Julia Barnes, a National Science Foundation postdoctoral research fellow, was watching President Donald Trump’s speech to Congress last week when she heard him refer to her work as an “appalling waste” that needs to end.
In a list of expenses he called “scams,” Trump mentioned a $60 million project for Indigenous peoples in Latin America.
“Empowering Afro-Indigenous populations in Colombia, South America, is exactly what I do,” Barnes said. “My project is explicitly DEI, and it is DEI-focused in a foreign country.” The Trump administration has targeted both foreign aid and diversity, equity and inclusion.
Even before the speech, she knew her work helping such communities, which have faced atrocities, was under threat. Barnes said officials at the University of Tennessee at Knoxville, where she’s based, last month asked her not to travel to Colombia for a planned research trip. She’s taken further precautions herself out of fear that she’ll be forced to repay any NSF grant money she uses, she said.
She’s not using the money at all—even to pay herself, she said. “I’m drawing on my savings right now to pay rent and pay for groceries,” Barnes said. She’s also teaching at another university and freelancing for a nonprofit. (An NSF spokesperson pointed Inside Higher Ed to an agency webpage that says activities such as travel “are permitted to proceed in accordance with the terms and conditions of existing awards.”)
“It’s pretty devastating,” she said. “This is the highest position I’ve ever gotten in my career. This is my dream job to do this research; it’s a cause that I care about very deeply.” She said, “It really breaks my heart to see this shift in values away from what I had initially hoped would become a tenure-track professorship and something—something greater.”
Postdocs like Barnes are worried about their careers amid the tumult of the Trump administration, which has frozen federal funding; canceled grant review meetings; slashed National Institutes of Health payments for indirect research costs; targeted diversity, equity and inclusion activities without clearly defining DEI; and laid off swaths of federal research agency employees.
Many of those actions have been in flux as judges block and unblock the administration’s orders amid courtroom fights, and as federal officials walk back terminations and other cuts. But university officials nonetheless appear unnerved, with some restricting Ph.D. program admissions and pausing hiring.
“There’s a very complicated feeling in spending close to a decade of time and energy pursuing this type of career,” said Kevin Bird, who’s on the job hunt. He’s nearing the expiration of his stint as an NSF biology postdoc research fellow at the University of California, Davis, and said he’s always tried to work at public universities because he values their mission.
“The whole process of striving for this for so long and making the sacrifices—to think it’s worth it—and then kind of having the entire system be attacked and sort of collapse in uncertainty has really been an unpleasant thing to experience,” Bird said.
The White House didn’t provide an interview or statement last week.
Looking Overseas
Counting her undergraduate days, Amanda Shaver said she’s spent 19 years building a science career. Now an NIH postdoc fellow at Johns Hopkins University, she said she feels “so close to the finish line of trying to do everything right for so many years to get a faculty position”—only for it to now “feel unattainable.”
Shaver said meetings to consider the career transition NIH award she applied for have been postponed, and she wonders whether Trump officials actually axed the program because they considered it a DEI initiative. The NIH didn’t respond to Inside Higher Ed’s requests for comment last week about the program’s status.
Looking at the overall future of research and higher education in the U.S., Shaver said, “Things are not good.” She’s applying to positions in other countries.
In the meantime, she awaits word on what’s happening with her NIH Pathway to Independence Award application. This award—also known as K99/R00—provides recipients money to finish work during their postdoc stints and then start labs at new institutions, Shaver said. “It really sort of elevates you in the candidate pool” for faculty jobs, she said.
But Shaver—who describes herself as from a low-income family and a disadvantaged school district—said she applied for a version of the award known as MOSAIC, which is meant to keep talented people from underrepresented groups in the biomedical sciences field. That makes it a potential target of Trump’s anti-DEI crusade.
Shaver said the MOSAIC website disappeared temporarily, “and people thought that they just weren’t in existence anymore, and people were told to not submit those.” But she had already applied; a study section of faculty was supposed to meet in February to consider the application, she said. That was postponed once, and last week she received an email saying it’s been postponed again until May, she said.
“I don’t know if they will actually meet or not,” Shaver said. She might apply for the regular version of the award in the future but will then have lost an application cycle and can only keep applying until the fourth year of her postdoc stint, she said.
“The NIH is the worldwide leader in biomedical research,” she said. “And canceling different types of grants or delaying funding and firing people that are really qualified at the NIH, cutting the indirect costs at universities—all these things collectively are really harming the research industry.”
She added, “It doesn’t make any sense—I think to any voter—to want to dismantle biomedical research … it’s like a degradation of an entire system that is built on facts and knowledge.”
Amid the upheaval, it can be hard to tell whether university job cuts stem from Trump’s actions or other factors. Bird, the NSF postdoc at UC Davis, said searches for two tenure-track faculty positions he applied for have been canceled since Trump took office. One of the institutions he mentioned, North Carolina State University, told Inside Higher Ed the search is now progressing, and the other, Clemson University, said its search was canceled to “attract a broader and more qualified candidate pool” and the position will be reposted soon.
Whatever the reasons for those cuts, “many people I’ve talked to now at institutions are feeling the crunch or feeling the concern about what the next few years might hold if the NIH cuts go through, if any aspect of the indirect rate shifts happen,” Bird said. “It’s kind of forcing a lot of universities to really plan for the worst, I think.” So far, a federal district court judge has blocked the NIH from implementing such cuts.
He lamented the attacks on efforts to recruit into science more first-generation students and students from historically excluded groups. These attacks change “what the job I could even have would be like—if part of the job isn’t taking that mindset of broadening participation and bringing people into the career path like I was,” said Bird, who comes from a small town and a low-income family.
All this turmoil is pushing him to start “broadening my horizons,” including looking at positions in Europe or other parts of the world that hopefully “will have more stable science institutions and stable higher education,” he said.
Job cuts at federal research agencies and universities may increase competition-—and uncertainty—among those trying to take the next step in their careers. Julia Van Etten said, “I have a lot of friends who’ve lost their jobs” as early-career researchers in federal agencies.
Van Etten, an NSF postdoc research fellow at Rutgers University at New Brunswick, said she’s looking for faculty jobs. But “it’s uncertain how many of those jobs will exist going forward.”
“There’s a lot more people on the job market here,” Van Etten said. “There’s a lot of uncertainty on the job market here. There seems to be a general feeling that the overseas job markets—if they’re not already—are going to become saturated.”
“It just feels like the job market is kind of bleak,” she said.
Van Etten said the government—through funding from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Department of Energy and other agencies—has already invested much in her education and work. And she’s invested time that might have been wasted.
“I spent my entire 20s in grad school and working to get my Ph.D.,” she said. “And no one gets a doctorate just for the pay, right? I really love what I do, and I think my work in basic research is really important. And, for the first time in my entire life, I’ve had to start thinking about what I would do if I wasn’t a scientist anymore.”
One of the most Orwellian stories in American history — where telling people about their rights and urging them to speak out became a thoughtcrime — was that of the socialist Eugene Debs.
Debs was sentenced to 10 years in prison for criticizing U.S. involvement in World War I and for telling Americans about their constitutional right to protest the draft. The Supreme Court infamously ruled his speech posed a “clear and present danger.” Today, that ruling is widely regarded as a grave violation of free speech and a stain on the history of American justice.
Last week, Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez wrote a letter asking Attorney General Pam Bondi if she is now under investigation for telling people their constitutional rights when interacting with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers.
She asked because President Trump’s border czar Tom Homan said he recently asked the Department of Justice whether Ocasio-Cortez is “impeding our law enforcement efforts” by putting out a webinar and a flyer in which she reminded anyone interacting with ICE that they need not open the door, speak, or sign anything, among other basic rights.
Informing people about their constitutional rights is plainly lawful and any effort to punish Ocasio-Cortez for doing so would unquestionably violate the First Amendment.
This isn’t a hard case or a close call. As my colleague Aaron Terr has pointed out, “This intimidation tactic is likely to discourage others from simply educating people about their fundamental rights.”
But what is the line between protected speech and obstruction? The answer is that the Constitution protects a significant amount of expression, including abstract advocacy of unlawful acts, providing information about the presence of law enforcement officers, and promoting civil disobedience.
Free speech protects discussing illegal behavior
The Supreme Court has repeatedly explained that “the mere tendency of speech to encourage unlawful acts is not a sufficient reason for banning it.” It has long distinguished between “the mere abstract teaching … of the moral propriety or even moral necessity” of violating the law and the actual incitement of lawless action. Only the latter is unprotected by the First Amendment. This is a high bar that requires speech to be “directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action.”
This is true even for speech advocating unquestionably unlawful behavior. For instance, in United States v. Williams, the Court held that “abstract advocacy” related to child pornography, such as the phrase “I encourage you to obtain child pornography,” was protected speech. And in Hess v. Indiana, the Court found that an anti-war protester urging his comrades to “take the fucking street again” was not sufficiently imminent to fall into the incitement exception.
But the most directly relevant example is the 2023 case United States v. Hansen, when the Court decided a law that criminalized encouraging illegal immigration was not unconstitutionally overbroad. FIRE and the Rutherford Institute wrote an amicus brief warning that the law, if interpreted broadly, could penalize speech urging civil disobedience.
In upholding the law, the Court interpreted its scope extremely narrowly to apply only to “the intentional solicitation or facilitation of … unlawful acts” — not to “abstract advocacy or general encouragement” — and it left the door open for further First Amendment challenges if the law was applied to constitutionally protected advocacy.
In other words, the Supreme Court recognized that advocacy like Ocasio-Cortez’s is clearly protected. Indeed, even more pointed advice on how to avoid arrest by ICE would also be protected. Only speech that intentionally directs an individual to engage in a specific illegal act crosses the line.
Warning people about the presence of law enforcement is also protected
The First Amendment also generally protects telling people that ICE is in a certain area, even if that allows people to evade ICE or other law enforcement. For example, in Friend v. Gasparino, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the First Amendment protected a man standing on a sidewalk with a “Cops Ahead” sign. As the Supreme Court has said, someone “might constitutionally be punished under a tailored statute that prohibited individuals from physically obstructing an officer’s investigation,” but “he or she may not be punished under a broad statute aimed at speech.”
This isn’t to say speech can never constitute obstruction of law enforcement. In limited circumstances, such as when speech is integral to the underlying crime like a robber demanding “your money or your life,” or someone in a criminal conspiracy warning his co-conspirators how to evade arrest, speech can lose First Amendment protection. Also, if someone is physically obstructing officers or refuses to leave when lawfully instructed to do so, that person’s actions won’t become protected even if those actions include otherwise protected speech.
But in general, warning people about law enforcement is constitutionally protected.
Advocating civil disobedience is a historically important form of free speech
Homan’s remarks and actions are particularly disturbing because they could chill speech encouraging civil disobedience, which has played a vital and noble role in American history — from the Boston Tea Party and the abolition of slavery to women’s suffrage and the civil rights movement and beyond.
It could even be said that there is nothing so quintessentially American as advocating for civil disobedience — and nothing more un-American than efforts to censor it.
With his second term underway, President Trump has moved aggressively to reshape federal spending. Organizations that promote “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) or “gender ideology,” for example, are at risk of losing government grants and contracts. Although the government has discretion in spending taxpayer dollars, some of the administration’s attempts to yank funding from groups based on their speech run headlong into the First Amendment.
New funding restrictions target everything from DEI to ‘Gulf of Mexico’
On Jan. 21, Trump issued an executive order that purports to require funding recipients to abandon “illegal DEI” programs but does not define “DEI” or explain which programs the administration deems unlawful. The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) reportedly cited the order in moving to cancel contracts with eight U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) contractors over DEI language on the contractors’ own websites and LinkedIn profiles, even though it was unrelated to their contractual obligations. Late last month, a federal court blocked key parts of the executive order on First Amendment grounds.
One thing is clear: The government cannot constitutionally use funding as a cudgel to control speech outside the funded activity.
DEI isn’t the administration’s only target. Another executive order bans the use of federal funds to “promote gender ideology.” Meanwhile, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) reportedly told The Nature Conservancy it would lose funding unless it adopted the term “Gulf of America” (echoing the White House’s ultimatum to the Associated Press to use the term or lose access to certain press events). And last week, Trump threatened to pull federal funding from any college that “allows illegal protests.”
Although these examples are different in important ways, they all raise First Amendment questions.
What does the Supreme Court have to say?
Several of Trump’s moves clash with decades of Supreme Court precedent. One thing is clear: The government cannot constitutionally use funding as a cudgel to control speech outside the funded activity. The funding is supposed to support a specific program or purchase, not give the state control over everything an institution does. The government can, however, decide whether to pay a group or person to speak on its behalf.
For instance, the Supreme Court held the government violated the First Amendment by forcing groups to denounce prostitution or lose funding for fighting HIV/AIDS. It also invalidated a ban on federal funding for public broadcasters who engaged in any editorializing, even with their own money.
Conversely, in Rust v. Sullivan, the Court upheld federal restrictions on abortion counseling in government-funded family planning programs — because Congress was subsidizing and controlling its own message about family planning.
One caveat: The government’s power to regulate speech within a funded activity is not absolute. The Court struck down a restriction on legal aid attorneys using federal grants to challenge welfare laws. Why? Unlike in Rust, the government wasn’t transmitting its own message — it was subsidizing legal aid attorneys’ advocacy on behalf of their indigent clients. Similarly, the University of Virginia — a public institution — violated the First Amendment when it denied a student magazine access to funding because of its religious viewpoint. The fund was for helping students express their own messages, not the university’s.
These same principles apply in other contexts where the government offers a financial benefit. Most Americans would rightly balk at the idea of a public school refusing to hire any Republicans, or a state government offering a tax exemption for Democrats only. Those policies would be plainly unconstitutional.
Trump’s funding restrictions: legal or overreach?
So how do Trump’s actual and proposed funding restrictions fit into this legal framework?
In partially blocking enforcement of Trump’s DEI executive order, a federal court emphasized that it unlawfully limited speech “outside the scope of the federal funding.” That means DOGE’s alleged targeting of HUD contractors for their DEI activities likely violates the First Amendment if those activities have nothing to do with their government work.
As for the “Gulf of America” mandate, the administration may be able to require The Nature Conservancy to use the term in official reports produced for NOAA. But if the mandate goes beyond that, it could also run into First Amendment problems.
And what about the executive order prohibiting use of federal funds to “promote gender ideology”? The only way this passes muster is if it controls the government’s own messaging or concerns non-speech activities, and not, for instance, if the government pulls a university’s funding because it believes a professor is somehow promoting such views. Congress funds universities to support the creation and spread of knowledge, not for faculty to act as government mouthpieces.
Pulling federal funding from colleges based solely on the views of student protests would also violate the First Amendment — and the administration cannot do so unilaterally. It’s one thing for the government to regulate its own speech, but quite another to punish colleges for how students express themselves on their own time. Trump’s statement referred to “illegal” protests, but his past remarks suggest his idea of “illegal” encompasses not just protest activity involving unlawful conduct but protected speech as well, such as whatever he deems “antisemitic propaganda.” This dovetails with how, during his first term, Trump directed civil rights agencies to use a definition of anti-Semitism that includes protected expression.
Efforts to deny federal funding to groups and institutions whose views the current administration dislikes seriously threaten Americans’ First Amendment rights. The government must tread carefully to avoid crossing the line into unconstitutional speech policing, otherwise the courts — and history — are unlikely to be on their side.
United States President Donald Trump’s first six weeks of his second term has been defined by 76 executive orders, the disestablishment of the national education department and establishment of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
One of the most controversial executive orders, which is a written directive signed by a president that orders immediate governmental action, was titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing,” signed on President Trump’s first day back in office on January 20, 2025.
He directed all federal DEI staff be placed on paid leave and, eventually, laid off. He has also signed another Executive Order, titled “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.”
DEI stands for diversity, equity and inclusion, and refers to programs and committees that help people from underrepresented backgrounds (women, Indigenous, Black, for instance) get into, and stay in, jobs or courses those people wouldn’t traditionally participate in. It is largely similar to the strategy of the Australian Universities Accord.
President Trump has also cut funding to schools and universities that do not cancel DEI programs. He labelled the programs “radical,” “wasteful” and said they demonstrate “immense public waste and shameful discrimination.”
The full effects of these Executive Orders and DEI changes are yet to be seen because decisions regarding DEI will ultimately be made by the court.
However, private companies in the US have walked away from internal DEI programs, including Meta (which has worked closely with Trump as of late), Google (which provides some services to the US government), Pepsi, Disney and multiple prominent banks.
There has been no significant walk away from DEI in Australian private companies, and many universities continue to discuss how to bolster and “future-proof” internal DEI programs.
Australia’s ambassador to the US from 2020 to 2023, Arthur Sinodinos, told the Universities Australia Solutions Summit last week that institutions are best off making decisions “based off their objectives,” but should enact genuine change, not just tick diversity boxes.
Arthur Sinodinos said DEI should be about achieving true diversity rather than ticking boxes. Picture: Sam Ruttyn
“My view on DEI is that [universities should] start from a posture that they want to make the best use of all the talent and resources available to them,” he said.
“If you’re also interested in trying to expand the reach of higher education to groups that might otherwise be disadvantaged, you have to find ways to do that, but in a way that also addresses the genuine issue.
“I think access to higher education is still important for a country like Australia, which has to make – given its population – the best use of the resources it’s got.
“The argument that you can just leave it to the market, the meritocracy will still be there [is wrong]. Frankly, in the market, some people start with a head start with with inbuilt advantages.”
President Trump’s former White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was also on the panel at the UA summit, said he thinks DEI programs in the US have gone “too far to one side.”
Former Trump White House chief of staffMick Mulvaney said he thinks DEI has gone “too far” in the US. Picture: UA
“One of the reasons you’re seeing the pushback against it in my country is that it went too far to one side. I don’t know where it is in this country, but at some point it may go too far, and the pushback will come.”
He also explained why this Trump term is already more action-packed than his first was at this time: the President expected to win in November, 2024, but not in 2016.
“Not only did [Trump] expect to win, [his team has] been working for four years on what they would do when they won,” he said.
“What are we gonna do the first day? The first week, the first month, the first 100 days? Which is why we’re seeing all these executive orders. It’s actually four years worth of planning coming forward.”
Mr Mulvaney said he thinks DEI could survive if its reasoning for existing is communicated in a tailored way.
He said Trump’s administration is receptive to initiatives that improve efficiency, productivity and merit.
“You could have a program that is good on on the climate, [for example,] but that’s not your selling pitch. That doesn’t register with the person you’re talking to,” he explained.
“You have to learn how to speak the language of the person you’re talking to. Don’t change what you’re doing, perhaps just simply change how you explain it.”
UA chief executive Luke Sheehy was asked after his National Press Club address last Wednesday whether he thinks an “anti-woke” sentiment will affect how universities function.
Luke Sheehy’s membership body discussed the impact of “Trump 2.0” at last week’s conference. Picture: UA
“Obviously there’s a major disruption that’s happened in America with Trump 2.0 … One of the things we’ve learned is, once articulated in a certain way, positive sentiment skyrockets for universities,” he responded.
“If you offer a simple proposition: we have 4,000 fewer teachers than we need today ,and universities are the only way to get those skilled workers into the workforce to support young people; we need 132,000 more nurses, etc.
“Then remove yourself from what happens on the front pages of newspapers and what occupies political pundits, and think about what the real Australian people need and want from the university sector.
“My hope is that the more we talk about the important role of universities and our core mission in education and research, the more Australians, irrespective of whether or not they went to university or not, they see the value for us as part of our future.”
The university sector’s declining “social license” has been a major topic of discussion of late for university leaders.
There is a growing sentiment that universities, and the knowledge economy, needs to “show” society why they’re worth the funding and enrolments.
“We always have more work to do. In an era where there is declining trust in institutions, I think it’s really important that universities invest in themselves in terms of how they engage with their communities,” Mr Sheehy continued.
President Trump posted a message on Truth Social this morning that put social media and college campuses on high alert. He wrote:
Colleges can and should respond to unlawful conduct, but the president does not have unilateral authority to revoke federal funds, even for colleges that allow “illegal” protests.
If a college runs afoul of anti-discrimination laws like Title VI or Title IX, the government may ultimately deny the institution federal funding by taking it to federal court, or via notice to Congress and an administrative hearing. It is not simply a discretionary decision that the president can make.
President Trump also lacks the authority to expel individual students, who are entitled to due process on public college campuses and, almost universally, on private campuses as well.
Today’s message will cast an impermissible chill on student protests about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Paired with President Trump’s 2019 executive order adopting an unconstitutional definition of anti-Semitism, and his January order threatening to deport international students for engaging in protected expression, students will rationally fear punishment for wholly protected political speech.
As FIRE knows too well from our work defending student and faculty rights under the Obama and Biden administrations, threatening schools with the loss of federal funding will result in a crackdown on lawful speech. Schools will censor first and ask questions later.
Even the most controversial political speech is protected by the First Amendment. As the Supreme Court reminds us, in America, we don’t use the law to punish those with whom we disagree. Instead, “[a]s a Nation we have chosen a different course—to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate.”
Misconduct or criminality — like true threats, vandalism, or discriminatory harassment, properly defined — is not protected by the First Amendment. In fact, discouraging and punishing such behavior is often vital to ensuring that others are able to peacefully make their voices heard.
However, students who engage in misconduct must still receive due process — whether through a campus or criminal tribunal. This requires fair, consistent application of existing law or policy, in a manner that respects students’ rights.
President Trump needs to stand by his past promise to be a champion for free expression. That means doing so for all views — including those his administration dislikes.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
Dive Brief:
Diversity, equity, inclusion and accessibility best practices are not illegal, said Massachusetts Attorney General Andrea Joy Campbell and Illinois AG Kwame Raoul, in a multi-state DEIA at work guidance.
In the Feb. 13 letter, the AGs said the federal government lacks the power to issue executive orders that prohibit “otherwise lawful activities in the private sector or mandates the wholesale removal of these policies and practices within private organizations, including those that receive federal contracts and grants.”
The AGs of Arizona, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island and Vermont joined in issuing the guidance.
Dive Insight:
The letter came as a response to constituent concerns about the continued viability of DEIA, the AGs said, mainly in light of President Donald Trump’s executive orders.
The primary EO in question, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” includes a directive that “order[s] all agencies to enforce our longstanding civil-rights laws and to combat illegal private-sector DEI preferences, mandates, policies, programs, and activities.”
The executive order alleges that colleges, along with other organizations, have “adopted and actively use dangerous, demeaning, and immoral race- and sex-based preferences under the guise of so-called … ‘diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility.’”
Campbell and Raoul said the order “conflates unlawful preferences in hiring and promotion with sound and lawful best practices for promoting diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility in the workforce.”
While the judge did not prevent the U.S. Department of Justice from proceeding with its investigation of private-sector DEI programs, Judge Adam Abelson held that the plaintiffs would likely succeed with their First and Fifth amendment claims, as well as claims alleging violations of the separation of powers clause.
Prior to the most recent guidance, Democrat attorney generals have made it their priority to speak up about DEI: Last summer, the AGs defended the American Bar Association’s diversity requirements for law schools.
More recently, the Democrat AGs said that the U.S. is “on the brink of dictatorship” due to Trump’s executive orders challenging the scope of the Constitution.
A key takeaway for HR? “Properly developed and implemented initiatives aimed at ensuring that diverse perspectives are included in the workplace help prevent unlawful discrimination,” the AGs said.
U.S. President Donald Trump views Israel’s war on Gaza through the eyes of the real estate developer he was before he entered politics.
“We have an opportunity to do something that could be phenomenal,” he said at a joint news conference with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on 4 February. “And I don’t want to be cute. I don’t want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle East.”
He was talking about the possibility of forcing 2.2 million Palestinians from Gaza to make place for “the Riviera of the Middle East.”
Elaborating the idea in social media posts and interviews, the U.S. president left no doubt that he saw one of the world’s most complex problems — the Israeli-Palestinian conflict — as a real estate deal.
Trump explained that the United States could take over Gaza, a place where tens of thousands of people have been killed by Israeli air strikes and ground troops over the past 16 months.
Taking ownership of the conflict
Israel has pummelled Gaza ever since 7 October 2024 when gunmen from the militant Hamas group stormed across the border, killed 1,200 Israelis and took more than 250 people hostage.
“I do see a long-term ownership position and I see it bringing great stability to that part of the Middle East and maybe the entire Middle East,” Trump said. “We’re going to take over that piece and we’re going to develop it, create thousands and thousands of jobs. And it will be something that the entire Middle East can be very proud of.”
To make that possible, the people now living in the future Riviera must leave, possibly to neighbouring Jordan or Egypt, he said.
Leaders of both countries have rejected that idea, as has the Arab League, the Secretary General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres and a host of human rights groups.
Conspicuously absent from statements by Trump and officials of his administration was the matter of international law.
The thorny issue of international law
The forced deportation of civilians is prohibited by an array of provisions of the Geneva Conventions which the United States has ratified.
Forced deportation has been considered a war crime ever since the Nuremberg Trial of Nazi officials.
The International Criminal Court lists the kind of forcible population transfer visualized by Trump’s Riviera of the Middle East plan as both a war crime and a crime against humanity. (The United States is not a member of the court because it never ratified the Rome Statute on the court’s establishment).
The legal and geo-political arguments triggered by Trump’s controversial proposal often leave out the collective trauma that shapes the Palestinians’ national identity and political aspirations.
That trauma dates back to the violence preceding the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948, more than 50 years after an Austrian Jew, Theodor Herzl, published a book (Der Judenstaat) that inspired the Zionist movement.
A history of forced expulsion
An estimated 700,000 Palestinians fled or were expelled from what is now Israel during the war between Zionist paramilitary fighters of the Haganah, the forerunners of today’s Israeli Defence Force, and regular soldiers of six Arab countries.
Palestinians call that forced exodus the Naqba (the catastrophe). At the time, many expected to return to their homes once the fighting was over.
A resolution by the U.N. General Assembly seven months after the formal establishment of Israel provided for a right of return for those who fled. A General Assembly resolution in 1974 declared the right to return an “inalienable right.”
Like all General Assembly resolutions, the 1948 vote was not binding, but it was explicit: “Refugees wishing to return to their homes and live at peace with their neighbours should be permitted to do so at the earliest possible date and that compensation should be paid for the property of those choosing not to return…”
Neither happened but the concept that those who left had a right to return has lived on for four generations, with hopes fading gradually but not entirely. There are still families who keep as heirlooms keys to the houses they fled in the turmoil of the Naqba.
How history plays out today
This history helps explain why today’s Palestinians in Gaza take seriously Trump’s proposal to resettle them all and their fear that any resettlement would result in permanent exile.
Trump’s “Riviera” proposal came as a surprise, apparently even to Netanyahu who stood next to him at the press conference. But it appears to have been a subject of discussion inside the Trump family for some time.
At an event at Harvard university in February 2024, Trump’s son-in-law, Jared Kushner, mused about the untapped value of the Gaza strip and its beautiful beaches. “Gaza’s waterfront property, it could be very valuable, if people would focus on building up livelihoods,” Kushner said.
He did not specify which people would do the building but his father-in-law appears to be determined that it would not be the people now living there.
Who, then? It’s one of many questions yet to be answered in the era of Trump 2.0.
Questions to consider:
• What is one problem Trump will have if he wants the United States to take over Gaza?
• Why do many Palestinians take Trump’s threat of relocation seriously?
• What makes the idea that people have the right to return to homes their ancestors were force out of complicated?
Higher Education Inquirer : “Will Universities Surrender or Resist?” Scholar Slams Trump’s Threat to Defund Universities (Democracy Now!)
“Will Universities Surrender or Resist?” Scholar Slams Trump’s Threat to Defund Universities (Democracy Now!)
The Trump administration has issued a two-week ultimatum for schools and universities across the United States to end all programs related to diversity, equity and inclusion — DEI — or risk losing federal funding. The Department of Education has already canceled some $600 million in grants for teacher training on race, social justice and other topics as part of its crusade against “woke” policies. This comes as President Donald Trump has said he wants to abolish the agency and tapped major Trump donor and former professional wrestling executive Linda McMahon to carry out that goal; she is expected to be confirmed by the Senate with little or no Republican opposition. Education scholar Julian Vasquez Heilig, who teaches at Western Michigan University, says Trump’s moves are part of “an attempt to privatize education” in the United States, with DEI used as a wedge to accomplish a larger restructuring of social structures. “Higher education hasn’t faced a crisis like this since potentially McCarthyism.”
At more than a dozen events across the country Wednesday, workers and faculty at colleges and universities gathered to speak out against what they see as an attack on federal research funding, lifesaving medical research and education.
In Washington, D.C., hundreds rallied in the front of the Department of Health and Human Services, while in Philadelphia, hundreds gathered at the office of Senator Dave McCormick, a Pennsylvania Republican. Other protests were planned at colleges in Seattle and St. Louis, among others.
The rallies were part of a national day of action organized by a coalition of unions representing higher ed workers, students and their allies. The coalition includes the American Association of University Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, Higher Ed Labor United and United Auto Workers, among others.
Hundreds in Philly braved the freezing temps to rally for our healthcare, research, and jobs! ❄️💪Workers & students from CCP, Drexel, UPenn, Rutgers, Temple, Jefferson, Arcadia, Rowan, Moore—alongside elected leaders & union presidents—made it clear: We won’t back down. #LaborForHigherEd
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has proposed capping reimbursements for indirect research costs, laid off hundreds of federal employees and cracked down on diversity, equity and inclusion. Most recently, the Education Department gave colleges and K-12 schools until Feb. 28 to end all race-conscious student programming, resources and financial aid. Higher education advocates have called that directive “dystopian” and “very much outside of the law.”
Colleges and universities sued to block the rate cut for indirect costs, warning it would mean billions in financial losses and an end to some research. Some colleges have already frozen hiring in response, even though the cut is temporarily on hold.
“If politics decides what I can and cannot study, I’m afraid I will fail the very people who need this research and inspire me to do it,” said Lindsay Guare, a doctoral student at the University of Pennsylvania, in a news release about the Philadelphia event. “In an ideal world, I would be fighting to expand support for my science instead of fighting to keep it afloat … The work done in Philadelphia’s institutions doesn’t just lead the world in innovation—it saves lives.”
Did
you know that Truthout is a nonprofit and independently funded by
readers like you? If you value what we do, please support our work with a donation.
Trump appears bent on ridding schools of dangerous practices like critical thinking and an unsanitized study of history.
In the initial days of his second term, President Donald Trump issued several executive orders “seeking
to control how schools teach about race and gender, direct more tax
dollars to private schools, and deport pro-Palestinian protesters.” On January 29, 2025, he signed the “Ending Radical Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling”
executive order, which mandates the elimination of curricula that the
administration deems as promoting “radical, anti-American ideologies.”
This executive order is not just an attack on critical race theory or
teachings about systemic racism — it is a cornerstone of an
authoritarian ideology designed to eliminate critical thought, suppress
historical truth and strip educators of their autonomy. Under the guise
of combating “divisiveness,” it advances a broader war on education as a
democratizing force, turning schools into dead zones of the
imagination. By threatening to strip federal funding from institutions
that refuse to conform, this policy functions as an instrument of
ideological indoctrination, enforcing a sanitized, nationalistic
narrative that erases histories of oppression and resistance while
deepening a culture of ignorance and compliance.
Concurrently, President Trump issued the “Expanding Educational Freedom and Opportunity for Families”
executive order, aiming to enhance school choice by redirecting federal
funds to support charter schools and voucher programs. This policy
enables parents to use public funds for private and religious school
tuition. While proponents claim that this legislation empowers parents
and fosters competition, in reality, it is a calculated effort to defund
and privatize public education, undermining it as a democratizing
public good. As part of a broader far right assault on education, this
policy redirects essential resources away from public schools, deepening
educational inequality and advancing an agenda that seeks to erode
public investment in a just and equitable society.
In the name of eliminating radical indoctrination in schools, a third executive order,
which purportedly aims at ending antisemitism, threatens to deport
pro-Palestinian student protesters by revoking their visas, warning that even those legally in the country could be targeted
for their political views. In a stark display of authoritarianism,
Trump’s executive order unapologetically stated that free speech would
not be tolerated. Reuters
made this clear in reporting that one fact sheet ominously declared: “I
will … quickly cancel the student visas of all Hamas sympathizers on
college campuses, which have been infested with radicalism like never
before. To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist
protests, we put you on notice: come 2025, we will find you, and we will
deport you.”
By gutting federal oversight, he is handing the fate of education to
reactionary state legislatures and corporate interests, ensuring that
knowledge is shaped by a state held captive by billionaires and far
right extremists. This is the logic of authoritarianism: to hollow out
democratic institutions and replace education with white Christian
propaganda and a pedagogy of repression. At issue here is an attempt to
render an entire generation defenseless against the very forces seeking
to dominate them.
What we are witnessing is not just an educational crisis but a
full-scale war on institutions that not only defend democracy but enable
it. What is under siege in this attack is not only the critical
function of education but the very notion that it should be defined
through its vision of creating a central feature of democracy, educating
informed and critically engaged citizens.
These executive actions represent an upgraded and broader version of
McCarthyite and apartheid-era education that seeks to dictate how
schools teach about race and gender, funnel more taxpayer dollars into
private institutions, and deport Palestinian protesters. The irony is
striking: The White House defends these regressive measures of
sanitizing history, stripping away the rights of transgender students
and erasing critical race theory as efforts to “end indoctrination in
American education.” In truth, this is not about the pursuit of freedom
or open inquiry, nor is it about fostering an education that cultivates
informed, critically engaged citizens. At its core, this agenda is a
deliberate attack on education as a public good — one that threatens to
dismantle not only public institutions, but the very essence of public
and higher education and its culture of criticism and democracy. The
urgency of this moment cannot be overstated: The future of education
itself is at stake.
In the raging currents of contemporary political and cultural life,
where fascist ideologies are rising, one of the most insidious and
all-encompassing forces at play is the violence of forgetting — a plague
of historical amnesia. This phenomenon, which I have referred to as “organized forgetting,”
describes the systemic erasure of history and its violent consequences,
particularly in the public sphere. This is especially evident in the
current historical moment, when books are banned in
libraries, public schools and higher education across countries, such
as the United States, Hungary, India, China and Russia. Ignoring past
atrocities, historical injustices and uncomfortable truths about a
society’s foundation is not merely an oversight — it constitutes an
active form of violence that shapes both our collective consciousness
and political realities. What we are witnessing here is an assault by
the far right on memory that is inseparable from what Maximillian
Alvarez describes as a battle over power — over who is remembered, who
is erased, who is cast aside and who is forcibly reduced to something
less than human. This struggle is not just about history; it is about
whose stories are allowed to shape the present and the future. Alvarez captures this reality with striking clarity and is worth quoting at length:
Among the prizes at stake in the endless war of politics is history
itself. The battle for power is always a battle to determine who gets
remembered, how they will be recalled, where and in what forms their
memories will be preserved. In this battle, there is no room for neutral
parties: every history and counter-history must fight and scrap and
claw and spread and lodge itself in the world, lest it be forgotten or
forcibly erased. All history, in this sense, is the history of empire — a
bid for control of that greatest expanse of territory, the past.
Organized forgetting also helped fuel the resurgence of Donald Trump,
as truth and reason are being systematically replaced by lies,
corruption, denial and the weaponization of memory itself. A culture of
questioning, critique and vision is not simply disappearing in the
United States — it is actively maligned, disparaged and replaced by a
darkness that, as Ezra Klein
observes, is “stupefyingly vast, stretching from self-destructive
incompetence to muddling incoherence to authoritarian consolidation.”
This erosion affects institutions of law, civil society and education
— pillars that rely on memory, informed judgment and evidence to foster
historical understanding and civic responsibility. The attack on the
common good goes beyond the distractions of an “attention economy”designed
to distort reality; it reflects a deliberate effort to sever the ties
between history and meaning. Time is reduced to fragmented episodes,
stripped of the shared narratives that connect the past, present and
future.
This crisis embodies a profound collapse of memory, history,
education and democracy itself. A culture of manufactured ignorance —
rooted in the rejection of history, facts and critical thought — erases
accountability for electing a leader who incited insurrection and
branded his opponents as “enemies from within.” Such authoritarian
politics thrive on historical amnesia, lulling society into passivity,
eroding collective memory and subverting civic agency. This is
epitomized by Trump’s declaration
on “Fox & Friends” that he would punish schools that teach students
accurate U.S. history, including about slavery and racism in the
country. The call to silence dangerous memories is inseparable from the
violence of state terrorism — a force that censors and dehumanizes
dissent, escalating to the punishment, torture and imprisonment of
truth-tellers and critics who dare to hold oppressive power accountable.
At its core, the violence of forgetting operates through the denial
and distortion of historical events, particularly those that challenge
the dominant narratives of power. From the colonial atrocities and the
struggles for civil rights to the history of Palestine-Israel relations,
many of the most significant chapters of history are either glossed
over or erased altogether. This strategic omission serves the interests
of those in power, enabling them to maintain control by silencing
inconvenient truths. As the historian Timothy Snyder
reminds us, by refusing to acknowledge the violence of the past,
society makes it far easier to perpetuate injustices in the present. The
politics of organized forgetting, the censoring of history and the
attack on historical consciousness are fundamental to the rise of far
right voices in the U.S. and across the world.
With the rise of regressive memory laws, designed to repress what
authoritarian governments consider dangerous and radical interpretations
of a country’s past, historical consciousness is transformed into a
form of historical amnesia. One vivid example of a regressive memory law
was enacted by Trump during his first term. The 1776 Report,
which right-wingers defended as a “restoration of American education,”
was in fact an attempt to eliminate from the teaching of history any
reference to a legacy of colonialism, slavery and movements which
highlighted elements of American history that were unconscionable,
anti-democratic and morally repugnant. Snyder highlights the emergence
of memory laws in a number of states. He writes in a 2021 New York Times article:
As of this writing, five states (Idaho, Iowa, Tennessee, Texas and
Oklahoma) have passed laws that direct and restrict discussions of
history in classrooms. The Department of Education of a sixth (Florida)
has passed guidelines with the same effect. Another 12 state
legislatures are still considering memory laws. The particulars of these
laws vary. The Idaho law is the most Kafkaesque in its censorship: It
affirms freedom of speech and then bans divisive speech. The Iowa law
executes the same totalitarian pirouette. The Tennessee and Texas laws
go furthest in specifying what teachers may and may not say. In
Tennessee teachers must not teach that the rule of law is “a series of
power relationships and struggles among racial or other groups.”… The
Idaho law mentions Critical Race Theory; the directive from the Florida
school board bans it in classrooms. The Texas law forbids teachers from
requiring students to understand the 1619 Project. It is a perverse
goal: Teachers succeed if students do not understand something.
A major aspect of this forgetting and erasure of historical memory is the role of ignorance,
which has become not just widespread but weaponized in modern times.
Ignorance, particularly in U.S. society, has shifted from being a
passive lack of knowledge to an active refusal to engage with critical
issues. This is amplified by the spectacle-driven nature of contemporary
media and the increasing normalization of a culture of lies and the
embrace of a language of violence, which not only thrives on distraction
rather than reflection, but has become a powerful force for spreading
bigotry, racial hatred and right-wing lies. In addition, the mainstream
media’s obsession with spectacle — be it political drama, celebrity
culture or sensationalist stories — often overshadows the more
important, yet less glamorous, discussions about historical violence and
systemic injustice.
This intellectual neglect allows for a dangerous cycle to persist,
where the erasure of history enables the continuation of violence and
oppression. Systems of power benefit from this amnesia, as it allows
them to maintain the status quo without having to answer for past
wrongs. When society refuses to remember or address past injustices —
whether it’s slavery, imperialism or economic exploitation — those in
power can continue to exploit the present without fear of historical
accountability.
To strip education of its critical power is to rob democracy of its transformative potential.
The cultural impact of this organized forgetting is profound. Not
only does it create a void in public memory, but it also stunts
collective growth. Without the lessons of the past, it becomes nearly
impossible to learn from mistakes and address the root causes of social
inequalities. The failure to remember makes it harder to demand
meaningful change, while reproducing and legitimating ongoing far right
assaults on democracy.
The violence of organized forgetting is not a mere act of neglect; it
is a deliberate cultural and intellectual assault that undercuts the
foundations of any meaningful democracy. By erasing the past, society
implicitly condones the ongoing oppression of marginalized groups and
perpetuates harmful ideologies that thrive in ignorance. This erasure
silences the voices of those who have suffered — denying them the space
to speak their truth and demand justice. It is not limited to historical
injustices alone; it extends to the present, silencing those who
courageously criticize contemporary violence, such as Israel’s
U.S.-backed genocidal war on Gaza, and those brave enough to hold power
accountable.
The act of forgetting is not passive; it actively supports systems of
oppression and censorship, muffling dissent and debate, both of which
are essential for a healthy democracy.
Equally dangerous is the form of historical amnesia that has come to
dominate our contemporary political and cultural landscape. This
organized forgetting feeds into a pedagogy of manufactured ignorance
that prioritizes emotion over reason and spectacle over truth. In this
process, history is fragmented and distorted, making it nearly
impossible to construct a coherent understanding of the past. As a
result, public institutions — particularly education — are undermined,
as critical thinking and social responsibility give way to shallow,
sensationalized narratives. Higher education, once a bastion for the
development of civic literacy and the moral imperative of understanding
our role as both individuals and social agents, is now attacked by
forces seeking to cleanse public memory of past social and political
progress. Figures like Trump embody this threat, working to erase the
memory of strides made in the name of equality, justice and human
decency. This organized assault on historical memory and intellectual
rigor strikes at the heart of democracy itself. When we allow the
erasure of history and the undermining of critical thought, we risk
suffocating the ideals that democracy promises: justice, equality and
accountability.
A democracy cannot thrive in the absence of informed and engaged
agents that are capable of questioning, challenging and reimagining a
future different from the present. Without such citizens, the very
notion of democracy becomes a hollow, disembodied ideal — an illusion of
freedom without the substance of truth or responsibility. Education, in
this context, is not merely a tool for transmitting knowledge; it is
the foundation and bedrock of political consciousness. To be educated,
to be a citizen, is not a neutral or passive state — it is a vital,
active political and moral engagement with the world, grounded in
critical thinking and democratic possibility. It is a recognition that
the act of learning and the act of being a citizen are inextricable from
each other. To strip education of its critical power is to rob
democracy of its transformative potential.
Confronting the violence of forgetting requires a shift in how we
engage with history. Intellectuals, educators and activists must take up
the responsibility of reintroducing the painful truths of the past into
public discourse. This is not about dwelling in the past for its own
sake, but about understanding its relevance to the present and future.
To break the cycles of violence, society must commit to remembering, not
just for the sake of memory, but as a critical tool for progress.
Moreover, engaging with history honestly requires recognizing that
the violence of forgetting is not a one-time event but a continual
process. Systems of power don’t simply forget; they actively work to
erase, rewrite and sanitize historical narratives. This means that the
fight to remember is ongoing and requires constant vigilance. It’s not
enough to simply uncover historical truths; society must work to ensure
that these truths are not forgotten again, buried under the weight of
media spectacles, ideological repression and political theater.
Ultimately, the violence of forgetting is an obstacle to genuine
social change. Without confronting the past — acknowledging the violence
and injustices that have shaped our world — we cannot hope to build a
more just and informed future. To move forward, any viable democratic
social order must reckon with its past, break free from the bonds of
ignorance, and commit to creating a future based on knowledge, justice
and accountability.
The task of confronting and dismantling the violent structures shaped
by the power of forgetting is immense, yet the urgency has never been
more pronounced. In an era where the scope and power of new pedagogical
apparatuses such as social media and AI dominate our cultural and
intellectual landscapes, the challenge becomes even more complex. While
they hold potential for education and connection, these technologies are
controlled by a reactionary ruling class of financial elite and
billionaires, and they are increasingly wielded to perpetuate
disinformation, fragment history and manipulate public discourse. The
authoritarian algorithms that drive these platforms increasingly
prioritize sensationalism over substance, lies over truth, the
appropriation of power over social responsibility, and in doing so,
reinforce modes of civic illiteracy, while attacking those fundamental
institutions which enable critical perspectives and a culture of
questioning.
The vital need for collective action and intellectual engagement to
reclaim and restore historical truth, critical thinking and social
responsibility is urgent. The present historical moment, both
unprecedented and alarming, resonates with Antonio Gramsci’s reflection
on an earlier era marked by the rise of fascism: “The old world is
dying, and the new world struggles to be born; now is the time of
monsters.”
In the face of a deepening crisis of history, memory and agency, any
meaningful resistance must be collective, disruptive and
unapologetically unsettling — challenging entrenched orthodoxies and
dismantling the forces that perpetuate ignorance and injustice. This
struggle needs to be both radical in its essence and uncompromising in
its demands for social change, recognizing education as inseparable from
politics and the tangible challenges people face in their everyday
lives. In this collective effort lies the power to dismantle the
barriers to truth, rebuild the foundations of critical thought, and
shape a future rooted in knowledge, justice and a profound commitment to
make power accountable. Central to this vision is the capacity to learn
from history, to nurture a historical consciousness that informs our
present and to reimagine agency as an essential force in the enduring
struggle for democracy. This call for a radical imagination cannot be
confined to classrooms but must emerge as a transformative force
embedded in a united, multiracial, working-class movement. Only then can
we confront the urgent crises of our time.
We’re resisting Trump’s authoritarian pressure.
As
the Trump administration moves a mile-a-minute to implement right-wing
policies and sow confusion, reliable news is an absolute must.
Truthout
is working diligently to combat the fear and chaos that pervades the
political moment. We’re requesting your support at this moment because
we need it – your monthly gift allows us to publish uncensored,
nonprofit news that speaks with clarity and truth in a moment when
confusion and misinformation are rampant. As well, we’re looking with
hope at the material action community activists are taking. We’re
uplifting mutual aid projects, the life-sustaining work of immigrant and
labor organizers, and other shows of solidarity that resist the
authoritarian pressure of the Trump administration.
As we work to dispel the atmosphere of political despair, we ask that you contribute to our journalism. Over 80 percent of Truthout’s
funding comes from small individual donations from our community of
readers, and over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring
monthly donors.
8
days remain in our fundraiser, and you can help by giving today.
Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.
This article is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0), and you are free to share and republish under the terms of the license.
