrees are typically designed to be completed in four years or less, but many Ph.D. programs tend to run longer.
The new rule would also affect J visas, which cover certain international students, as well as short-term college instructors and researchers.If finalized, holders of both types of visas would need to apply for extensions and undergo “regular assessments” by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security to stay in the country after four years.
Dive Insight:
Restricting the flow of noncitizens into the U.S. — international students included — is not a new focus for the Trump administration.During the last year of President Donald Trump’s first term, the agencies proposed the same cap on F and J visas. The Biden administration withdrew the proposal the following year.
DHS and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement argued Thursday that neither program gives federal authorities enough oversight over how long visa holders remain in the country.
In the proposed rule, the agencies alleged that the lack of a fixed end date for F and J visas incentivizes fraud, and DHS said it has identified“many examples of students and exchange visitors staying for decades.” As of April, over 2,100 international students who first entered the country between 2000 and 2010 still hold an active F visa, DHS said.
That’s a tiny share of the total number of international students the U.S. hosts. In 2023 alone, more than 1.6 million people entered the U.S. through F visas, according to DHS data. Over 500,000 people entered via J visas that year.
A DHS spokesperson on Wednesday accused international students of “posing safety risks”and “disadvantaging U.S. citizens” — and accused past administrations of allowing them to stay in the country “virtually indefinitely.”
“This new proposed rule would end that abuse once and for all by limiting the amount of time certain visa holders are allowed to remain in the U.S., easing the burden on the federal government to properly oversee foreign students and their history,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
The proposal would also prohibit graduate students on F-1 visas from transferring to other institutions or “changing educational objectives,” along with adding similar restrictions for first-year students.
Student advocates quickly panned the Trump administration’s plan, saying it would increase bureaucratic backlogs, deter international students from attending U.S. colleges and harm the country’s advancement.
Fanta Aw, CEO and executive director of NAFSA: Association of International Educators, said Wednesday that the change would also give federal agencies oversight over decisions that “have long been the domain of academia.”
“This proposal will only increase the degree of government oversight without any evidence that the changes would solve any of the real problems that exist in our outdated immigration system,” Aw said in a statement.
Aw also decried the proposal as a poorly considered draft that represents a “dangerous overreach by government into academia.”
“These changes will only serve to force aspiring students and scholars into a sea of administrative delays at best, and at worst, into unlawful presence status — leaving them vulnerable to punitive actions through no fault of their own,” she said.
Miriam Feldblum, president and CEO of the Presidents’ Alliance on Higher Education and Immigration, called the proposed rule an “unnecessary and counterproductive action.”
She emphasized the increased paperwork and bureaucratic hurdles it would require of international students.
“The rule would force them to regularly and unnecessarily submit additional applications to be able to stay in the country and fulfill requirements of their academic programs, imposing significant burdens on students, colleges and universities, and federal agencies alike,” Feldblum said in a Wednesday statement.
Both Feldblum and Aw noted that international students are already one of the most closely monitored groups in the U.S.
The DHS spokesperson on Wednesday also alleged that international students cost an “untold amount of taxpayer money.”
Yet foreign students are often a financial boon for colleges — especially tuition-dependent ones — as they are more likely than U.S. residents to pay an institution’s full sticker price.
In 2023, international college students contributed more than $50 billion to the U.S. economy, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
George Mason UniversityPresident Gregory Washington’s lawyer on Monday firmly repudiated the Trump administration’s allegations that thepublic Virginia institution had violated civil rights law.
Last week, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights alleged that George Mason’s hiring and promotion practices violated Title VI, which bans federally funded institutions from discriminating based on race, color or national origin. An agency official singled out Washington as the leader of a “university-wide campaign to implement unlawful DEI policies that intentionally discriminate on the basis of race,” and the department demanded that he apologize.
In an 11-page letter to the college’s governing board sent on Washington’s behalf, his attorney Douglas Gansler called OCR’s allegations “a legal fiction,” and stressed that George Mason’sleadership has kept the university in compliance with federal law.“Far from needing to apologize, you all have a shared record to be proud of,” he wrote.
Since July, the Trump administration has opened at least four investigations into George Mason, targeting the large research institution over universitywide diversity initiatives, of which Washington has been a champion.
The Education Department’s findings came just six weeks after the agency opened the investigation, citing a complaint from “multiple professors at GMU” alleging that the university’s leaders had approved policies illegally giving certain underrepresented groups preferential treatment since 2020.
Gansler called out the brief length of the agency’s investigation and said OCR’s letter shows that federal officials “have not spent sufficient time finding critical and materials facts.”
“It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and ‘findings’ have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process, including only two interviews with university academic deans,” Gansler wrote.
The Education Department’s announcement last week focused much of its ire onWashington, alleging the university president’s prior statementswere proof of “support for racial preferencing.”
But some of the department’s evidence was out-of-context or “gross mischaracterizations of statements made by Dr. Washington”that didn’t lead to policy changes, Gansler wrote. And one contested policy would have predated Washington’s tenure, he argued.
In one example, the Education Department quoted a 2021 statement from Washington on adopting an inclusive hiring framework.
“If you have two candidates who are both ‘above the bar’ in terms of requirements for a position, but one adds to your diversity and the other does not, then why couldn’t that candidate be better, even if that candidate may not have better credentials than the other candidate?” Washington said at the time.
Gansler said the quote was pulled out of context and never resulted in a policy being enacted.
“His question was just that: a question, offered to provoke dialogue within the university community, as should be expected of a faculty member and academic leader of a university,” the attorney wrote. “The question does not suggest hiring minority candidates of lesser credentials, but rather considering how two equally qualified candidates may contribute differently to the campus.”
He added that Washington is not directly involved in evaluating candidates for faculty positions and that OCR would be unable to cite “any discriminatory hiring decision made based on it.”
It is glaringly apparent that the OCR investigation process has been cut short, and “findings” have been made in spite of a very incomplete fact-finding process.
Douglas Gansler
Attorney for George Mason University President Gregory Washington
The Education Department gave George Mason 10 days to voluntarily agree to a proposalit said would resolve the alleged violations. Part of that proposal would require Washington to publicly apologize to the university community “for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes.”
In response, Gansler advised George Mason’s trustees against agreeing to the Education Department’s demand for an apology.
“If the Board entertains OCR’s demand that Dr. Washington personally apologize for promoting unlawful discriminatory practices in hiring, promotion, and tenure processes, it will undermine GMU’s record of compliance,” Gansler wrote. “An apology will amount to an admission that the university did something unlawful, opening GMU and the Board up to legal liability for conduct that did not occur under the Board’s watch.”
And while the proposed apology may help resolve the Education Department’s inquiry, it would not prevent other federal agencies from using that statement to penalize the university, the lawyer added.
Mike Fragoso, a lawyer representing the board, did not immediately respond to a request for comment Tuesday.
“Our sole focus is our fiduciary duty to serve the best interests of the University and the people of the Commonwealth of Virginia,” the board said in a Friday statement.
Publicly, George Mason’s board has said little as the Trump administration announced the litany of its investigations into the university. The response prompted George Mason’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors to approve a no-confidence resolution against the board last month and called on it to defend Washington.
MOREHEAD, Ky. — The summer after ninth grade, Zoey Griffith found herself in an unfamiliar setting: a dorm on the Morehead State University campus.
There, she’d spend the months before her sophomore year taking classes in core subjects including math and biology and electives like oil painting.
For Griffith, it was an opportunity, but a scary one. “It was a big deal for me to live on campus at the age of 14,” she said. Morehead State is about an hour from her hometown of Maysville. “I was nervous, and I remember that I cried the first time that my dad left me on move-in day.”
Her mother became a parent as a teenager and urged her daughter to avoid the same experience. Griffith’s father works as a mechanic, and he frowns upon the idea of higher education, she said.
And so college back then seemed a distant and unlikely idea.
But Griffith’s stepsister had introduced her to a federal program called Upward Bound. It places high school students in college dorms during the summer, where they can take classes and participate in workshops on preparing for the SAT and financial literacy. During the school year, students get tutoring and work on what are called individual success plans.
Upward Bound students test the robots they built in their robotics class – evaluating for programming and mechanical issues. Credit: Photo courtesy of the Upward Bound Programs
It’s part of a group of federal programs, known as TRIO, aimed at helping low-income and first-generation students earn a college degree, often becoming the first in their families to do so.
So, thanks to that advice from her stepsister, Kirsty Beckett, who’s now 27 and pursuing a doctorate in psychology, Griffith signed up and found herself in that summer program at Morehead State. Now, Griffith is enrolled at Maysville Community and Technical College, with plans to become an ultrasound technician.
Related: Interested in more news about colleges and universities? Subscribe to our free biweekly higher education newsletter.
TRIO, once a group of three programs — giving it a name that stuck — is now the umbrella over eight some dating back to 1965. Together, they serve roughly 870,000 students nationwide a year.
It has worked with millions of students and has bipartisan support in Congress. Some in this part of the Appalachian region of Kentucky, and across the country, worry about students who won’t get the same assistance if President Donald Trump ends federal spending on the program.
Students Zoey Griffith, left, and Aniyah Caldwell, right, say the Upward Bound program has been life-changing for them. Upward Bound is one of eight federal programs under the TRIO umbrella. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report
A White House budget proposal would eliminate spending on TRIO. The document says “access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means” and puts the onus on colleges to recruit and support students.
Advocates note that the programs, which cost roughly $1.2 billion each year, have a proven track record. Students in Upward Bound, for example, are more than twice as likely to earn a bachelor’s degree by age 24 than other students from some of the nation’s poorest households, according to the Council for Opportunity in Education. COE is a nonprofit that represents TRIO programs nationwide and advocates for expanded opportunities for first-generation, low-income students.
For the high school class of 2022, 74 percent of Upward Bound students enrolled immediately in college — compared with only 56 percent of high school graduates in the bottom income quartile.
Upward Bound is for high school students, like Griffith. Another TRIO program, Talent Search, helps middle and high school students, without the residential component. One called Student Support Services (SSS) provides tutoring, advising and other assistance to at-risk college students. Another program prepares students for graduate school and doctoral degrees, and yet another trains TRIO staff.
A 2019 study found that after four years of college, students in SSS were 48 percent more likely to complete an associate’s degree or certificate, or transfer to a four-year institution, than a comparable group of students with similar backgrounds and similar levels of high school achievement who were not in the program.
“TRIO has been around for 60 years,” said Kimberly Jones, the president of COE. “We’ve produced millions of college graduates. We know it works.”
Yet Education Secretary Linda McMahon and the White House refer to the programs as a “relic of the past.”
Jones countered that census data shows that “students from the poorest families still earn college degrees at rates far below that of students from the highest-income families,” demonstrating continued need for TRIO.
McMahon is challenging that and pushing for further study of those TRIO success rates. In 2020, the U.S. Government Accountability Office found that even though the Education Department collects data on TRIO participants, “the agency has gaps in its evidence on program effectiveness.” The GAO criticized the Education Department for having “outdated” studies on some TRIO programs, and no studies at all for others. Since then, the department has expanded its evaluations of TRIO.
East Main Street in Morehead, Kentucky, just outside of Morehead State’s campus. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report
During a Senate subcommittee hearing in June, McMahon acknowledged “there is some effectiveness of the programs, in many circumstances.”
Still, she said there is not enough research to justify TRIO’s total cost. “That’s a real drawback in these programs,” McMahon said.
Now, she is asking lawmakers to eliminate TRIO spending after this year and has already canceled some previously approved TRIO grants.
“What are we supposed to do, especially here in eastern Kentucky?” asked David Green, a former Upward Bound participant who is now marketing director for a pair of Kentucky hospitals.
Green lives in a region that has some of the nation’s highest rates of unemployment, cancer and opioid addiction. “I mean, these people have big hearts, they want to grow,” he added. Cutting these programs amounts to “stifling us even more than we’re already stifled.”
Green described his experience with TRIO at Morehead State in the mid-1980s as “one of the best things that ever happened to me.”
He grew up in a home without running water in Maysville, a city of about 8,000 people. It was on a TRIO trip to Washington, D.C., he recalled, that he stayed in a hotel for the first time. Green remembers bringing two suitcases so he could pack a pillow, sheets and comforter — unaware the hotel room would have its own.
He met students from other towns and with different backgrounds. Some became lifelong friends. Green learned table manners, the kind of thing often required in business settings. After college, he was so grateful for TRIO that he became one of its tutors, working with the next generation of students.
TRIO’s all-encompassing nature makes it unique among college access programs, said Tom Stritikus, the president of Occidental College, a private liberal arts college in Los Angeles. He was previously president of Fort Lewis College, a public liberal arts school in Colorado with a large Native American student population. At both institutions, Stritikus said, he witnessed the effectiveness of TRIO’s methods, which he described as a “soup to nuts” menu of services for at-risk students trying to be the first in their families to earn degrees.
After participating in the Upward Bound program, David Green has had a successful career, becoming a community leader in his hometown of Maysville, Kentucky. Credit: Michael Vasquez for The Hechinger Report
Jones, of the Council for Opportunity in Education, said she is cautiously optimistic that Congress will continue funding TRIO, despite the Trump administration’s request. The programs serve students in all 50 states. According to the COE, about 34 percent are white, 32 percent are Black, 23 percent are Hispanic, 5 percent are Asian, and 3 percent are Native American. TRIO’s guidelines require that a majority of participants come from families making less than 150 percent of the federal poverty level. For a family of four living in the contiguous United States, that’s a max of $48,225 a year.
In May, Rep. Mike Simpson, an Idaho Republican, called TRIO “one of the most effective programs in the federal government,” which, he said, is supported by “many, many members of Congress.”
In June, Sen. Shelley Moore Capito, a Republican from West Virginia and a former TRIO employee, spoke about its importance to her state. TRIO helps “a student that really needs the extra push, the camaraderie, the community,” she said. “I’ve gone to their graduations, and been their speaker, and it’s really quite delightful to see how far they’ve come, in a short period of time.”
TRIO survived, with its funding intact, when the Senate appropriations committee approved its budget last month. The House is expected to take up its version of the annual appropriations bill for education in early September. Both chambers ultimately have to agree on federal spending, a process that could drag on until December, leaving TRIO’s fate in Congress uncertain.
While lawmakers debate its future, the Trump administration could also delay or halt TRIO funding on its own. Earlier this year, the administration took the unprecedented step of unilaterally canceling about 20 previously approved new and continuing TRIO grants.
At Morehead State, leaders say the university — and the region it serves — need the boost it receives from TRIO: While roughly 38 percent of American adults have earned at least a bachelor’s degree, in Kentucky, that figure is only 16 percent. And, locally, it’s 7 percent, according to Summer Fawn Bryant, the director of TRIO’s Talent Search programs at the university.
Summer Fawn Bryant, center, is director of TRIO’s Talent Search programs at Morehead State University in Kentucky. She stands with former TRIO students Alexandria Daniel, left, and Blake Thayer, right. Credit: Photo courtesy of Summer Fawn Bryant
TRIO works to counter the stigma of attending college that still exists in parts of eastern Kentucky, Bryant said. A student from a humble background who is considering college, she said, might be scolded with the phrase: Don’t get above your raisin’.
“A parent may say it,” Bryant said. “A teacher may say it.”
She added that she’s seen time and again how these programs can turn around the lives of young students facing adversity.
Students like Beth Cockrell, an Upward Bound alum from Pineville, Ky., who said her mom struggled with parenting. “Upward Bound stepped in as that kind of co-parent and helped me decide what my major was going to be.”
Cockrell went on to earn three degrees at Morehead State and has worked as a teacher for the past 19 years. She now works with students at her alma mater and teaches third grade at Conkwright Elementary School, about an hour away.
In a few years, 17-year-old Upward Bound student Isaac Bocook plans to join the teaching ranks too — as a middle school social studies teacher. Bocook said he was indecisive about what to study after high school, but he finally figured it out after attending a career fair at Morehead State’s historic Button Auditorium.
Upward Bound students visit the Great Lake Science Center in Cleveland for the end-of-summer educational trip. Credit: Photo courtesy of the Upward Bound Programs
Bocook lives in Lewis County, with just under 13,000 residents and a single public high school. At Morehead State’s TRIO program, Bocook met teenagers from across the entire region, which he said improved his social skills. TRIO also helped him with all kinds of paperwork on the pathway to adulthood. Filling out financial aid forms. Writing scholarship applications. Crafting a resume.
“I’m just truly grateful to have TRIO, as sort of like a hand to hold,” Bocook said.
His need for guidance is similar to what students at Morgan County High School in West Liberty, Kentucky, experience, said Lori Keeton, the school guidance counselor. The challenge facing these first-generation students, she said, is that “you just simply don’t know what you don’t know.”
As the sole counselor for 550 students, Keeton doesn’t have time to help each student navigate the complex college-application process and said she worries that some of her students will apply to fewer colleges, or no colleges at all, if TRIO disappears.
TRIO’s Talent Search program serves about 100 students at her high school, and roughly another dozen are part of Upward Bound. Each program has a dedicated counselor who visits regularly to guide and assist students.
Sherry Adkins, an eastern Kentucky native who attended TRIO more than 50 years ago and went on to become a registered nurse, said efforts to cut TRIO spending ignore the long-term benefits. “Do you want all of these people that are disadvantaged to continue like that? Where they’re taking money from society? Or do you want to help prepare us to become successful people who pay lots of taxes?”
As Washington considers TRIO’s future, program directors like Bryant, at Morehead State, press forward. She has preserved a text message a former student sent her two years ago to remind her of what’s at stake.
After finishing college, the student was attending a conference on child abuse when a presenter showed a slide that included the quote: “Every child who winds up doing well has had at least one stable and committed relationship with a supportive adult.”
“Forever thankful,” the student texted Bryant, “that you were that supportive adult for me.”
Contact editor Nirvi Shah at 212-678-3445, securely on Signal at NirviShah.14 or via 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.
