Tag: Trumps

  • Seven free speech groups issue a call to oppose Trump’s First Amendment violations… Why aren’t there more? — First Amendment News 471

    Seven free speech groups issue a call to oppose Trump’s First Amendment violations… Why aren’t there more? — First Amendment News 471

    There’s some very weird, strange and dangerous shit going on out there right now. In America, they are persecuting people for using their right to free speech and voicing their dissent. This is happening now. — Bruce Springsteen (May 14)

    Was “the Boss” being partisan there? Donald Trump thought so:

    “This dried out ‘prune’ of a rocker (his skin is all atrophied!) ought to KEEP HIS MOUTH SHUT until he gets back into the Country, that’s just ‘standard fare.’ Then we’ll all see how it goes for him!”

    Just goes to show that there are two sides, both of them “partisan.” The singer has his partisan views, and so does the suppressor. We just need to chill, get along, and hear both sides. Ah yes, a Kumbaya embrace — yuck!

    The ‘Big Chill’

    Do you remember those “nonpartisan” folks who were so outraged by what was going on in the cancel culture world of college campuses? How they lamented the way the censorial mindset was choking the First Amendment? Oh, those First Amendment champions were so incensed.

    And fair enough, things were wildly out of control and those liberals responsible for supporting or allowing such censorship had to be called out. Again, fair enough. Of course, those who tolerated college censorship (dare I say “liberals”?) are now livid by what is going on. Rightfully so.

    But where are those guardians of free speech (dare I say “conservatives”) now? When never a day goes by when the Trump administration does not abridge the First Amendment with wild abandon?

    Censorship is censorship!

    Given where we are today, I’m tired of such rhetorical gaming. Censorship is censorship, period! The hell with the thinking that one must walk on “nonpartisan” eggshells before speaking too loudly or too often against censorship when it is as constant as it is today under this administration.

    Take heed: It was not partisan to boldly condemn John Adams or Woodrow Wilson or Joseph McCarthy for their crusades of suppression. And it was not partisan to call out their supporters who sat silently in the face of such tyranny. In such a world, there are not “two sides” such that the likes of Bill Maher could dine with “nonpartisan” delight with a “measured” opponent of free expression.

    Seven free expression groups speak out — Yes!

    Thus, I was delighted to learn that seven groups had written an open letter to “universities, media organizations, law firms, and businesses” to stand up against the “Trump administration’s multi-front assault on First Amendment freedoms.”

    Before I say more, let me quote from the timely and important open letter that these seven groups just released. First this: “In little more than 100 days, President Trump and the agencies under his control have threatened First Amendment rights through a breathtaking array of actions.”

    After that introduction, they listed an indictment of free speech abridgments, and in a style reminiscent of the indictment in the Declaration of Independence, they have delineated specific things the administration has done (I have added bullets to their text):

    • They have sought to control speech and association by imposing unconstitutional conditions on a wide range of federal grantees and contractors.
    • They have sanctioned lawyers for their representation of people whom the president views as political enemies.
    • They have arrested, detained, and threatened to deport international students — including lawful permanent residents — solely because of their participation in lawful political protest.
    • They have purged crucial datasets from government websites, gutted agency offices responsible for compliance with the Freedom of Information Act, and imposed new and indefensible restraints on public employees’ right to speak on matters of public concern.
    • They have invoked civil rights laws to justify extensive and unwarranted intrusions into universities’ autonomy and academic freedom.
    • Resurrecting a policy introduced during President Trump’s first term, they have barred legal scholars from providing information and expertise to the International Criminal Court.
    • They have banned the Associated Press from the White House press pool because it declined to update its stylebook to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America.”
    • Books have been removed from U.S. military service academy libraries, and other federally operated educational institutions, because they do not conform to the administration’s ideological preferences, and federal funds are being used as a cudgel to censor curriculum and promote the administration’s viewpoints in schools.
    • The Federal Communications Commission has threatened to revoke the licenses of television and radio networks and stations whose reporting the administration disfavors.

    As Professor Timothy Zick has so ably documented, the Trump administration’s assault on free expression is unprecedented. The following assessment from the seven groups echoes what is reliably set off in detailed form in Zick’s repository over at First Amendment Watch:

    There have been other times in our nation’s history that witnessed sustained and misguided efforts to suppress speech. All of our organizations have opposed both Democratic and Republican administrations when they abridged First Amendment freedoms — as all of them, at various points, have done. But we share the view that the Trump administration’s actions, taken together, represent an extraordinary and in some ways unprecedented challenge to First Amendment rights and the values they embody [emphasis added]. These actions call for a forceful, uncompromising response. Some institutions have countered in exactly this way, to their credit.

    Where the hell are other free speech groups and individuals? 

    Against that backdrop, I ask: where the hell are all those other groups, who when it came to campus censorship were so outspoken in defense of free expression? Why don’t they have their own open letters? Why are so many of those groups not openly endorsing the courageous assessments of those who, like Judge Michael Luttig, condemn the tyranny that is Trump? Too many conservative and liberal groups are afraid to speak out, afraid to put their names on the line. 

    Judge Michael Luttig at a confirmation hearing

    Judge Michael Luttig

    What we are witnessing today is a BIG CHILL effect of enormous magnitude. Some liberals (in law firms, universities, think tanks, and elsewhere) are afraid to speak out, lest they be attacked by one of the president’s executive orders. By the same token, some conservatives are afraid to speak out (on their blogs or elsewhere) for fear that they will lose stock in their ideological world, or fall victim to Trump’s wrath.

    Bottom line: Tyranny is tyranny, and condemning it is not partisan — it’s American!

    Recent samples of the BIG CHILL in suppressive operation

    Related:

    The decision by nine of America’s biggest law firms to “bend the knee” to President Trump drew condemnation among lawyers across the political spectrum, including from attorneys inside the firms who quit or launched resistance campaigns. Others have chosen a less career-limiting form of rebellion.

    That would be offering leaks to Above the Law, a pugnacious legal industry website best known for scoops about law firm annual bonuses, snarky coverage of legal news and salacious stories of barristers behaving badly. But since March, when Mr. Trump began targeting for retribution top law firms whose clients and past work he does not like, Above the Law has become a rage read for lawyers incensed at the firms that accommodated him.

    Fueled by a stream of inside-the-conference-room exclusives, Above the Law delivers a daily public spanking to what it calls “The Yellow-Bellied Nine.” Those are the elite firms that pledged a collective $1 billion in free legal work to Mr. Trump after he signed executive orders threatening to bar their lawyers from federal buildings, suspend their security clearances and cancel their government contracts.

    Coming next week on FAN: Timothy Zick on institutional independence and democratic backsliding

    Although the Trump Administration’s agenda regarding freedom of expression can appear chaotic, one consistent strategy has been attacking institutions that are essential to checking executive power. It is no accident that many of President Trump’s Executive Orders and the agency actions they direct have targeted the media, universities and faculty, law firms, libraries, and museums. These and other entities are sometimes referred to as “First Amendment institutions” or “knowledge institutions,” because they contribute to and facilitate public discourse and are necessary to a free and open society.

    ‘[Re]Distributed for Conference’ — SCOTUS mantra in some First Amendment cases

    Apparently, the Justices are so overworked with all the Trump emergency appeals that they have to continue to pause on what to do with some of the First Amendment cases on their docket. For example, consider the following petitions:

    Jessica Levinson on Comey, protected speech, and DOJ investigation

    Professor Jessica Levinson of Loyola Law School

    Professor Jessica Levinson

    Questions are swirling following the launch of a federal investigation into former FBI Director James Comey over a now-deleted social media post of seashells arranged in the numbers “8647” on the beach. (“Eighty-six” is commonly understood to mean “get rid of.” President Trump is the 45th and 47th President of the United States.) Was Comey calling for the assassination of Trump? Or was he, as he has since stated, expressing a political opinion about Trump?

    If Comey’s post amounted to a siren song, beseeching others to kill the president, he can be punished for his speech. But should Comey’s post be viewed as political advocacy, which I argue it should, he is entitled to the full protection of the First Amendment.

    The genuine threat is not that a president’s life is in danger, but that the Trump administration is attempting to silence the speech of political adversaries. Even if it is unlikely that Comey faces anything more than a slap on the wrist for his post, the decision to open an investigation in and of itself should be worrisome. Comey has access to the media and resources to defend himself. Not everyone does. And the prospect of chilling political speech critical of government officials should concern all of us.

    Statement from the Institute for Free Speech on party coordination limits

    The Institute for Free Speech commends the Department of Justice’s decision in National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC to acknowledge that federal limits on coordinated expenditures between political parties and their candidates violate the First Amendment. In a dramatic and unusual shift, the DOJ is now asking the Supreme Court to overturn its 2001 decision in Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee v. FEC (Colorado II).

    “The Solicitor General’s recommendation that the Court grant the petition is a commendable move that acknowledges the First Amendment flaws in these limits,” said Institute President David Keating. “As we argued in our amicus brief, the factual basis underpinning Colorado II has been proven wrong by real-world evidence.”

    The Institute’s brief demonstrated that over half the states allow unlimited party coordination, including 17 states that also restrict individual contributions—yet there is no evidence of these arrangements leading to corruption. The DOJ’s brief now acknowledges this reality, recognizing that the law represents a “prophylaxis-upon-prophylaxis approach” that fails heightened First Amendment scrutiny.

    “When more than half the states manage to operate elections without restricting coordinated party expenditures and without giving rise to any relevant quid pro quo corruption, it is hard to believe that the law is ‘necessary to prevent the anticipated harm,’” noted the Institute’s brief.

    The NRSC case challenges federal limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with their candidates under 52 U.S.C. 30116(d). These restrictions severely burden the core function of political parties—to support and promote their candidates.

    [ . . . ]

    To read the Institute’s amicus brief in the case National Republican Senatorial Committee v. FEC, click here. To read the Solicitor General’s just-filed brief, click here. To read Institute Senior Attorney Brett Nolan’s expert analysis on the Sixth Circuit’s decision in NRSC, click here.

    Claim: The ‘deluge of pornography has had a negative impact on modern society’

    Christine Emba of the American Institute for Boys and Men Images

    Christine Emba

    It’s hard not to see a connection between porn-trained behaviors — the choking, slapping and spitting that have become the norm even in early sexual encounters — and young women’s distrust of young men. And in the future, porn will become only more addictive and effective as a teacher, as virtual reality makes it more immersive and artificial intelligence allows it to be customizable. (For a foretaste of where this might end up, you can read a recent essay by Aella, a researcher and sex worker, on Substack defending A.I. child porn.)

    In her new book “Girl on Girl: How Pop Culture Turned a Generation of Women Against Themselves,” Sophie Gilbert critiques the mass culture of the 1990s and 2000s, noting how it was built on female objectification and hyperexposure. A generation of women, she explains, were persuaded by the ideas that bodies were commodities to be molded, surveilled, fetishized or made the butt of the joke, that sexual power, which might give some fleeting leverage, was the only power worth having. This lie curdled the emerging promise of 20th-century feminism, and as our ambitions shrank, the potential for exploitation grew.

    [ . . . ]

    [W]hile Ms. Gilbert is unsparing in her descriptions of pornography’s warping effect on culture and its consumers, she’s curiously reluctant to acknowledge what seems obvious: Porn hasn’t been good for us. While her descriptions of the cultural landscape imply that the mainstreaming of hard-core porn has been a bad thing, she pulls her punches.” (emphasis added)

    Forthcoming scholarly essay on ‘Fascist Government Speech’

    Professor G. Alex Sinha of Hofstra University

    Professor G. Alex Sinha

    On the day he was sworn in for a second term, President Trump issued pardons and commutations to all of his supporters who attacked the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021. This sweeping act of clemency gave legal effect to a longstanding grievance: Ever since the attack, which disrupted congressional certification of his 2020 election defeat, President Trump has consistently glorified the attackers and denounced their prosecutors. In defending the clemencies two days after issuing them, President Trump reiterated familiar themes — once more refusing to acknowledge that he lost the 2020 election, celebrating the patriotism of his supporters, and maligning those who pursued their accountability through what became the largest criminal investigation in U.S. history.

    President Trump’s script was so familiar that it obscured a constitutional novelty. For most of the time between the January 6 attack and the subsequent clemencies, President Trump was not the president. He was a private citizen, and his speech about January 6 was protected by the First Amendment even to the extent that it was false or dangerous. But, by noon on January 20, 2025, he was once again President Trump—a government official, speaking on behalf of the government, and thus uttering government speech. Government speech is not protected by the First Amendment, but rather by an evolving set of Court-fashioned rules known collectively as the government-speech doctrine. In an instant, his comments took on an entirely new constitutional cast.

    Ordinarily, this transition would be unremarkable; it occurs whenever a private citizen assumes a governmental role. But, combined with their content, President Trump’s statements — on this subject and many others — create a serious First Amendment problem. His remarks are deeply and distinctly illiberal, calibrated to undermine, falsely, the democratic legitimacy of a previous administration and to rewrite the history of an insurrectionist threat that would have allowed him to maintain power by violent and anti-democratic means. It is fascist speech, which invites wildly different constitutional analysis depending on its source.

    Accordingly, this paper introduces and evaluates the concept of fascist government speech — a category we can no longer afford to ignore. Our First Amendment free-speech rights spring in substantial part from a commitment to self-governance, and the protections that follow generally extend to private fascist speech as part of a forceful commitment to free debate that courts and scholars have long believed would facilitate a robust democracy. By contrast, the basis of the government-speech doctrine is functional necessity, a recognition that our democratic self-governance would be rendered ineffective if the government could not spread its message. That backstory simply cannot justify protecting fascist government speech, which directly undermines the basis for governmental communicative prerogatives. Yet the doctrine, as constituted, ultimately does protect fascist government speech. Worse still, the doctrine operates to abrogate private free-speech claims, a result that is distinctly perverse when the abrogation functions to amplify fascist government speech. This paper therefore argues for significant revision to the government-speech doctrine to blunt the threat of fascist government speech.

    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions

    Petitions denied

    Emergency Applications

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re: “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 470: “Trump’s ‘So what?’ stratagem”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Trump’s ‘So what?’ stratagem — First Amendment News 470

    Trump’s ‘So what?’ stratagem — First Amendment News 470

    “[T]he privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion. So it’s an option we’re actively looking at.” — Stephen Miller (May 9)

    “[T]his strikes me as raising the temperature to a whole new level.” — Stephen Vladeck (May 9)

    “No one should be arrested and locked up for their political views”— Esha Bhandari (ACLU lawyer for Rümeysa Öztürk)

    So much of the constitutional damage done (much of it irreversible) by the president’s executive orders is accomplished by what I tag their “So what?” stratagem, which is indifferent to the law or what courts rule. It is a tactic that strikes at the heart of constitutional government as we know it. Like so much else with this administration, it is done in lawless plain view and thus becomes increasingly normalized as Congress remains silent, the attorney general and cabinet officials remain subservient, and Democrats remain ineffective.

    The objective: Rendering judicial rulings ineffectual

    Some six decades ago, political science Professor Martin Shapiro underscored the importance of judicial review in safeguarding free speech rights. The book was titled “Freedom of Speech: The Supreme Court and Judicial Review.” The significance of that point was recently highlighted when Judge William K. Sessions ordered Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk free from unlawful detention at a South Louisiana ICE Processing Center. Ditto when Judge Geoffrey Crawford ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian Columbia student who had been detained by immigration authorities when he went to his U.S. citizenship interview.

    Judicial review is vital to our system of constitutional government. Since at least 1803, the governing principle has been that the Supreme Court and lower courts are the final arbiters of the Constitution, subject only to the amendment process. But laws have staying power only insofar as they are obeyed. When ignored, their efficacy depends on judicial enforcement. Their rulings are thus entitled to respect. Such respect has been honored . . . until now.


    Trump could suspend habeas corpus, Stephen Miller says | LiveNOW from FOX

    In brazen and bizarre ways, the Trump administration’s strategy has been to subvert that constitutional principle.

    Consider this: What if the government acts in flagrant unlawful ways with the intent that its objectives will be realized whenever judicial relief comes too late to prevent them? Or what if judicial relief proves ineffective in correcting the larger non-litigated fallout of such orders? That is the Trump administration’s playbook, and it has already proven rather successful — it is their “Trump card,” so to speak.

    That tactic poses a clear and present danger to our First Amendment freedoms, among others.

    Examples of the ‘So what?’ stratagem

    • The fear principle: Issue an executive order, enforceable by the attorney general, targeting a particular law firm. Make demands of that law firm. Most such firms will capitulate while countless unnamed others will take their marching orders from those threats. Such coercion succeeds even if the initial order was wildly unconstitutional, and it does so in the absence of judicial review. Even if successfully challenged in the courts, there are still the costs of litigation and the potential loss of clients.
    • Effective intimidation: Issue an executive order, enforceable by one or more federal agencies, targeting a particular university. Make demands of that university and threaten it with loss of federal funding and/or the revocation of its 501(c)(3) tax status. Here again, such an “enemies’ list” of threats is unconstitutional. Such intimidation is nonetheless effective in at least two ways: First, it is a shot across the bow to other universities to fall in line. Second, it forces the university that contests the matter to incur the costs (financial and otherwise) of trial and appellate litigation. Thus, the resulting “victory” has its punitive consequences.
    • Frustrating judicial relief: Issue an executive order, enforceable by one or more federal agencies, targeting immigrants. Proceed secretly and with great dispatch to deport such persons. The aim is either to preclude judicial review (as in the case of Kilmar Ábrego García) or to frustrate it by secretly seizing people and whisking them off to Trump-friendly jurisdictions. In those instances in which the government loses in a federal district court, the plan is to seek emergency review in the Supreme Court and argue that such decisions are left largely, or solely, to the prerogative of the executive branch.
    • Irreparable damage: Ignore the law, breach it with reckless abandon. Here, the idea is to completely destroy the targeted party in such a way that judicial relief will never be able to make such parties whole again. There is no better example of this than the outrageous facts in Pippenger v. United States DOGE Service, et al. (U.S. Dist.. Ct., D.C. Case No. 1:25-cv-01090). Pursuant to an executive order, on March 17, DOGE engaged “in the literal trespass and takeover by force of the U.S. Institute for Peace’s headquarters… Once physically inside the Institute’s headquarters, DOGE personnel and others . . . plundered the offices in an effort to access and gain control of the Institute’s infrastructure, including sensitive computer systems,” which included accounts, records, files, other records, files, and emails, which may have also been destroyed. Though the Institute for Peace is an independent nonprofit corporation established by Congress in 1984, its property was seized, and its nearly 300 D.C.-based employees were fired.
    The United States Institute of Peace sign in Washington, DC, an American federal institution tasked with promoting conflict resolution and prevention worldwide

    The United States Institute of Peace in Washington, D.C. (JHVEPhoto / Shutterstock.com)

    Among other things, what is troubling about this power grab (one that deserves wide attention in legal circles and law school classrooms) is that while the administration claims that it is only “reduc[ing] the performance of [the Institute’s] statutory functions and associated personnel to the minimum presence and function required by law,” it lacks such legal authority. Meanwhile, DOGE is trying to gift itself the Institute’s $500 million building. During a hearing on the matter, federal Judge Beryl Howell noted that even if she rules for the Institute, “that win makes no promises” on how difficult, or possible, it will be to put USIP back together. “A bull in a China shop breaks a lot of things.”

    Chill, coerce, suppress, and then evade

    In these instances and others, the stratagem is to coerce and suppress so as to render judicial review either impossible or ineffective. Moreover, there is the chilling effect that such actions have on anyone at odds with Trump and his confederates. Simply consider the law firms, universities, and even media outlets that have complied, either in the absence of any judicial ruling or despite it. 

    All of this occurs sans congressional oversight, even as that body’s constitutional powers are breached with autocratic abandon. And despite her confirmation promise, Attorney General Pam Bondi has weaponized her office to gratify the kingly dictates of her boss.

    As for the federal courts, there “have been over 200 cases where judges in the United States have anonymously received pizzas from individuals, where they didn’t order that. The implicit threat there is: ‘We know where you live.’” Consider it part of a Trump-inspired stratagem.

    Part of that stratagem is the Trump administration’s tactic of denying or evading, as the following exchange between Second Circuit Judge Barrington Parker and government lawyer Drew Ensign, reported by Erik Uebelacker at Courthouse News Service, reveals:

    “Does the government contest that the speech in both cases was protected speech?” Parker asked.

    “Your Honor, we have not taken a position on that,” Ensign replied.

    “Help my thinking along, take a position,” Parker demanded.

    “Your Honor, I don’t have the authority to take a position on that right now,” Ensign said.

    Will the Supreme Court trump the ‘Trump card’?

    And then there is the Supreme Court, which is flooded with emergency appeals from the Trump administration. While Chief Justice Roberts has tried to calm the waters with calls to end the intimidation of judges, his pleas have been ignored. Furthermore, Roberts and his colleagues face the specter that if they displease the president, their rulings might also be disregarded, either directly or indirectly.

    Trump’s strategy is to free himself of any constitutional checks and balances. The frightening truth is that we are veering in that direction, and Mr. Miller’s latest threat is another bad omen, yet another “Trump card.” 

    Just how far this authoritarian game continues will determine the future of our constitutional democracy.

    Levitsky, Way, and Ziblatt on the road to authoritarianism 

    How . . . can we tell whether America has crossed the line into authoritarianism? We propose a simple metric: the cost of opposing the government. In democracies, citizens are not punished for peacefully opposing those in power. They need not worry about publishing critical opinions, supporting opposition candidates or engaging in peaceful protest because they know they will not suffer retribution from the government. In fact, the idea of legitimate opposition — that all citizens have a right to criticize, organize opposition to and seek to remove the government through elections — is a foundational principle of democracy.

    Robert Corn-Revere on the president punishing his enemies 

    Trump has made “lawfare” the official policy of his administration.

    [ . . . ]

    For the Trump administration, no grievance is too petty to escape outsized retribution. After the White House limited access by the Associated Press for refusing to relabel the body of water between Florida and Mexico the “Gulf of America,” federal courts ruled that this act of viewpoint-based retaliation was a violation of the First Amendment. The administration defied that order until April 15, when an AP journalist was allowed into a White House event for the first time since February. 

    Even this, however, seems to be short-lived. The next day, the White House announced a new media policy which would once again restrict journalists at their own discretion — a move which the Associated Press argues is an attempt to evade the court order.

    ‘So to Speak’ podcast: The state of cancel culture in America

    The co-authors of “The Canceling of the American Mind” discuss its new paperback release and where cancel culture stands a year and a half after the book’s original publication.


    More in the news

    2024-2025 SCOTUS term: Free expression and related cases

    Cases decided 

    • Villarreal v. Alaniz (Petition granted. Judgment vacated and case remanded for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam))
    • Murphy v. Schmitt (“The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further consideration in light of Gonzalez v. Trevino, 602 U. S. ___ (2024) (per curiam).”)
    • TikTok Inc. and ByteDance Ltd v. Garland (9-0: The challenged provisions of the Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act do not violate petitioners’ First Amendment rights.)

    Review granted

    Pending petitions 

    Petitions denied

    Emergency applications 

    • Yost v. Ohio Attorney General (Kavanaugh, J., “IT IS ORDERED that the March 14, 2025 order of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio, case No. 2:24-cv-1401, is hereby stayed pending further order of the undersigned or of the Court. It is further ordered that a response to the application be filed on or before Wednesday, April 16, 2025, by 5 p.m. (EDT).”)

    Free speech related

    • Mahmoud v. Taylor (argued April 22 / free exercise case: issue: Whether public schools burden parents’ religious exercise when they compel elementary school children to participate in instruction on gender and sexuality against their parents’ religious convictions and without notice or opportunity to opt out.)
    • Thompson v. United States (decided: 3-21-25/ 9-0 w special concurrences by Alito and Jackson) (interpretation of 18 U. S. C. §1014 re “false statements”)

    Last scheduled FAN

    FAN 469: “Zick on executive orders and official orthodoxies”

    This article is part of First Amendment News, an editorially independent publication edited by Ronald K. L. Collins and hosted by FIRE as part of our mission to educate the public about First Amendment issues. The opinions expressed are those of the article’s author(s) and may not reflect the opinions of FIRE or Mr. Collins.

    Source link

  • Trump’s Deportation Database Puts Students at Risk – The 74

    Trump’s Deportation Database Puts Students at Risk – The 74

    School (in)Security is our biweekly briefing on the latest school safety news, vetted by Mark Keierleber. Subscribe here.

    Tennessee state Sen. Bo Watson wants to eject undocumented students from public school classrooms. But first, he needs their data. 

    Watson seeks to require students statewide to submit a birth certificate or other sensitive documents to secure their seats — one of numerous efforts nationwide this year as Republican state lawmakers seek to challenge a decades-old Supreme Court precedent enshrining students’ right to a free public education regardless of their immigration status.

    Some 300 demonstrators participate in a Waukegan, Illinois, rally on Feb. 1 to draw attention to an increase in Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity in the area. Privacy advocates warn student records could be used to assist deportations. (Scott Olson/Getty Images)

    In my latest feature this week, I dive into why those efforts have alarmed student data privacy advocates, who warn that efforts to compile data on immigrant students could be used not just to deny them an education  — it could also fall into the hands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

    As the Trump administration ramps up deportations and tech billionaire Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency reportedly works to create a “master database” of government records to zero in on migrants, data privacy experts warn that state and federal data about immigrant students could be weaponized. 

    In the news

    Cybercriminals demanded ransom payments from school districts nationwide this week, using millions of K-12 students’ sensitive data as leverage after the files were stolen from education technology giant PowerSchool in a massive cyberattack late last year. The development undercuts PowerSchool’s decision to pay a ransom in December to keep the sensitive documents under wraps. | The 74

    Gutted: Investigations at the Education Department’s civil rights office have trickled to a halt as the Trump administration installs a “shadow division” to advance cases that align with the president’s agenda. | ProPublica

    • Civil rights groups, students and parents have asked courts to block the Education Department’s civil rights enforcement changes under Trump, saying they fail to hold schools accountable for racial harassment and abuses against children with disabilities. | K-12 Dive
    • Among the thousands of cases put on the back burner is a complaint from a Texas teenager who was kneed in the face by a campus cop. | The 74

    ‘The hardest case for mercy’: Congratulations to Marshall Project contributor Joe Sexton, who was named a Pulitzer Prize finalist for his reporting on a legal team’s successful bid to spare the Parkland, Florida, school shooter from the death penalty. | The Marshall Project

    The city council in Uvalde, Texas, approved a $2 million settlement with the families of the victims in the 2022 shooting at Robb Elementary School, the first lawsuit to end with monetary payouts since 19 children and two teachers were killed. | Insurance Journal 

    • In Michigan, a state commission created in the wake of the 2021 school shooting at Oxford High School, which resulted in the deaths of four students, issued a final report calling for additional funding to strengthen school mental health supports. | Chalkbeat
    • Meanwhile, at the federal level, the Education Department axed $1 billion in federal grants designed to train mental health professionals and place them in schools in a bid to thwart mass shootings. | The 74

    A high school substitute teacher in Ohio was arrested on accusations she offered a student $2,000 to murder her husband. | WRIC

    Connecticut schools have been forced to evacuate from fires caused by a “dangerous TikTok trend” where students stab school-issued laptops with paper clips to cause electrical short circuits. | WFSB

    Eleven high school lacrosse players in upstate New York face unlawful imprisonment charges on accusations they staged a kidnapping of younger teammates who thought they were being abducted by armed assailants. | CNN

    Sign-up for the School (in)Security newsletter.

    Get the most critical news and information about students’ rights, safety and well-being delivered straight to your inbox.

    The Future of Privacy Forum has “retired” its Student Privacy Pledge after a decade. The pledge, which was designed to ensure education technology companies were ethical stewards of students’ sensitive data, was ended due to “the changing technological and policy landscape regarding education technology.” | Future of Privacy Forum

    • The pledge had previously faced scrutiny over its ability to hold tech vendors accountable for violating its terms. | The 74
    • New kid on the block: Almost simultaneously, Common Sense Privacy launched a “privacy seal certification” to recognize vendors that are “deeply committed to privacy.” | Business Wire

    Google plans to roll out an artificial intelligence chatbot for children as the tech giant seeks to attract young eyeballs to its AI products. | The New York Times

    Kansas schools plan to spend state money on AI tools to spot guns despite concerns over reports of false alarms. | Beacon Media

    ICYMI @The74

    A new report from the Department of Health and Human Services suggests gender-affirming health care puts transgender youth at risk but the report ignores years of research indicating otherwise. (Getty Images)

    HHS Condemns Gender-Affirming Care in Report That Finds ‘Sparse’ Evidence of Harm

    Chicago Public Schools’ Black Student Success Plan Under Investigation Over DEI

    SCOTUS to Rule in Case That Could Upend Enforcement of Disabled Students’ Rights

    Emotional Support

    Birds are chirping. Flowers are blooming. And 74 editor Bev Weintraub’s feline Marz is ready to pounce.


    Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

    Source link

  • 56% of adults disapprove of Trump’s approach to colleges, AP-NORC poll finds

    56% of adults disapprove of Trump’s approach to colleges, AP-NORC poll finds

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • More than half of Americans, 56%, disapprove of how President Donald Trump is handling issues related to colleges, according to a new poll from the Associated Press and NORC at the University of Chicago.
    • However, opinions varied dramatically depending on political affiliation. A strong majority of Democrats, 90%, disapprove of Trump’s response to college issues, while 67% of Independents said the same.
    • But among Republicans, 83% approve of the president’s approach, highlighting the stark political divide in how Americans believe higher education policy should be managed.

    Dive Insight:

    Trump has repeatedly criticized the higher education sector and has used much of his nascent second term to attempt to exert control over it.

    For instance, the National Institutes of Health, the U.S. Department of Energy and National Science Foundation have moved to cap reimbursement rates for indirect research costs at 15%, though all three agencies have faced legal challenges. 

    Federal departments have also cut hundreds of millions in grant funding from colleges. In a little over a month, NIH cut $1.8 billion in grants, hitting minority health research the hardest, according to findings published in JAMA.

    Amid this fast-changing policy landscape, AP-NORC researchers interviewed 1,175 adults from May 1 to 5. Their responses offer insight into how the public views higher education and Trump’s actions in the sector.

    Overall, 62% of adults support maintaining the level of federal funding colleges receive for medical and scientific research, the poll found. And support was largely bipartisan, with 75% of Democrats and 57% of Republicans in favor.

    The Trump administration has also attempted to exert influence over Harvard and Columbia universities by demanding they complete unprecedented to-do lists — such as eliminating diversity initiatives and auditing faculty and student views — to continue to receive federal funding.

    Harvard rebuked the Trump administration’s demands and sued over what the lawsuit described as its efforts to gain “control of academic decisionmaking.” In turn, the administration has frozen $2.2 billion in Harvard’s funding and said it will cut off the university from future federal research dollars.

    Columbia initially took a different tack. After the Trump administration froze $400 million of its funding, the university complied with a similar round of demands, to the praise of federal officials. 

    But the Trump administration has yet to publicly reinstate its funding, and Columbia now appears to be following Harvard’s lead. Acting President Claire Shipman said in April that the university would reject “heavy-handed orchestration from the government” that would undercut its mission.

    Trump appears to be tightening the screws on Columbia and is pursuing a consent decree against it. A consent decree would task a federal judge with ensuring the university complies with the Trump administration’s demands. 

    About half of Republicans, 51%, said they favored the federal government withholding higher ed funding unless colleges comply with requirements related to Trump’s political goals. One-third, 32%, said they had no opinion on the matter.

    In comparison, 73% of Democrats opposed the use of federal funding as a means for Trump to achieve his goals.

    The public’s view of how the president is handling higher education falls in line with his overall approval rating of 41%, the poll said.

    Trump has also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status — a decision that is meant to fall under the independent authority of the IRS. About half of Republicans, 49%, approved of the effort, the poll found. The idea had just a 30% approval rating overall.

    Views about Trump’s specific policy goals, such as banning campus diversity efforts, also fell along party lines.

    Among Democrats, 70% supported campus services such as clubs and mentorship programs for students from underrepresented groups, and 24% had no opinion. A third of Republicans, 31%, approved of such programs, and 41% had no opinion.

    But support among conservatives fell further when pollsters asked about “diversity, equity and inclusion programs, sometimes called DEI.” A majority of Republicans, 60%, opposed programs labeled as DEI, while 23% said they neither favored nor opposed them.

    Approval among Democrats stayed largely the same, with 68% in favor.

    Republicans were also more likely to oppose classes that teach about racism than Democrats, 44% compared to 8%.

    Source link

  • Trump’s unprecedented assault on higher education

    Trump’s unprecedented assault on higher education

    Debates around academic freedom and freedom of speech in UK higher education have often revolved around a small number of high-profile cases involving individuals with views that can cause offense – like those of Kathleen Stock or David Miller.

    Following the recent fine levied by the Office for Students (OfS) against the University of Sussex, the regulator has written to universities to urge them to focus on these areas.

    It seems like attention will remain firmly fixed on the shades of difference in the tensions inherent in the law, institutional inclusion policies, and the various framings of academic freedom.

    These are important questions on serious issues and we collectively need to explore them in productive ways. But debating them now to the exclusion of all else – at this moment in global history – is a vast mistake with consequences that will be felt for generations.

    Those consequences will be felt not only by academics researching in controversial areas, but they will be felt by members of the public around the world.

    Trump uprising

    In the short period since Donald Trump was returned to the US presidency, we have seen an assault on the independence of the academy that is unprecedented in scale or speed.

    The Trump government opened by issuing a series of shocking demands to Columbia University while threatening $400 million in federal grants – this has now mounted to hundreds of millions more in cuts.

    What does this mean? Every grant – every grant – held by researchers at the Mailman School of Public Health has been frozen or cancelled. All of them.

    The Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department has been taken into “receivership”, which is a polite way of saying that outspoken academic departments now are to be led only by professors approved by the Trump government.

    Columbia leadership has been made to hire a private security force with arrest powers. Disciplinary matters are to be investigated and dealt with by the university’s president, attacking a principle of collective governance that has grown and developed over a millennium.

    And most shockingly, students like Mahmoud Khalil are being arrested and transported without due process on the basis of their alleged political speech and activities: without judges, lawyers, trials, or charges. There can be no more clear violation of academic freedom than this.

    While Columbia has nominally been threatened because of its approach to tackling alleged antisemitism on campus, other universities are also in serious trouble. The University of Maine system has had funding withheld because the governor of Maine has contested Trump’s anti-transgender executive orders.

    Trump’s own alma mater, the University of Pennsylvania, has been hit with threats of $175 million in cuts allegedly because they permitted a transgender woman to compete in swimming – in 2022.

    The Johns Hopkins University – one of the world’s leading universities, especially for medical research – has been hit hard by the unprecedented dismantling of USAID, with the university shedding more than 2,200 jobs around the world in the face of $800 million in cuts.

    Freedom fails

    As the weeks go by, news breaks almost daily with stories about further cuts and threats.

    We have to be clear that we are in a new world now. These attacks on the US academy will have two global effects that should be very worrying to everyone.

    First, these actions effectively dismantle the notion of academic freedom worldwide. If the wealthiest, most prestigious, and most influential universities on the planet can be cowed in two weeks, no other university will see themselves as able to resist any demand from Trump – or any other authoritarian leader.

    The current wave of demands will lead to further restrictions and policing, especially now that Trump has seen how easy it was to roll powerful institutions. Trump learned from autocrats like Orban. This is not a problem exclusive to the United States and we need to address it from a global perspective.

    Second, the chilling effect of these actions on research and teaching will have dramatic, complex, and far-reaching consequences that we will not fully understand for decades.

    Federal grant recipients have been instructed to remove mentions of words like “women”, which will have an almost-inconceivable impact on research on topics like cancer, childbirth, and domestic violence. Colleagues in the US tell me about departments in total chaos – lab cultures spoiling in refrigerators, clinical trial patients going without medication or observation, and doctoral funding wiped away mid-project.

    The impact on climate science, on public health, on any number of existential areas of research will be incalculable. These are not problems that can be solved by a future administration – even if we act right now, we will feel the damage of the Trump’s war on universities for decades to come. What may have seemed inconceivable two months ago has happened.

    There are some glimmers of resistance in the US – and there certainly are many brave colleagues and students organizing directly against Trump and the shameful collaboration of university leaders.

    In the UK, we need to learn from the failures of the US academy and understand that Trump’s authoritarianism will affect us too.

    We have to learn that we cannot trust politicians, regulators, or the state to respect the logic of academic freedom. We must protect staff and students by warning against travel to the United States. We must work together urgently to decentralize power in universities so that dictators like Trump cannot pressure individual university leaders.

    While institutional policies will not stop fascism, we must see our efforts as an attempt to delay and mitigate the impact as much as we can manage. While we should work with the government and unions, protest, write letters, and shout, we should also be clear-eyed that we cannot rely on the systems and institutions that failed to prevent the return of fascism.

    Engage in direct action. We must learn from activists and movements that have been fighting for a long time – use what power you have. Protect your most vulnerable colleagues and students. Fascism requires a politics of helplessness and fear. Respond with care and courage. Things will get worse before they get better.

    Source link

  • Trump’s FY26 budget plan slashes Education Department programs

    Trump’s FY26 budget plan slashes Education Department programs

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    President Donald Trump on Friday proposed wide-ranging cuts to federal higher education spending in his fiscal 2026 budget request, calling to eliminate some grant programs altogether and for states to take over others like Federal Work-Study. 

    The budget request offers a broad look at Trump’s priorities, which include shaving 15.3% off the U.S. Department of Education’s budget, a move in line with his broader plan to shutter the agency. Across the federal government, Trump’s request would eliminate some $163 billion in nondefense domestic spending, including the dramatic cuts to education programs.

    U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a statement Friday that the budget reflects “funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.” 

    Presidential budget proposals are akin to executive wishlists and are never enacted as introduced. And Trump’s budget request for the 2026 fiscal year, which begins Oct. 1, faces key obstacles before it could be approved. Even though Republicans control both the House and Senate, at least one GOP lawmaker has already objected to some of Trump’s proposed cuts.

    But other party leaders signaled a willingness to embrace Trump’s proposals. 

    “The American people sent Republicans to Washington to lower costs and rein in wasteful government spending,” Tim Walberg, chair of the House Committee on Education and Workforce, said in a Friday statement. “The budget proposal President Trump released today not only gives us a blueprint but shows us it is possible to deliver on this promise.” 

    Student aid takes a blow

    The budget takes aim at Federal Work-Study, which provides part-time jobs to students who need help paying for college. Under the program, the federal government covers up to 75% of students’ wages. 

    Trump’s proposal calls for a $980 million reduction in funding for the program, which was appropriated $1.2 billion in fiscal year 2024. 

    In his budget plan, the president called for Federal Work-Study to be run by the states and the colleges “that financially benefit from it.” 

    “Reform of this poorly targeted program should redistribute remaining funding to institutions that serve the most low-income students and provide a wage subsidy to gain career-oriented opportunities to improve long-term employment outcomes of students,” it says. 

    Trump’s proposal would also eliminate funding for Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grants, which assist undergraduate students who have “exceptional financial need.” The program was allocated $910 million in fiscal 2024 — all of which would be cut under Trump’s budget. 

    The budget document accuses the grants of contributing “to rising college costs” that colleges have used to pay for a “radical leftist ideology.” Colleges that receive these grants pass the money onto students, and the institutions must contribute 25% of their own money for those awards. 

    Two other programs are on the chopping block: TRIO, which provides support for middle school through college students from disadvantaged backgrounds, and Gear Up, which helps low-income students prepare for postsecondary education. Trump’s budget called these programs a “relic of the past when financial incentives were needed to motivate” colleges to increase access to low-income students. 

    “Today, the pendulum has swung and access to college is not the obstacle it was for students of limited means,” the budget document claims, saying higher education institutions should use their own resources to recruit students. 

    Together, the programs received nearly $1.6 billion in fiscal 2024, all of which would be cut under Trump’s plan. 

    The budget documents released Friday did not address funding for Pell Grants, the largest student aid program.

    Source link

  • Trump’s FY26 budget would slash more than $4.5B from K-12

    Trump’s FY26 budget would slash more than $4.5B from K-12

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    President Donald Trump on Friday delivered a federal budget that would slash more than $4.5 billion in K-12 funding for fiscal year 2026. In total, cuts to the Education Department would amount to $12 billion, or 15% of its current funding.

    The deep cuts would hit programs meant to ensure equitable access to education for underserved students and to protect their civil rights. And though maintained at current funding levels,  Title I and special education programs would be reorganized into separate single grants aimed at letting states spend the money as they see fit.

    “The Budget continues the process of shutting down the Department of Education,” the White House’s funding request states. 

    Among the cuts:

    • All $70 million for Teacher Quality Partnerships grant, often used to diversify the teacher workforce.
    • All $7 million for Equity Assistance Centers, established as part of desegregation efforts.
    • All $890 million for English Language Acquisition.
    • A $49 million, or 35%, reduction for the Office for Civil Rights. 

    At the same time, Trump’s budget would boost funding for charter schools by $60 million. 

    Funding for Title I and Individuals with Disabilities Education Act programs — which public school advocates had worried would be cut — was preserved. Head Start, which was widely rumored to be on the chopping block, appears to have survived for now as it is not among the cuts listed in the budget document.

    Cuts reflect administration’s anti-DEI priority

    Many of the proposed cuts reflect Trump’s course reversal from the previous decades-long focus on equity in the education sector. 

    For instance, the budget would zero out Equity Assistance Centers, originally established under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to level the playing field for students of color, and especially Black students, after decades of segregation and its long-standing impact on their achievement over generations. Friday’s White House budget request characterizes such efforts as “distractions” from focusing on core subjects like math, reading, science and history.

    Another program that would be halted is the Teacher Quality Partnerships grant, which funds teacher pipeline programs and helped establish a master’s program for teachers of color. The budget document argues that the program centers “racism in their pedagogy” by including instruction for aspiring teachers on “social justice activism, ’anti-racism,’ and instruction on white privilege and white supremacy.” Professional development workshops funded by the grants have included topics such as “building cultural competence,” “dismantling racial bias,” and “centering equity in the classroom,” which the administration took issue with.

    Also on the chopping block: The budget would eliminate the $890 million English Language Acquisition program, which the administration says “encourages bilingualism,” and “deemphasizes English primacy.”

    The administration also proposed an end to the U.S. Health and Human Services Department’s Preschool Development Grants. In the budget overview, the White House cited efforts by the Minnesota Department of Education to use the money to implement “intersectionality” and “racial equity” in early childhood education programs and by Oregon to provide “quality care” for the state’s LGBTQIA+ families. 

    One of the few increases included in the proposal to K-12 program funding was an additional $60 million for charter schools, which it says “have a proven track record of improving students’ academic achievement” and will create more local school options while expanding parental choice. 

    Proposed cuts follow recent moves to gut Education Department

    The president’s budget request “reflects funding levels for an agency that is responsibly winding down, shifting some responsibilities to the states, and thoughtfully preparing a plan to delegate other critical functions to more appropriate entities.” said U.S. Secretary of Education Linda McMahon.

    The budget proposal “supports the President’s vision of expanding school choice and ensuring every American has access to an excellent education,” McMahon said in a statement on Friday.

    Many of the proposed cuts reflect moves already made to pare down and eventually close the Education Department “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law,” as Trump ordered in a March directive.

    For example, as part of a massive reduction in force that eliminated half of the department’s employees, the ELA office was already entirely slashed. 

    Source link

  • What’s next for students after Trump’s visa reversals?

    What’s next for students after Trump’s visa reversals?

    One of the realities of the Trump administration is that decisions with vast domestic and global consequences can be implemented and reversed at the drop of a hat. This has been the case with international trade. President Trump has imposed steep tariffs on other countries only to relent when the market takes a turn. It’s also been the case with staffing. Trump defended national security adviser Mike Waltz when it was revealed he accidentally added a journalist to an app chat about a military strike in Yemen. Weeks later, Trump removed Waltz and gave him another job.

    This is also true for student visas. Trump has upended the academic world with his threats to Harvard and other universities, and the arrests of students for pro-Palestinian protests. Harvard was even forced to hand over information about international students to federal officials. 

    Trump has also cracked down on student visas. The Trump administration revoked more than 1,800 visas earlier this year, and many students went into hiding after the news broke. Federal officials restored roughly 1,200 visas after significant public pressure. 

    International students can expect more erratic decisions as the Trump administration moves past its first 100 days. These changes could cause significant stress and anxiety to both intentional students and administrators. I’ve designed a primer for both international students and administrators on what to expect as we move forward and how to prepare for a time when change is the only certainty.

    Unpredictability Will Become The Norm: In the past, there was a defined process for becoming an international student. Students’ expectations have been upended in just a few months. This will make life difficult for universities and their staff; many international students, particularly those interested in medicine, may choose not to come to the United States due to these changes. This will have ripple effects across the academic world; research and innovation could stall without an infusion of the best and brightest; American companies could lose a pipeline to strong potential hires, and scientific and medical breakthroughs will decline.

    International students can expect more erratic decisions as the Trump administration moves past its first 100 days

    Shaun Carver, International House, UC Berkeley

    Threats to Higher Education Will Upend Academic Life: Federal funding freezes are now a reality for higher education, particularly at schools with robust diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives. The administration just froze $1 billion for Cornell and $790 million for Northwestern. These support cuts will make American universities less attractive to global talent. 

    Preparing to Study in America Will Look Different: Moving to a different country has always been challenging. Students need to navigate a new culture, learn a different language, and handle tasks that are challenging for domestic students, such as finding housing and making social connections.  

    Students will now need to factor in other challenges, such as potential threats to their visa status, the risk of arrest or deportation for speaking their mind, and also distrust in a culturally divided country. International students should be aware of their legal rights before coming to the United States. Administrators should be prepared to support them and provide them with relevant legal resources.

    STEM Could Be Hit Hard: In the past, federal regulators targeted humanities departments, perceiving them as liberal. Science, technology, or medicine were seen as essential to society and global status, and were shielded from scrutiny. The Trump administration had added science and technology disciplines to its target list and reduced grants for critical research. 

    Roughly 16% of Harvard’s total revenue comes from sponsored support, including grants and federal funding. But 53% of the revenue for the School of Public Health, 35% of the revenue for the School of Medicine, and 37% of the revenue for Engineering and Applied Sciences come from federal grants. Many of the funding cuts are for STEM research programs, including those related to artificial intelligence (AI). The administration is also slashing science-related funding at other schools. In addition to possible brain drain at universities, these changes could affect America’s ability to compete, keep pace with other countries that are embracing AI, maintain its populace’s health, and more.

    The Big Picture: 

    It’s a tenuous time for both university administrators and international students. Despite these difficulties, American universities remain among the best in the world, and many have deep financial resources. Schools are getting creative; Harvard’s staff has agreed to a pay cut to support the university. 

    The best thing international students and administrators can do is ensure they are prepared, closely monitor changes and developments, and finally encourage those in power to make changes. Transparent and consistent policies, along with stronger protections, are needed now to restore confidence among international students and maintain US leadership in global education.

    Source link

  • Higher Ed After Trump’s First 100 Days: The Key Podcast

    Higher Ed After Trump’s First 100 Days: The Key Podcast

    Inside Higher Ed journalists analyze the first 100 days of the Trump administration in this week’s episode of The Key, IHE’s news and analysis podcast.  

    Editor in chief Sara Custer, along with news editor Katherine Knott and reporters Johanna Alonso and Liam Knox, discuss the major events of the last three months and the impact they have had on universities and colleges.

    The team summarizes the executive orders that will affect higher education, including one to shutter the Department of Education, another to overhaul accreditation and another to tackle alleged antisemitism. 

    The conversation also explores the new relationship the federal government has established between itself and higher education and how the administration is threatening federal research funding to set ultimatums and progress its agenda, in particular with Columbia and Harvard University.

    The group updates listeners on the latest developments with international students’ Student Exchange and Visitor Information System status reinstatements. Alonso and Knox also talk about what they learned about the administration’s targeting of international students from speaking to students, their advisers and digging through dozens of lawsuits brought against the government. 

    While what comes next is anyone’s guess. The team discusses what they’ll be watching over the next 100 days, including what Congress will be working on, the fallout from the international student crackdown and how summer might shift the vibe on campus. 

    Listen and download the episode here. 

    Source link

  • The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

    The implications for UK universities of Trump’s attacks on EDI

    Few will be unaware of Donald Trump’s antipathy towards diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) in the US. In February 2025, Trump issued executive orders and policy directives aimed at eliminating DEI programmes and removing references to “gender ideology” from federal agencies.

    For those of us who know DEI as equality, diversity and inclusion (EDI), there is concern about the ripple effects of Trump’s measures on UK universities, for research as well as teaching and learning.

    One of the immediate impacts of this manoeuvre was to remove essential LGBTQ+ content from federal websites. Terms such as “transgender”, “LGBT”, and “pregnant person” were all banned. Decades of HIV data, contraception guidelines, and research on racial health disparities were suddenly inaccessible. For US researchers in higher education, such staggeringly blatant anti-EDI policies have disrupted the passage of critical research focused on improving health outcomes for marginalised groups.

    Such censorship – to our minds at least – thoroughly undermines scientific integrity, limiting the study of complex health and social issues. Our colleagues in the US are now forced to work within these constraints, which threaten accuracy and inclusivity. Indeed, the politicisation of scientific terminology arguably damages public trust in research and, in the US, diminishes the credibility of federal agencies.

    Implications for LGBTQ+ researchers

    Trump’s anti-EDI stance is a menace to any form of university research seeking to address inequalities and build inclusion for seldom heard population groups, and the effects of these decisions will have wide-reaching and intersectional repercussions.

    As committee members of a university’s LGBTQ+ staff network, our focus is understandably on the impact for our colleagues working on LGBTQ+ issues. US-based researchers working on LGBTQ+ themes now face obstacles in securing funding and publishing their work. And this has a knock-on effect on wider LGBTQ+ population groups. The suppression of critical health information and the suspension of targeted research leaves LGBTQ+ communities bereft of vital support and resources.

    More fundamentally, Trump’s policies send the signal that LGBTQ+ identities and needs are irrelevant from his agenda for US growth. It’s a quick step from this to the increase of social stigma and discrimination targeted at LGBTQ+ people. And this in turn worsens mental health and social marginalisation. To put it bluntly: the absence of LGBTQ+ representation in official communications sends a damaging message about the validity of these communities’ experiences.

    Lessons for UK universities

    To bring this back to the UK context then, a few things come to mind.

    First, the UK has its own, depressingly recent, history of government-led suppression of LGBTQ+ communication, which we’d do well to remember. Section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988 banned the promotion of homosexuality in schools across England, Scotland, and Wales. Repealed in England and Wales in 2003, this act led to years of silence and marginalisation within educational settings.

    Section 28 not only harmed students and staff at the time but also created a culture of fear and misinformation, curtailing inclusive teaching and research. To ensure the UK does not repeat such history, universities must prioritise legal advocacy and protection for all involved in higher education, to safeguard academic freedom and inclusivity. Being involved in the LGBTQ+ staff network as we are, we might also add that coalition building among universities, LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, and non-profits can also strengthen efforts to resist any potential policy shifts that might echo the restrictive measures of the past.

    Second, Trump’s agenda also urges us to re-think our approach to US-UK research collaborations and student exchanges. There seems to be an increasing discrepancy between what the UK and US each consider to be worthy of research and funding.

    Universities in the UK should assess how they foster links with other nations whose research agendas align more closely with UK priorities, to mitigate any potential funding losses. Moreover, UK universities should ideally review their reliance on external funding from the US to determine whether any existing projects might be impacted by shifts in US policy. Equally, with US suppression of data relating to LGBTQ+ issues impacting LGBTQ+ health and wellbeing, it’s vital that UK universities ensure that their research connected to LGBTQ+ issues is readily available.

    Third, it seems crucial that UK universities futureproof their relationships with US students. The possibility of new limitations on exchange programmes, including restrictions on modules with extensive EDI content, could impact the accessibility of UK higher education for US students. Online programmes that currently enrol US students may also face scrutiny, raising concerns about whether course content is monitored or whether degrees will continue to be recognised in the US due to their inclusion of EDI principles.

    Looking forward

    UK universities have a pivotal role to play in responding to what’s happening in the US in relation to Trump’s anti-EDI stance.

    We’ve focused particularly on the impacts of these political and policy shifts on LGBTQ+ research and culture in higher education. But they represent a more wholesale attack on initiatives seeking to safeguard the wellbeing of marginalised population groups. UK universities must continue to represent a safe space for education which upholds inclusivity, critical thinking, and academic integrity. This requires a strong coalition of organisations, advocacy groups, and academic institutions working together to resist the erosion of rights and the suppression of essential research.

    Such a coalition of critically-minded parties seems all the more important given the recent ruling by the Supreme Court on 16 April 2025 in relation to the Equality Act 2010, which insisted on the binary nature of sex, which is determined by biology. As a result, this leaves trans women unable to avail themselves of the sex-based protections enshrined in the Equality Act.

    Universities, like other institutions, will need to review their policies accordingly and should do their utmost to continue to assert a safe and inclusive environment for trans people. But this decision, coming so soon after the Cass review, is also contributing to the anxiety and uncertainty experienced by LGBTQ+ people more broadly. With echoes between the US situation and recent UK developments, the direction of travel is concerning.

    By standing together, we can safeguard the rights of all marginalised communities and ensure that the integrity of scientific research, human dignity, and social progress are protected.

    Source link