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)
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 Energyand National Science Foundation have moved to cap reimbursement rates for indirect research costs at 15%,though all three agencies have faced legal challenges.
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
Department services and college grants also targeted
The proposal would also cut $49 million from the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, a 35% reduction from fiscal 2024 levels, according to the budget. The agency recently cut OCR’s workforce in half as part of mass layoffs.
In his budget plan, Trump accused colleges of misusing the Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education, which awards grants for projects aimed at improving postsecondary educational opportunities. The budget claims they used the program to “fund ideologies instead of students.”
Trump proposed cutting $195 million from FIPSE and said colleges and states should be responsible for funding innovative programs themselves.
He also proposed sending responsibility for the Strengthening Institutions initiative to states and colleges. Under this program, the Education Department provides grants to help colleges expand their ability to serve low-income students, bolster their academic quality and become more financially stable, according to the agency’s website.
The program was allocated $112 million in fiscal 2024 — and Trump’s plan calls for zeroing that amount out.
The budget would also slash $64 million from Howard University, the only historically Black institution in the country that is federally chartered. The Trump administration said the move would bring the university’s funding back to 2021 levels and “more sustainably support” the institution.
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.
The RIF also cut OCR’s workforce by half, shutting down half of the nation’s offices that were responsible for investigating thousands of school civil rights complaints. OCR operations under Trump have pivoted to focus on eliminating LGBTQ+-friendly policies, and much of its investigative responsibilities and all of its enforcement work has been shifted to the Department of Justice.
One of the first cuts made to the department, even prior to the mass layoffs, was the February cancellation of Teacher Quality Partnership grants, which the administration called “divisive.” Those grants, entirely eliminated in Friday’s proposed budget, were part of a $600 million cut that was challenged in court by Democratic attorneys general and temporarily reinstated in March, only for the Supreme Court to then allow the cuts to move forward.
Next steps in the budget process
While far from final, presidents’ budget proposals reflect their priorities for the nation and oftentimes hint at the road ahead. Though priorities shift between administrations, and particularly so when the party in power changes — but the shifts have been nothing short of dramatic and unprecedented from Biden to Trump.
Appropriations are ultimately set by Congress, which is now controlled by Republicans who espouse many of Trump’s priorities and seem sympathetic to the president’s K-12 priorities, including shutting down the Education Department. Long considered impossible, the agency’s total shutdown still seems like a longshot to many. But, it’s possible that many of the president’s funding proposals — which would eliminate or greatly reduce many of the department’s functions — will be pushed through.
“The President’s Budget Request is simply one step in the annual budget process,” said U.S. Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in a statement Friday. Noting that the budget was submitted late and isn’t comprehensive, Collins said, “Ultimately, it is Congress that holds the power of the purse.”
The House and Senate Appropriations committees will hold hearings to learn more about the president’s proposal and then are to mark up their own bills to fund the federal government for the fiscal year that begins Oct. 1.
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.
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.
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.
“Under my watch, the partisan weaponization of the Department of Justice will end. America must have one tier of justice for all.” — Pamela Bondi (confirmation hearing for U.S. attorney general, Jan. 15, 2025)
“After years and years of illegal and unconstitutional federal efforts to restrict free expression, I will also sign an executive order to immediately stop all government censorship and bring back free speech to America.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, inaugural address)
“Government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society.” — Donald J. Trump (Jan. 20, 2025, executive order)
So many lies, so many orders, so much suppression. The “flood” of free expression abridgments continues to be dizzying and depressing.
Unprecedented! That is the word for this new form of silencing that is spreading like a deadly cancer.
The rules of the past cease to be honored. Retribution has replaced righteousness. Fear triumphs over courage. A one-party-led Congress has abdicated its authority. Judicial review is derided. And our system of justice as constituted is unable to adequately address the wrongs perpetuated by an authoritarian figure aided by his confederates. A blitzkrieg takeover of the federal government seeks to vest unchecked power in the Executive while normalizing suppression on the vile pretense of advancing free speech and equality — a page right out of Orwell’s “1984.”
In some respects, we are witnessing what constitutes a threat perhaps as great as the Sedition Act of 1798, the Civil War actions taken by Lincoln, and the World War I, Cold War, and Vietnam War abridgments of free speech. Nonetheless, the number and frequency of such abridgments make it difficult to comprehend the cumulative gravity of this threat to our First Amendment freedoms.
Within the Trump administration’s first 100 days, the government has ushered in a new era of direct and indirect suppression of speech. Meanwhile, cases are being litigated, individuals and institutions are being silenced, books banned, “settlements” coerced, scientific research squelched, history erased, while lower court rulings struggle to be relevant. And all of this, in its many forms, has occurred in the absence of any near-final resolution by the Supreme Court, as if that too might be slighted someday soon.
We are beyond any “there are evils on both sides” mentality, much as we were beyond it in 1798. Recall that while John Adams, the lawyer, championed free speech in his writings, he later backed the Alien and Sedition Acts as “the Federalist” president.
Calling out tyranny is not partisan; it is American! And yet, many are relatively detached, silent, and clueless.
Trump’s “flood the zone” tactics have taxed the American mind to such an extent that few can barely, if at all, remember yesterday’s free speech abridgments let alone those of last week or last month. The result: who remembers all of the trees leveled not to mention any big picture of the forest devastated in the process? What to do?
Enter “First Amendment Watch” and the Zick Resource Report
Thanks to Professor Stephen Solomon and Susanna Granieri over at First Amendment Watch (FAW), there is a meaningful way to begin to get a conceptual hold on what has occurred within the first 100 days of the Trump administration and its attacks on free speech.
Happily, FAW today released what is surely the most important First Amendment resource documenting the numerous First Amendment abridgments committed by the Trump administration within its first 100 days. This invaluable resource was prepared by Professor Timothy Zick.
Professor Timothy Zick
Though the full resource repository is available over at FAW, its table of contents is reproduced below:
Introduction by Timothy Zick
I. First Amendment-Related Executive Orders and Memoranda
A. Freedom of Speech and Censorship B. Foreign Terrorism and National Security C. Law Firms D. Retribution Against Former Government Officials E. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion F. Gender and Gender Identity G. K-12 Education H. Museums, Libraries, and Public Broadcasting I. Political Donations J. University Accreditors
II. First Amendment-Related Litigation
A. Lawsuits Challenging Executive Orders, Guidance, and Policies
1. Diversity, Equity and Inclusion 2. Immigration 3. Educational Funding 4. Law Firms 5. Gender and Gender Identity 6. Data and Scientific Inquiry 7. Libraries and Museums 8. Public Broadcasting
B. Retaliatory Dismissal and Other Employment Lawsuits C. Lawsuits Filed by Media and Journalists D. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits Filed By Donald Trump
III. Commentary and Analysis
A. Actions Against the Press and Journalists B. Defamation and Other Civil Lawsuits C. Broadcast Media D. Social Media E. Education
1. DEI Programming and Initiatives 2. Antisemitism Investigations and Demands 3. Academic Freedom 4. K-12 Curriculum
F. Immigration Enforcement
1. International Students 2. Foreign Scholars 3. Immigration Activism
G.Public Employees H. Private Sector
1. Law Firms 2. Individual Critics and Enemies
I. Transparency, Data, and Information
1. Data, Information, and Scientific Research 2. Museums and Libraries 3. Public Broadcasting 4. Misinformation and Disinformation 5. “DOGE” and Transparency
J. Grants and Funding K. Protests and Demonstrations
1. Campus Protests 2. Public Protests
L. Governmental Orthodoxy
1. Race and DEI 2. Gender and Gender Identity 3. History and Patriotism
M. Retribution and Chilling Speech N. Investigations O. The Bigger Picture P. Tracking All Trump 2.0 Lawsuit
Related
Coming Next Week
The next installment of Professor Timothy Zick’s ongoing posts is titled “Executive Orders and Official Orthodoxies.”
Justice Department to go after reporters’ records in government leak cases
Senate Judiciary Committee considers the nomination of Pamela Bondi for Attorney General on Jan. 15, 2025. (Maxim Elramsisy / Shutterstock.com)
The Justice Department is cracking down on leaks of information to the news media, with Attorney General Pam Bondi saying prosecutors will once again have authority to use subpoenas, court orders and search warrants to hunt for government officials who make “unauthorized disclosures” to journalists.
New regulations announced by Bondi in a memo to the staff obtained by The Associated Press on Friday rescind a Biden administration policy that protected journalists from having their phone records secretly seized during leak investigations — a practice long decried by news organizations and press freedom groups.
The new regulations assert that news organizations must respond to subpoenas “when authorized at the appropriate level of the Department of Justice” and also allow for prosecutors to use court orders and search warrants to “compel production of information and testimony by and relating to the news media.”
The memo says members of the press are “presumptively entitled to advance notice of such investigative activities,” and subpoenas are to be “narrowly drawn.” Warrants must also include “protocols designed to limit the scope of intrusion into potentially protected materials or newsgathering activities,” the memo states.
Former FCC Chairs attack FCC’s attack on First Amendment principles
(T. Schneider / Shutterstock.com)
As former chairmen of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) — one appointed by a Democrat, the other by a Republican — we have seen firsthand how the agency operates when it is guided by its mission to uphold the public interest. But in just over two months, President Donald Trump and his handpicked FCC Chair Brendan Carr have upended 90 years of precedent and congressional mandates to transform the agency into a blatantly partisan tool. Instead of acting as an independent regulator, the agency is being weaponized for political retribution under the guise of protecting the First Amendment.
Their actions fall into two categories. First, the president used executive orders (EOs) to strip the agency of its independence, making it subservient to the White House. Second, the chairman has exploited the commission’s powers to undermine the very First Amendment rights it is supposed to uphold.
Mchangama on the ‘New McCarthyism’
Jacob Mchangama
Despite being Danish, I’ve always found America’s civil-libertarian free speech tradition more appealing than the Old World’s model, with its vague terms and conditions. For much of my career, I’ve been evangelizing a First Amendment approach to free speech to skeptical Europeans and doubtful Americans, who are often tempted by laws banning “hate speech,” “extremism,” and “disinformation.” That appreciation for the First Amendment is something I share with many foreigners — Germans, Iranians, Russians — who now call America home.
[ . . . ]
It’s now clear that the government is targeting noncitizens for ideas and speech protected by the First Amendment. The most worrying example (so far) is a Turkish student at Tufts University, apparently targeted for co-authoring a student op-ed calling for, among other things, Tufts to divest from companies with ties to Israel. One report estimates that nearly 300 students from universities across the country have had their visas revoked so far.
Instead of correcting this overreach, the government has doubled down. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services recently announced that it would begin screening the social media posts of aliens “whose posts indicate support for antisemitic terrorism, antisemitic terrorist organizations, or other antisemitic activity.” Shortly after, the X account of USCIS posted about a “robust social media vetting program” and warned: “EVERYONE should be on notice. If you’re a guest in our country — act like it.” And four days later, White House homeland security adviser Stephen Miller promised to deport “anyone who preaches hate for America.” What that means is anybody’s guess — and seems to depend entirely on subjective assessments.
[ . . . ]
Had America been known for deporting, rather than welcoming, dissent, I would never have made it my home. That might not have been much of a loss. But consider this: 35 percent of U.S.-affiliated academic Nobel laureates are immigrants, and nearly half of all American unicorn startups have founders born outside the country. How many of these brilliant minds would have chosen the United States if they risked exile for crossing the speech red lines of the moment?
As a European who owes my freedom in life thus far to the America that fought Nazism and defeated communism, I feel a responsibility to speak out when this country strays from its founding ideals. I came to America for its freedom, not just to enjoy it, but to defend it — even if that puts me at risk.
Related
New scholarly article on commencement speaker provocateurs
This Article explores an untheorized area of First Amendment doctrine: students’ graduation speeches at public universities or private universities that embrace free speech principles, either by state statute, state constitutional law, or internal policy. Responding to recent graduation speech controversies, it develops a two-tier theory that reconciles a multiplicity of values, including students’ expressive interests, universities’ institutional interests in curating commencement ceremonies and preventing reputational damage, and the interests of captive audiences in avoiding speech they deem offensive or profane.
The Article challenges the prevailing view that university students’ graduation speeches implicate individual First Amendment rights. It develops a site-specific understanding of the ritualistic sociology of the university commencement speech, which the Article argues is firmly within the managerial purview of the university. But it also argues that heavy-handed administrative regulation of student graduation speeches has the potential to undermine the academic freedom of students and professors.
Reflecting on the history of the university commencement speech in the American intellectual tradition, it urges university administrators to exercise their authority to regulate speeches through transparent standards, a longitudinal view, and collaborative negotiation with student speakers.
It concludes by discussing the conceptual dangers of turning the First Amendment into a metonym for every instance of speech abridgment within a managerial sphere.
‘So to Speak’ podcast: Rabban and Chemerinsky on academic freedom
Our guests today signed onto a statement by a group of 18 law professors who opposed the Trump administration’s funding threats at Columbia on free speech and academic freedom grounds.
Since then, Northwestern, Cornell, Princeton, Harvard, and nearly 60 other colleges and universities are under investigation with their funding hanging in the balance, allegedly for violations of civil rights law.
To help us understand the funding threats, Harvard’s recent lawsuit against the federal government, and where universities go from here are:
David Rabban — distinguished teaching professor at The University of Texas at Austin School of Law
Erwin Chemerinsky — distinguished professor of law and dean at UC Berkeley Law.
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”)
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.
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.
A new White House executive order calling for “common sense” in school discipline policies by removing practices based on “discriminatory equity ideology” will drive even wider racial disparities in discipline than currently exist, critics say.
Rather than being common sense, the directive would “permit school discipline practices that target and punish students of color and students with disabilities at disproportionate rates,” said Denise Forte, president and CEO of EdTrust, in a statement Thursday, a day after President Donald Trump signed the order. EdTrust, a nonprofit, works with school systems to close opportunity gaps for students of color and students from low-income backgrounds.
Additionally, EdTrust in a separate Thursday statement to K-12 Dive said, “When the dust settles from the education chaos being created by Trump administration, students — especially students from low-income backgrounds, students of color, students with disabilities, English learners, and students in rural areas — will be worse off, and the Trump administration wants to make sure we don’t have the data and research to prove it.”
Dan Losen, senior director of education at the National Center for Youth Law, said the Trump administration is creating a false dichotomy that schools either need harsh discipline practices or they deal with out-of-control and unsafe student behaviors.
The reality, Losen said, is that well-trained educators and administrators have many approaches to reducing student misconduct that are evidence-based. “Many schools and superintendents are aware that the best antidote to violence, to drug involvement, to gang involvement, is to try to find ways to keep more kids in school,” Losen said.
Closing racial gaps in school discipline has been a priority at the local, state and national levels for many years. Schools have also shunned strict zero-tolerance discipline policies in favor of responsive and restorative practices and other approaches that help students examine their behavior and make amends to those harmed.
Supporters of alternatives to suspending or expelling students — or what’s called “exclusionary discipline” — say those different approaches help keep students connected to school and reduce the school-to-prison pipeline. They also note that alternative strategies help reduce racial disparities in school discipline.
The U.S. Department of Education’s Civil Rights Data Collection found that even though Black students represented 15% of K-12 student enrollment in the 2021-22 school year, they accounted for 19% of students who were secluded and 26% who were physically restrained. And while Black children accounted for 18% of preschool enrollment, 38% received one or more out-of-school suspensions, and 33% were expelled.
In the years following the COVID-19 pandemic, schools have reported an uptick in mental health and disruptive behaviors in students. In fact, 68% of respondents said behavioral disruptions have increased since the 2019-20 school year in an EAB survey of school employees published in 2023.
At the same time, schools said they lack the funding and staffing to adequately address students’ mental health needs. Furthermore a 2024 Rand Corp. report found that challenging student behaviors contribute to teacher burnout.
On Thursday, the departments of Education, Homeland Security, Justice, and Health and Human Services issued a resource for K-12 threat assessment practices to help prevent school violence and create a safe school environment.
The order’s expectations
Student discipline policies are set at the school or district level. However, the federal government can issue guidance and hold schools accountable for discriminatory practices.
The executive order signed by President Donald Trump on Wednesday lays out a timeline of expectations for U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon. In one month, McMahon, along with the U.S. attorney general, is to issue school discipline guidance that reminds districts and states of their obligations under Title VI to protect students against racial discrimination. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin in federally funded programs.
In two months, McMahon and the U.S. attorney general are required to begin working with states to prevent racial discrimination in school discipline. By late July, the U.S. Department of Defense is to issue a revised school discipline code to guide the school experiences of children from military-service families.
Lastly, by late August, McMahon, along with leaders from various federal agencies, is to submit a report on the “status of discriminatory-equity-ideology-based school discipline and behavior modification techniques in American public education.”
Rep. Tim Walberg, R-Mich., chair of the House Education and Workforce Committee, praised the executive order in a statement on Wednesday, “The Left’s fixation on ‘disparate impact’ has led to a profound failure in many schools to address disruptions or behavioral problems in the classroom, negatively impacting all students as a result.”
Walberg added, “The Trump administration is restoring common sense in schools by working to remove racialized notions of DEI and saying unequivocally: All students must be treated equally.”
Trump also signed a broader executive order on Wednesday, not restricted to education programs, that calls for the elimination of “disparate-impact liability in all contexts to the maximum degree possible.” The order says that the U.S. should be a “colorblind society” without “race- or sex-based favoritism.”
