Five months after the assassination of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk, a wave of lawsuits reveals how Americans were investigated, fired, and in one case, arrested for their online reactions to his death.
The most dramatic case involves Larry Bushart, a retired police officer in Lexington, Tenn. A self-described progressive and "keyboard warrior," he'd been posting memes that mocked Republican officials' mourning over Kirk. Then local police came to his door.
More than half of U.S. college and university students now study in a state with at least one law or policy restricting what can be taught or how campuses can operate.
There is no use in sugarcoating things. For higher education in America, 2025 was a year of catastrophe. Across nearly every conceivable front – from state capitals to Capitol Hill and even on social media – America’s politicians have been a full-scale campaign against colleges and universities, with a concerted focus on speech. The toll is immense. Fear among faculty, students, and administrators is widespread. Self-censorship in teaching and research is rampant.
Last November, a faculty report from UC San Diego showed that over the past five years, the number of freshmen placed in remedial math had increased thirtyfold. Reactions ranged from sober warnings about declining readiness to claims of a collegiate “math horror show.” In response, some commentators argued that treating the findings as a problem reflected a culture-war misunderstanding about equity, student success, or what colleges “really do.”
That reaction entirely misses the point. The UC San Diego report exposed something far more consequential. American colleges are failing at one of their core economic functions: They are no longer acting as credible gatekeepers for employers.
Several hundred feet from the White House, down a concrete path and across a quiet brick courtyard adorned with historical markers lie the doors to a small courthouse. The Court of Federal Claims, a legal venue where the U.S. government is always the one being sued. The building is now poised to be the site of fights over droves of terminated research grants.
Although it’s the latest iteration of a court that’s existed since 1855, predating Lincoln’s election, it’s not a well-known institution. It’s not the subject of on-screen, steamy legal dramas. But the U.S. Supreme Court’s preliminary rulings last year have elevated its importance for higher ed.
The past two years have exposed a fundamental tension in higher education. Most universities are committed to both diversity and free speech, yet many are unable to cope with the social consequences of passionate disagreement.
As protests over Israel and Gaza spread across campuses, administrators called for a return to civility, as though civility were a switch that could be flipped back on. But the confusion, anger, and institutional paralysis that followed suggest that universities aren’t just struggling to maintain civility on campus; they have no consensus about what civility requires.
EmmaWhitford
Inside Higher Ed
As promised in a memo from the chancellor earlier this month, some Texas Tech University system faculty members were asked this week to report whether any course they teach “advocates for or promotes” specific race, gender or sexual identities. It is the latest step in a sweeping curricular review focused on limiting discussion of transgender identity, racism and sexuality across the five-campus public system.
Angela Smith
Princetonians for Free Speech
In the basement of Robertson Hall on a crisp December evening, I had the privilege of attending a remarkable student-led event at Princeton University—a panel hosted by the Princeton Open Campus Coalition (POCC) and supported by Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS). The December 3 discussion centered on Fizz, an anonymous social media app for Princetonians that serves as a hub for commentary, debates and memes about campus life.
From my vantage point as Executive Director of PFS, the significance of this gathering extended well beyond its specific topic. What unfolded that evening represented one of the largest—and one of the most politically diverse—assemblies of student free-speech advocates in recent memory. Roughly forty Princetonians filled the room, not to hear a Supreme Court Justice or renowned author, but to engage sincerely with one another about speech, anonymity, and responsibility.
FIRE
Ninety one percent of undergraduate students believe that words can be violence, according to a new poll by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression and College Pulse.
The survey’s findings are especially startling coming in the wake of Charlie Kirk’s assassination — an extreme and tragic example of the sharp difference between words and violence.
“When people start thinking that words can be violence, violence becomes an acceptable response to words,” said FIRE Chief Research Advisor Sean Stevens. “Even after the murder of Charlie Kirk at a speaking event, college students think that someone’s words can be a threat. This is antithetical to a free and open society, where words are the best alternative to political violence.”
Jon A. Shields, Yuval Avnur, and Stephanie Muravchik
The Free Press
Excerpt: The right seems to be on a mission to expose universities as centers of leftist indoctrination. Too often we professors waved away the charge. We called these assertions naive at best, Trumpy at worst. Students, we rightly noted, are not putty in our hands, to be molded as we see fit. They have their own minds. Plus, we all too often struggle to even get them to do the readings. How could we possibly be indoctrinating them?
Matthew Harwood
FIRE
Excerpt: Since Charlie Kirk’s murder, the Trump administration has launched a blitzkrieg against Americans’ free speech rights. The scale and speed are dizzying — and they jeopardize the United States’ credibility as the world’s leading defender of free expression as other democracies continue to falter.
Being critical of America, capitalism, and Christianity shouldn’t put you on the feds’ radar because all those viewpoints are protected speech. A federal investigation should only occur when there’s reasonable evidence that some person or group — regardless of their constitutionally protected beliefs and opinions — has crossed the line into criminality.
The Editorial Board
Wall Street Journal
Excerpt: Universities have been in fight mode with the Trump Administration, but it doesn’t have to be that way. On Wednesday the University of Virginia signed an agreement with the Justice Department that pauses all federal investigations against the school, without an enormous ransom or coercive new mandates.
Brendan Cantwell
Ungated, Substack
Excerpt: The Trump administration on Wednesday evening released a memo inviting University of Arizona, Brown University, Dartmouth College, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Southern California, the University of Texas, Vanderbilt University, and the University of Virginia to enter into a “compact” (henceforth The Compact) with the federal government.
I will say that if the provisions outlined in The Compact were required by law, it sure seems like the administration would not need a special deal that offers preferred client status as an incentive to get what it wants. Read The Compact for yourself. It’s about 10 pages long. In the meantime, here is my assessments for why this is a rotten deal.
Greg Lukianoff
New York Times
Excerpt: If you’re a free-speech lawyer, you face a choice: Either expect to be disappointed by people of all political stripes — or go crazy. I choose low expectations.
Again and again, political actors preach the importance of free speech, only to reach for the censor’s muzzle when it helps their side. If, like me, you defend free speech as a principle rather than invoke it opportunistically, you get distressingly accustomed to seeing the same people take opposite positions on an issue, sometimes within the space of just a few months.
Ryne Weiss Chapin Lenthall-Cleary
FIRE
Excerpt: The sickening assassination of Charlie Kirk at a campus speech this week has brought attention to worrying trends in political violence and the public’s stated support for it.
According to FIRE’s annual College Free Speech Rankings survey, in 2020, the national average showed about 1 in 5 students said it was ever acceptable to use violence to stop a speaker. That number has since risen to a disturbing 1 in 3 students.
FIRE
Excerpt: Last week, an assassin silenced speech on a college campus. A family lost a father and a husband. As we have said without equivocation, political violence is never an acceptable response to free speech.
Appropriately, we can expect colleges and universities to place even greater emphasis on safety and security ahead of outside speakers arriving on campus moving forward. They have a moral and legal obligation to redouble their efforts to protect free speech as well as their campus community. However, administrators must not pass those security costs along to speakers or use security concerns as pretext to cancel a speaker’s appearance. Rewarding threats of violence by taxing speech or silencing speakers will only invite more threats and more violence.
Charlie Yale and Siyeon Lee
Daily Princetonian
Excerpt: On Monday, Princetonians for Free Speech (PFS) — an alumni-organized nonprofit supposedly committed to reviving viewpoint diversity at Princeton by empowering a “nonpartisan community of alumni” — published a letter in The Princeton Tory titled “A Letter to the Class of ’29 from Princetonians for Free Speech.”
Why is PFS, which claims to protect students regardless of political identity, publishing a letter to all first years in a journal that only appeals to a select few on this campus? Perhaps it’s because protecting speech that lies beyond the confines of conservatism was never in its interest at all.
Jamie Saxon
Princeton University News
Excerpt: President Christopher L. Eisgruber welcomed transfer and first-year students to Princeton on Tuesday as new members of a scholarly community where people of every background should feel welcome to engage in vigorous discussion and debate, grounded in the University’s “bold and powerful” free speech protections.
Eisgruber encouraged incoming students to engage across differences of opinion, even when it makes them uncomfortable, noting that “discomfort can sometimes generate understanding and insight.”
Frank Bruni
New York Times
Excerpt: What Trump and his allies are doing is no targeted effort to correct that. It’s a sweeping, indiscriminate, performative smackdown of elite institutions by a crew trying to solidify its power under the banner of anti-elitism. It doesn’t attempt to usher those institutions from a place of bias and extremism to one of neutrality and moderation. It answers excess with excess, orthodoxy with orthodoxy, censorship with censorship. And it disregards the damage it’s doing.
Allen Mendenhall and Daniel Sutter
City Journal
Excerpt: Business schools were once temples of market wisdom, teaching future executives how profits fuel prosperity and voluntary exchange lifts societies out of poverty. Yet our research suggests that these institutions today would rather pursue social change, preaching progressive doctrines with the zeal of converts.
In business schools across the globe, this transformation is well underway. Environmental, social, and governance (ESG) initiatives have proliferated. Diversity, equity, and inclusion programs have become regular fixtures.
Shiri Spitz Siddiqi
Free The Inquiry, Heterodox Academy, Substack
Excerpt: Rumors of a “vibe shift” have reverberated throughout the political sphere as commentators attempt to explain why the second Trump administration feels different. The “Great Awokening” of the 2010s and early 2020s, when the political left was culturally (if not always politically) dominant, appears to be winding down.
But the absolute numbers obscure a fascinating hand-off occurring between the political left and right that started around 2020: since then, documented attacks from the left have plummeted, while those from the right have trended upwards – especially since 2023.
Ashley Mowreader
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: The U.S. Department of State issued 12,689 fewer F-1 visas in May 2025 compared to the May before, which could forecast a decline in international students able to attend U.S. universities this fall.
While visa issuances can help predict international student enrollment trends, they don’t tell the full story, said Rachel Banks, senior director for public policy and legislative strategy at NAFSA, the association of international educators. Still, the trend line isn’t positive. “We’re not really going to know until we get through September to know everyone who arrives, to know what the enrollment really looks like,” Banks said. “But it’s certainly not encouraging.”
Ansley Skipper
If you can keep it, Substack
Excerpt: The Trump administration just forced the president of my alma mater to resign as part of a larger campaign to ostensibly enforce “intellectual diversity” and “advance academic freedom, intellectual inquiry, and student learning.”
Carlett Spike
Princeton Alumni Weekly
Excerpt: Halts on new visa interviews, expanded ICE raids, and travel bans are just a few of the Trump administration tactics that have created an environment of fear and frustration for international students on college campuses across the country. At Princeton, international graduate students have faced a semester of uncertainty as policies are frequently changing and their options to continue their studies and research work remain unclear.
Liam Knox
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: All 12 members of the Fulbright Foreign Scholarship Board have resigned over what they say is political interference in the selection process for recipients of the prestigious international grant, according to sources familiar with the program and a letter announcing their resignation Wednesday morning.
The FFSB normally has final say in the selection process, after initial application reviews by the Institute for International Education and host countries’ Fulbright commissions. This year was different. Inside Higher Ed broke the story last month that Secretary of State Marco Rubio directed State Department officials to intervene in the final stages of the selection process, adding a new step to cull proposals they felt did not comply with President Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.
Sarah McLaughlin
FIRE
Excerpt: American universities have long feared that the Chinese government will restrict its country’s students from attending institutions that cross Beijing’s sensitive political lines.
Universities still fear that consequence today, but the most immediate threat is no longer posed by the Chinese government. Now, as the latest punishment meted out to the Trump administration’s preeminent academic scapegoat shows, it’s our own government posing the threat.
Eboo Patel
Persuasion
Excerpt: In 2020, Steven Wilson, former education adviser to the governor of Massachusetts, was condemned as racist and fired from his job for writing an essay on the educational philosophy underlying the network of charter schools he founded.
What exactly did Wilson do wrong? According to The New York Times, some younger staff at the Ascend schools considered his essay “racially traumatizing,” likely because it directly criticized the progressive educator Tema Okun’s profoundly destructive idea—as expressed in her popular 1999 workbook on “Dismantling racism”—that linear thinking, objectivity and respect for good writing are features of “white supremacy culture.”
Josh Moody
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: As President Trump’s broadside attacks on higher education continue, few institutions have shown a willingness to push back publicly. But behind closed doors, the sector has already pumped millions of dollars into federal lobbying efforts this year to plead their case in Washington.
An Inside Higher Ed analysis of federal lobbying data shows that some of the universities in Trump’s crosshairs have dramatically increased spending this year compared to the first quarter of last year, hiring advocates on the Hill to represent their interests to lawmakers.
Lee Jussim and Robert Maranto
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: Now, thanks to the Trump administration’s—in our view questionable—policies regarding academia in general and elite institutions like Columbia and Harvard Universities in particular, policies that many plausibly view as political vengeance for leftist activism, higher education is rapidly approaching fear equity: The presidential right has joined the campus left in using intimidation to punish those whose speech they dislike. Now, everybody in academia gets to be afraid of being canceled, or at least having their grants canceled.
Is it possible that the new fear equity, with both left and right afraid to speak their minds, may be a necessary precondition to pave the way for a free speech renaissance?
James Piereson
City Journal
Excerpt: The Trump administration is trying to fix what ails American universities by freezing billions of dollars in pledged research grants due to be paid to Harvard, Columbia, Princeton, Cornell, and other prominent institutions, on the grounds that the schools have not done enough to counter anti-Semitism on their campuses or have evolved into left-wing hothouses with little diversity of opinion.
The Trump administration has tried to influence institutions by freezing payment of federal funds, but there is a more effective way to do this—one less likely to cause mayhem in scientific programs and medical schools and less prone to being overturned by the courts: Trump should use the leverage of prospective grants to induce institutions to abide by federal law and begin reforming their internal operations.
Benjamin Weinthal
Fox News
Excerpt: Texas Republican Sen. Ted Cruz called on his alma mater, Princeton University, to dismiss a former high-level Iranian regime official because he is allegedly making students feel unsafe amid recent outbreaks of antisemitism at the New Jersey university.
The ex-official for the Islamic Republic of Iran, Seyed Hossein Mousavian, who is a Middle East security and nuclear policy specialist at the university, is under pressure on many fronts from congressional representatives, Princeton students and experts on antisemitism.
Douglas Belkin and Meridith McGraw
Wall Street Journal
Excerpt: The Trump administration has frozen more than $1 billion in federal funding for Cornell and $790 million for Northwestern, according to a Trump administration official.
The federal government is investigating both schools for alleged civil-rights violations, as part of a rapidly expanding crackdown on elite research universities across the U.S. The latest funding at issue relates to grants and contracts with the departments of agriculture, defense, education and health and human services.
Ilya Somin
Volokh Conspiracy, Reason Magazine
Excerpt: The Trump administration has been detaining and trying to deport immigrant and foreign students for their First-Amendment protected speech. That includes even speech that does not actually support terrorism, as in the case of a Tufts graduate student detained for an anti-Israel op ed that, however flawed, does not endorse Hamas terrorism, or indeed even mention it. Such detention and deportation is an assault on freedom of speech, and violates the First Amendment, which has no exception for immigration restrictions.
Jacob Mchangama
Persuasion
Excerpt: When asked on Wednesday about the arrest and planned deportation of Mahmoud Khalil for his pro-Palestinian protest activities last year, Trump administration border czar Tom Homan resorted to a common refrain often used to justify egregious censorship.
But this doesn’t give the government a blank check to punish Khalil for his speech, however distasteful. The First Amendment does not have an exception for hate speech, and for good reason.
Don Moynihan
Can We Still Govern?, Substack
Excerpt: Normally I record the classes I teach. It gives students who miss class a chance to catch up. I also make space in my classes to talk about what is happening in government right now. A couple of weeks ago, students asked we keep the discussions, but stop recording the class. They worried about any record of their words that might be viewed as criticism of the current administration, and somehow weaponized against them.
It’s a small example of how fear is creeping into American life.
Rose Horowitch
The Atlantic
Excerpt: If the Trump administration’s goal was to sow chaos among America’s colleges, it has definitely succeeded. Last month, the Education Department’s Office of Civil Rights sent a letter to universities explaining the agency’s view that, because of the Supreme Court’s 2023 decision striking down affirmative action, any consideration of race—not just in admissions, but in hiring, scholarships, support, “and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life”—is now illegal.
The reaction from universities could best be described as “panicked bewilderment,” Peter Lake, a law professor at Stetson University, in Florida, told me.
John K. Wilson
Inside Higher Ed
Excerpt: On Feb. 14, the Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights issued an extraordinary Dear Colleague letter ordering all colleges and schools, public and private, that receive federal funds to implement massive changes and repression of free speech within 14 days. As the letter repeatedly warned and Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency posted, “Institutions which fail to comply may face a loss of federal funding.”
The Feb. 14 letter is a full-fledged attack on affirmative action and diversity, equity and inclusion. It is also one of the worst attacks on academic freedom by the government in the history of American higher education.
Ian Bogost
The Atlantic
Excerpt: Jennie Bromberg was somehow still exuberant last weekend about her future career in public health. In January, she interviewed for a competitive Ph.D. program in epidemiology at the University of Washington, one of several to which she has applied. “I loved them. It was amazing,” she told me by phone while on a walk with her Australian shepherd. But the email that arrived from UW shortly after she got home was not the acceptance letter that she’d hoped for. Nor was it even a rejection. Instead, it said that she’d been placed in grad-school purgatory.
The Trump administration has frozen, slashed, threatened, and otherwise obstructed the tens of billions of dollars in funding that universities receive from the government, and then found ways around the court orders that were meant to stop or delay such efforts.
National Association of Scholars Press Release
Excerpt: The National Association of Scholars (NAS) has launched a new report, Waste Land—The Education Department’s Profligacy, Mediocrity, and Radicalism. The report details the Department of Education’s (ED) long and controversial history, its weaponization by bureaucrats and policymakers over the years, and its current state of affairs. A key question explored in this report is one asked by many—what does ED actually do?
Samuel A. Church and Cam N. Srivastava
The Harvard Crimson
Excerpt: Only one-third of Harvard’s last graduating class felt comfortable expressing their opinions about controversial topics during their time at the College, the University’s 2024 senior survey found, reporting a 13 percent decrease from the Class of 2023.
Catherine Rampell
Washington Post
Excerpt: Amid all the noise, an eerie hush is spreading across America. Companies, scientific researchers and Trump critics are clamming up as the MAGA movement ushers in a new era of government censorship.
On Day 1, President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship.” This might have sounded like banal lip service, reaffirming commitment to the First Amendment. In reality, it was the start of an Orwellian effort to root out wrongthink from government ranks and the private sector.
Foundation for Individual Rights in Expression
Excerpt: The U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights announced today it agrees with a federal court ruling that appropriately found the Biden-era Title IX rules to unconstitutionally restrict student First Amendment rights.
Those rules, effective in August 2024, infringed on constitutionally protected speech related to sex and gender. They also rolled back crucial due process rights for those accused of sexual misconduct on campus, increasing the likelihood that colleges would arrive at unreliable conclusions during those proceedings.
Peter Berkowitz
RealClear Politics
Excerpt: It is dawning on some who run our elite colleges and universities – and the intellectuals whom they read – that their institutions desperately need reform. But the administrators and intellectuals assiduously avoid the core matter, which is the transformation of liberal education into progressive indoctrination.
David Brooks recognizes that America’s progressive elites have lost their way. And he correctly identifies the nation’s top universities as a chief cause. But the New York Times columnist and contributing writer at The Atlantic misdiagnoses the disease and advances a remedy that would make matters worse.
AEI Event
Excerpt: On January 27, author Ilya Shapiro joined AEI’s Jeffrey A. Rosen to discuss Mr. Shapiro’s new book, Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites. In his opening remarks, Mr. Shapiro reflected on the “four years of hell” and “purgatory” he experienced as Georgetown Law investigated whether his tweet about President Joe Biden’s Supreme Court pick violated the university’s anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policies.
During the event’s discussion portion, Mr. Shapiro defined the key terms “lawless” and “miseducation” in his book’s title, noting that “lawless” refers to law schools’ departure from teaching the law and respecting its legitimacy, and that “miseducation” refers to how the bureaucratic culture in law schools influences students.
Joseph H. Manson
Minding the Campus
Excerpt: I’ve been a donor to FIRE since 2007, but I’m no longer convinced by its diagnosis or treatment plan for the dire illness afflicting U.S. higher education.
This change in the character of the faculty is the key to understanding why FIRE is wrong not just in its diagnosis but also in its prescription, which is for institutions to respect the same speech rights of faculty that the First Amendment guarantees. (I wonder how serious they are about this, e.g., whether FIRE would defend a professor threatened with termination for uncritically promoting astrology in the classroom).
Eugene Volokh
Volokh Conspiracy, Reason
Excerpt: I was having a conversation with my Stanford colleague Diego Zambrano, and this perspective on the TikTok case emerged. I'm not positive it's a sound perspective; but I thought I'd pass it along and see what people thought about it.
Scarlet Kim, Daniel Mullkoff
ACLU
Excerpt: A SLAPP (Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation) suit brought against Columbia professors who criticized the school’s response to student protests is a classic – and unlawful – way to weaponize our legal system to punish and silence constitutionally-protected speech. The ACLU is back in court to protect our right to free speech.
Laura Spitalniak
Higher Ed Dive
Excerpt: About one-quarter of faculty members report feeling pressure to match their political views with those held by administrators and other professors at their institutions, according to a new survey from the American Association of Colleges and Universities and the American Association of University Professors.
The pair, with research support from NORC at the University of Chicago, polled faculty on issues relating to academic freedom and free speech — and the results painted a darkening perception of where they say their rights stand.
David Josef Volodzko
The Radicalist, Substack
Excerpt: As a former educator, I believe education is the cornerstone of democracy, not merely because it equips citizens with the tools to thrive professionally, nor because it deepens our understanding of the human condition through exposure to the arts, but because it fosters the critical capacity to make informed decisions.
Yet how can teachers accomplish this critical task if they are too scared to share their actual viewpoints with the class, even within the areas of their expertise?
