U.S. Department of Education's Trump Appointees and America First Agenda

The U.S. Department of Education has announced a team of senior-level political appointees who will support the implementation of President Trump’s America First agenda.  

The Trump Administration, by Executive Order, has already required colleges and universities to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion measures and schools are scrambling to be compliant with this new federal policy. New policies may also affect grants from the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes the Food and Drug Administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and the National Institutes of Health.

Notable actions the Department of Education has already taken include: 

• Dissolution of the Department’s Diversity & Inclusion Council, effective immediately;
  • Background:The Diversity & Inclusion Council was established following Executive Order 13583 under then - President Obama. President Trump has rescinded the Executive Orders that guide the Council and issued a new Executive Order, “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing,” that terminates groups like the Diversity & Inclusion Council. DEI documents issued and related actions taken by the Council have been withdrawn.
• Dissolution of the Employee Engagement Diversity Equity Inclusion Accessibility Council (EEDIAC) within the Office for Civil Rights (OCR), effective immediately and pursuant to President Trump’s Executive Order “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing”;
• Cancellation of ongoing DEI training and service contracts which total over $2.6 million;
• Withdrawal of the Department’s Equity Action Plan;
• Placement of career Department staff tasked with implementing the previous administration’s DEI initiatives on paid administrative leave; and
• Identification for removal of over 200 web pages from the Department’s website that housed DEI resources and encouraged schools and institutions of higher education to promote or endorse harmful ideological programs.

At least four appointees to the Department of Education, as well as including incoming Secretary of Education Linda McMahon, have worked at the America First Policy Institute (AFPI). AFPI's higher education proposals are posted here and noted at the bottom of this article. AFPI has been accused of using dark money to prevent student loan forgiveness and its rhetoric clearly advances this agenda.

Rachel Oglesby – Chief of Staff

Rachel Oglesby most recently served as America First Policy Institute's Chief State Action Officer & Director, Center for the American Worker. In this role, she worked to advance policies that promote worker freedom, create opportunities outside of a four-year college degree, and provide workers with the necessary skills to succeed in the modern economy, as well as leading all of AFPI’s state policy development and advocacy work. She previously worked as Chief of Policy and Deputy Chief of Staff for Governor Kristi Noem in South Dakota, overseeing the implementation of the Governor’s pro-freedom agenda across all policy areas and state government agencies. Oglesby holds a master’s degree in public policy from George Mason University and earned her bachelor’s degree in philosophy from Wake Forest University. 

Jonathan Pidluzny – Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy and Programs 

Jonathan Pidluzny most recently served as Director of the Higher Education Reform Initiative at the America First Policy Institute. Prior to that, he was Vice President of Academic Affairs at the American Council of Trustees and Alumni, where his work focused on academic freedom and general education. Jonathan began his career in higher education teaching political science at Morehead State University, where he was an associate professor, program coordinator, and faculty regent from 2017-2019. He received his Ph.D from Boston College and holds a bachelor’s degree and master’s degree from the University of Alberta. 

Chase Forrester – Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations 

Virginia “Chase” Forrester most recently served as the Chief Events Officer at America First Policy Institute, where she oversaw the planning and execution of 80+ high-profile events annually for AFPI’s 22 policy centers, featuring former Cabinet Officials and other distinguished speakers. Chase previously served as Operations Manager on the Trump-Pence 2020 presidential campaign, where she spearheaded all event operations for the Vice President of the United States and the Second Family. Chase worked for the National Republican Senatorial Committee during the Senate run-off races in Georgia and as a fundraiser for Members of Congress. Chase graduated from Clemson University with a bachelor’s degree in political science and a double-minor in Spanish and legal studies.

Steve Warzoha – White House Liaison

Steve Warzoha joins the U.S. Department of Education after most recently serving on the Trump-Vance Transition Team. A native of Greenwich, CT, he is a former local legislator who served on the Education Committee and as Vice Chairman of both the Budget Overview and Transportation Committees. He is also an elected leader of the Greenwich Republican Town Committee. Steve has run and served in senior positions on numerous local, state, and federal campaigns. Steve comes from a family of educators and public servants and is a proud product of Greenwich Public Schools and an Eagle Scout. 

Tom Wheeler – Principal Deputy General Counsel 

Tom Wheeler’s prior federal service includes as the Acting Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Justice, a Senior Advisor to the White House Federal Commission on School Safety, and as a Senior Advisor/Counsel to the Secretary of Education. He has also been asked to serve on many Boards and Commissions, including as Chair of the Hate Crimes Sub-Committee for the Federal Violent Crime Reduction Task Force, a member of the Department of Justice’s Regulatory Reform Task Force, and as an advisor to the White House Coronavirus Task Force, where he worked with the CDC and HHS to develop guidelines for the safe reopening of schools and guidelines for law enforcement and jails/prisons. Prior to rejoining the U.S. Department of Education, Tom was a partner at an AM-100 law firm, where he represented federal, state, and local public entities including educational institutions and law enforcement agencies in regulatory, administrative, trial, and appellate matters in local, state and federal venues. He is a frequent author and speaker in the areas of civil rights, free speech, and Constitutional issues, improving law enforcement, and school safety. 

Craig Trainor – Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy, Office for Civil Rights 

Craig Trainor most recently served as Senior Special Counsel with the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary under Chairman Jim Jordan (R-OH), where Mr. Trainor investigated and conducted oversight of the U.S. Department of Justice, including its Civil Rights Division, the FBI, the Biden-Harris White House, and the Intelligence Community for civil rights and liberties abuses. He also worked as primary counsel on the House Judiciary’s Subcommittee on the Constitution and Limited Government’s investigation into the suppression of free speech and antisemitic harassment on college and university campuses, resulting in the House passing the Antisemitism Awareness Act of 2023. Previously, he served as Senior Litigation Counsel with the America First Policy Institute under former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, Of Counsel with the Fairness Center, and had his own civil rights and criminal defense law practice in New York City for over a decade. Upon graduating from the Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, he clerked for Chief Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr., U.S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Mr. Trainor is admitted to practice law in the state of New York, the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the U.S. Supreme Court. 

Madi Biedermann – Deputy Assistant Secretary, Office of Communications and Outreach 

Madi Biedermann is an experienced education policy and communications professional with experience spanning both federal and state government and policy advocacy organizations. She most recently worked as the Chief Operating Officer at P2 Public Affairs. Prior to that, she served as an Assistant Secretary of Education for Governor Glenn Youngkin and worked as a Special Assistant and Presidential Management Fellow at the Office of Management and Budget in the first Trump Administration. Madi received her bachelor’s degree and master of public administration from the University of Southern California. 

Candice Jackson – Deputy General Counsel 

Candice Jackson returns to the U.S. Department of Education to serve as Deputy General Counsel. Candice served in the first Trump Administration as Acting Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights, and Deputy General Counsel, from 2017-2021. For the last few years, Candice has practiced law in Washington State and California and consulted with groups and individuals challenging the harmful effects of the concept of "gender identity" in laws and policies in schools, employment, and public accommodations. Candice is mom to girl-boy twins Madelyn and Zachary, age 11. 

Joshua Kleinfeld – Deputy General Counsel 

Joshua Kleinfeld is the Allison & Dorothy Rouse Professor of Law and Director of the Boyden Gray Center for the Study of the Administrative State at George Mason University’s Scalia School of Law. He writes and teaches about constitutional law, criminal law, and statutory interpretation, focusing in all fields on whether democratic ideals are realized in governmental practice. As a scholar and public intellectual, he has published work in the Harvard, Stanford, and University of Chicago Law Reviews, among other venues. As a practicing lawyer, he has clerked on the D.C. Circuit, Fourth Circuit, and Supreme Court of Israel, represented major corporations accused of billion-dollar wrongdoing, and, on a pro bono basis, represented children accused of homicide. As an academic, he was a tenured full professor at Northwestern Law School before lateraling to Scalia Law School. He holds a J.D. in law from Yale Law School, a Ph.D. in philosophy from the Goethe University of Frankfurt, and a B.A. in philosophy from Yale College. 

Hannah Ruth Earl – Director, Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships

Hannah Ruth Earl is the former executive director of America’s Future, where she cultivated communities of freedom-minded young professionals and local leaders. She previously co-produced award-winning feature films as director of talent and creative development at the Moving Picture Institute. A native of Tennessee, she holds a master of arts in religion from Yale Divinity School.

AFPI Reform Priorities

AFPI's higher education priorities are to:

• Reform America’s Dysfunctional Higher Education Accreditation System

• Rethink Public Financing of Postsecondary Study to Encourage Competition and Accountability

• Open New Pathways to Family-Sustaining Careers

• Combat the Politicization of Higher Education and Encourage Viewpoint Diversity on U.S. Campuses

• Protect Students’ and Professors’ First Amendment Rights

 Related links:

Trump's Education Department dismantles DEI measures, suspends staff (USA Today) 

California State University changes 'illegal' program that excluded White men (Fox News)

America First Policy Institute Team

America First Policy Initiatives

Santa Ono: Take the Money and Run

In a stunning development that has sent ripples through the world of higher education, University of Michigan President Santa J. Ono announced he will step down this summer to take the helm at the University of Florida. The announcement comes just seven months after he signed a lucrative contract extension at U-M—one that brought his salary to $1.3 million per year and was among the most generous in the nation.

Ono’s exit will mark the shortest presidential tenure in University of Michigan history—just two and a half years. And it’s happening at a moment of profound political and institutional tension, with many in Ann Arbor voicing frustration at what they perceive as the university's muted resistance to a suite of controversial measures emanating from the Trump administration.

From Rising Star to Abrupt Exit

When Santa Ono arrived in Ann Arbor in late 2022, he brought with him a sterling academic pedigree and a reputation as a charismatic, student-focused leader. His hiring was seen as a stabilizing move after years of controversy surrounding his predecessor.

But beneath the surface, Ono’s relationship with the university community frayed. Faculty members and students alike cite his increasing absence from public discourse in 2024, particularly as the federal government—under a resurgent Trump administration—moved to slash research funding, roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs, and scrutinize university partnerships, including U-M’s involvement with The PhD Project, which aims to diversify business faculty.

“He’s been more or less invisible particularly this year,” said Faculty Senate Chair Derek Peterson. “What we need is a fighter, not a conformer.”

The Florida Move

Ono’s move to the University of Florida has sparked speculation about his motivations. On paper, Michigan is more prestigious, enjoys greater autonomy thanks to a unique governance structure, and has a massive $19.2 billion endowment. Florida, by contrast, is under the thumb of a politically active governor and a centralized board that has exerted pressure on universities to conform to ideological mandates.

Yet the financial allure may have been too great to ignore: reports suggest Florida’s presidential compensation could total $3 million annually—more than double Ono’s current pay.

Brendan Cantwell, a professor of higher education policy at Michigan State University, noted the irony: “He’s leaving a more prestigious, more autonomous institution. That says a lot about the pressures he faced.”

A State Under Fire: The Regressive Politics of Higher Education in Florida

For those familiar with the political climate in Florida, Ono’s move to the University of Florida is far from surprising. Over the past few years, Florida has become a hotbed for right-wing political maneuvering in higher education, with Governor Ron DeSantis spearheading efforts to reshape universities in line with his conservative agenda.

From banning certain books to defunding DEI programs and trying to control academic curriculum, DeSantis has made it clear that higher education in Florida is now a battleground for ideological warfare. His administration has launched aggressive campaigns against what he describes as “woke” politics in academia, citing the need to root out “liberal indoctrination” and promote “freedom” from progressive influences.

Florida’s approach to higher education has included an unprecedented wave of budget cuts to diversity programs, particularly those aimed at supporting historically underrepresented students. The state’s universities are now grappling with the loss of funding for programs designed to increase access for Black, Latino, and Indigenous students. DeSantis has also pushed for "anti-woke" laws that bar universities from offering certain courses or diversity-related initiatives. This is not only affecting the curriculum, but also the very way in which faculty and staff are hired and evaluated.

In 2023, the University of Florida eliminated many of its DEI programs under pressure from the state. The state’s Board of Governors is now actively involved in scrutinizing university curriculums, and its influence extends even to hiring practices, where faculty members are increasingly expected to align with a more conservative view of American history and culture. These moves have drawn ire from academics nationwide, who argue that Florida’s political leadership is attempting to stifle intellectual freedom and academic independence.

Moreover, Florida’s universities face a severe erosion of academic freedom, as DeSantis has sought to impose strict guidelines on speech and research. This includes revising what can and cannot be taught in classrooms and restricting discussions around race, gender, and political identity. The state's newly imposed curriculum laws have made it more difficult for universities to engage in meaningful discourse about topics such as climate change, systemic racism, and gender equality.

For Ono, stepping into this highly charged, politicized environment will represent a dramatic shift from his more moderate, research-focused tenure at Michigan. His leadership will likely be tested not just by university-level challenges but also by the state's political apparatus, which has shown a willingness to intervene in nearly every facet of higher education.

Institutional Challenges Ahead

Ono’s departure leaves U-M with significant challenges. The Board of Regents announced that he will remain in Ann Arbor until an interim president is named—a process that may take weeks. But finding a long-term leader capable of navigating the rapidly shifting higher education landscape could take much longer.

The next president will have to address:

• Federal Research Cuts: The loss of federal contracts—particularly from agencies like the National Institutes of Health—has cost Michigan and its peer institutions hundreds of millions of dollars. A $15 million Social Security study was among the casualties. U-M is using endowment funds to plug gaps, but that is not a sustainable strategy.

• DEI Backlash and Retrenchment: The university recently shuttered two DEI offices and scaled back programming, citing political and legal risks. While Ono promised to bolster financial aid and mental health support, many faculty and students felt betrayed by the move.

• Campus Unrest and Free Speech: Protests over the Gaza war led to harsh disciplinary action against student groups, including the suspension of Students Allied for Freedom and Equality (SAFE). Critics say the campus has become increasingly authoritarian, and several lawsuits have been filed by terminated employees alleging First Amendment violations.

• Board Relations and Governance: U-M’s elected Board of Regents is ideologically divided. While five Democratic regents penned a passionate op-ed in defense of academic independence, the board’s stance on DEI and other political flashpoints appears fractured.

A Bigger Crisis in Public Higher Ed?

Beyond the immediate concerns, the university’s upheaval reflects deeper anxieties about the future of public higher education in America. Declining public trust, rising tuition, and the politicization of universities—especially around issues of race, gender, and free speech—have created an atmosphere of volatility.

While the University of Michigan continues to see strong application numbers, including from international students, enrollment of in-state high school graduates is dropping. The university’s Go Blue Guarantee, which offers free tuition to families earning under $125,000, is a step toward addressing affordability concerns. But will it be enough?

Sandy Baruah of the Detroit Regional Chamber sees a broader mission: “Our research universities all have a responsibility to make the case for higher education. The value of higher ed is critical to the state of Michigan.”

What’s Next?

The Faculty Senate has passed resolutions urging the university to join a “mutual defense pact” with other Big Ten schools to resist political interference and defend academic freedom. But U-M is not obligated to act on those resolutions.

Interim leadership will be announced soon, and the search for a permanent successor will follow. Whoever takes the reins next will need to be a deft political operator—someone capable of rebuilding trust internally while weathering mounting external threats.

In the words of Cantwell: “Whoever they hire has to be prepared to be under intense scrutiny—locally, federally, ideologically. The next leader of Michigan must have both a spine and a strategy.”

As the University of Michigan enters this uncertain chapter, one thing is clear: the battle over the soul of public higher education is far from over.

The Role of U.S. Higher Education in Mass Surveillance: A Cornerstone of Authoritarianism and Fascism

In the digital age, surveillance has become a pervasive aspect of daily life. It reaches far beyond the government’s watchful eye; it infiltrates our personal spaces, our interactions, and even our educational institutions. In the United States, universities and colleges—typically seen as bastions of free thought and intellectual exploration—have, over the years, quietly embraced practices that align more with authoritarian surveillance than the fostering of academic freedom. The result is an unsettling convergence of education, technology, and control that deserves close scrutiny.

The Rise of Mass Surveillance in U.S. Higher Education

Mass surveillance is not a concept confined solely to government agencies or the private sector. U.S. colleges and universities have increasingly adopted surveillance technologies, often in ways that blur the lines between student safety, security, and governmental overreach. The methods used are diverse: from sophisticated digital monitoring of online activity to the installation of cameras throughout campuses, as well as the tracking of students’ movements and behaviors.

On-Campus Surveillance

Many campuses are equipped with thousands of security cameras, often without students' knowledge of the exact extent of their monitoring. These cameras track students' movements around buildings, dorms, and even outdoor spaces. Security personnel, working alongside private contractors, have access to this footage, creating a network of real-time surveillance. Additionally, some universities have partnered with police departments or government entities to share data from campus surveillance, effectively extending the government’s reach into spaces historically seen as separate from state control.

In some instances, universities have utilized facial recognition technology—a tool that, while growing in popularity among law enforcement and private corporations, is still highly controversial due to concerns about privacy, accuracy, and racial biases. Campuses like the University of California, Berkeley, and George Washington University have implemented or explored the use of facial recognition, drawing criticism from civil rights groups who argue that such technologies contribute to surveillance regimes that disproportionately target marginalized communities.

Digital Surveillance: Monitoring Online Activity

In the realm of digital surveillance, universities have also emerged as key players. The rapid digitization of academic spaces has made it easier for educational institutions to monitor and record students' online activities, including emails, internet browsing habits, and even participation in online discussions. These tools, ostensibly designed to protect students from online threats or cheating, can also be used to track the political views or social connections of students and faculty members.

University systems that monitor students' academic behavior are often integrated with third-party services that collect vast amounts of data. Companies like Google, which provide software for research and communication, have been instrumental in creating environments where personal data can be easily harvested and stored. As a result, students and faculty members are under constant scrutiny, even if they are unaware of the depth of data being collected on them.

Off-Campus Surveillance and Law Enforcement

While much of the surveillance happens on university grounds, the cooperation between educational institutions and law enforcement extends far beyond campus boundaries. Many universities share information with federal agencies like the FBI or local police departments, creating a synergy of surveillance that goes beyond the walls of academia. This collaboration is often justified as part of maintaining national security or preventing crimes, but it carries profound implications for privacy and civil liberties.

After the 9/11 attacks, for example, universities in the U.S. were encouraged to collaborate with federal intelligence agencies under the auspices of the USA PATRIOT Act and other anti-terrorism measures. This led to the surveillance of students’ political activities, associations, and even participation in protests. While much of this occurred covertly, the ramifications were far-reaching, particularly for marginalized groups who found themselves disproportionately surveilled due to their activism.

Surveillance of International Students: A First Step Toward Widespread Control

One of the most chilling aspects of surveillance on U.S. campuses is the specific targeting of international students. Historically, international students have been a vulnerable demographic in the context of surveillance and control. This began in earnest post-9/11, when the U.S. government imposed stricter regulations on foreign students, requiring universities to report on students' status, academic performance, and even their physical locations.

The Student and Exchange Visitor Information System (SEVIS) was established to track international students in real-time, linking student data to immigration and law enforcement agencies. While this system was presented as a means of ensuring national security, it effectively treated international students as suspects, placing them under heightened scrutiny. Universities, in turn, became instruments of surveillance, forced to comply with federal mandates to report any changes in a student's enrollment status, academic performance, or even the duration of their stay in the U.S.

For international students, this surveillance has been particularly invasive, as their movements—whether related to academic matters or personal lives—are constantly monitored by both their institutions and government entities. The stigma of being under the microscope contributes to a sense of alienation and powerlessness. It also encourages conformity, making it difficult for international students to freely express political or ideological dissent for fear of jeopardizing their academic status or immigration status.

The Threat of TPUSA’s Professor Watchlist

Another troubling element of surveillance within higher education is the growing trend of surveillance outside official university systems. Conservative student groups, particularly Turning Point USA (TPUSA), have taken it upon themselves to monitor and track the activities of professors whose political views they deem “liberal” or “left-wing.” One of TPUSA’s most controversial initiatives has been the creation of the Professor Watchlist, which compiles and publicly names professors accused of engaging in “liberal indoctrination” or promoting “liberal agendas.”

While TPUSA claims the Professor Watchlist is a tool to expose bias in academia, its purpose appears to be less about fostering academic debate and more about intimidating faculty members and curbing academic freedom. Professors listed on the watchlist are often subjected to harassment, threats, and, in some cases, professional repercussions, as conservative groups or donors seek to pressure universities into disciplining or firing faculty. The Watchlist represents a form of extrajudicial surveillance—non-governmental in origin but with highly political aims.

The real danger of such initiatives lies in their ability to undermine the independence of higher education. It is not just the professors listed who are impacted, but the entire academic community. Faculty members may begin to self-censor, avoiding controversial or politically sensitive topics for fear of being targeted, and students may find their ability to engage in free inquiry increasingly stifled.

The Professor Watchlist serves as a reminder that surveillance of academic institutions is not just the work of government agencies or private corporations; it is also deeply politicized, with various ideological groups using the tools of surveillance to exert control over education and the intellectual freedoms that it should represent.

Little Resistance: The Silence of Academia

Despite these troubling developments, resistance within academia has been minimal. Universities, which are supposed to serve as protectors of free speech, intellectual diversity, and civil liberties, have largely failed to challenge the growing surveillance apparatus both on and off their campuses. This silence is not without reason—many academic institutions have willingly participated in these surveillance efforts, citing concerns over campus security, student safety, and the desire to combat terrorism.

Additionally, many students and faculty members have become desensitized to surveillance. A generation raised in the digital age, where privacy is increasingly an afterthought and constant connectivity is the norm, may not fully grasp the implications of mass surveillance. Those who do speak out often find themselves at odds with institutional priorities or are silenced by threats of punishment, surveillance of their own activities, or other forms of retaliation.

The fear of retribution has also led to a chilling effect on dissent. Students who voice political opinions, especially those that challenge the status quo, may find themselves under increased scrutiny. This environment creates a culture where conformity reigns, and open discourse is stifled, not necessarily by overt repression, but by the omnipresent surveillance that discourages any behavior that might be deemed "out of line."

Mass Surveillance as a Tool of Authoritarianism and Fascism

The convergence of surveillance practices on college campuses with broader state interests should not be dismissed as incidental. Throughout history, mass surveillance has been a hallmark of authoritarian and fascist regimes. From Stalinist Russia to Nazi Germany, the power to monitor and control individuals through surveillance has been a tool used by oppressive governments to stifle dissent, control behavior, and consolidate power.

In a fascist regime, surveillance serves not just as a means of security, but as a tool of indoctrination and social control. The existence of surveillance constantly reminds individuals that they are being watched, creating a pervasive sense of fear and self-censorship. The same mechanism is increasingly visible in today’s U.S. higher education system, where students and faculty members may unconsciously internalize the need to comply with institutional norms, which are often shaped by external pressures from governmental and corporate entities.

The Implications for Democracy

The implications of this trend are far-reaching. When educational institutions no longer stand as a safe space for the free exchange of ideas, when they themselves become complicit in the surveillance of their own communities, it erodes the very foundation of democratic society. Free thought and intellectual exploration—the core tenets of higher education—cannot thrive in an atmosphere of constant monitoring and fear.

Mass surveillance on campuses also reinforces systemic inequalities. As surveillance technologies disproportionately affect marginalized groups—whether due to racial profiling, political dissent, or nationality—it contributes to a broader structure of control that undermines the principles of equal treatment and justice. In a society where the surveillance state extends into universities, it’s not hard to imagine a future where academic freedom becomes a thing of the past, with institutions serving instead as instruments of political and corporate control.

Resisting Creeping Authoritarianism

The role of U.S. higher education in the rise of mass surveillance—both on and off-campus—raises serious concerns about privacy, freedom, and the future of democratic values. Universities, which once stood as symbols of intellectual autonomy, are now complicit in the surveillance mechanisms that have come to define authoritarian and fascist regimes. The lack of widespread resistance from within academia only exacerbates the situation, highlighting the need for a renewed commitment to the values of free thought and privacy.

If we are to preserve the integrity of higher education as a space for critical thinking and dissent, we must confront the creeping normalization of surveillance in these institutions. It’s time for students, faculty, and administrators to take a stand, not just against the overt surveillance on campus, but against the creeping authoritarianism that it represents in the broader context of our society. The fight for academic freedom and privacy is not just a fight for the rights of students and educators—it’s a fight for the soul of democracy itself.

Petition: UVA and Charlottesville community demand UVA administration drop UJC charges against student protesters arrested on May 4th

Contact: 

Laura Goldblatt (lgoldblatt@gmail.com)

609-915-6132

Walt Heinecke (Waltheinecke@hotmail.com)
(434) 825-1896

September 8, 2024

Charlottesville, VA 

UVA students have launched a petition that has garnered over 500 signatures and counting demanding that the UVA administration drop University Judiciary Committee (UJC) charges against the five remaining protesters still facing such charges following local and state police’s violent break up of the UVA and community pro-Palestinian encampment on May 4th, 2024. 

The petition notes that in addition to retraumatizing students attacked by police in riot gear, some wielding semi- and automatic weapons, the charges are unjust and arbitrary. Given that local authorities, including the Albemarle County Prosecutor Jim Hingeley, has determined that there is not enough evidence to proceed with criminal charges and all no trespass orders have been dropped, the administration seeks to use the UJC charges to further antagonize students who have otherwise been fully exonerated through due process. 

The students protesting at the encampment and on May 4th sought to realize UVA’s mission of being both “good and great” by demanding this ethos apply to the University’s operations and that they divest from Israeli companies and those profiting from the genocide in Gaza. In making an example of these students, administrators aim to deny UVA faculty, staff, students, and Charlottesville community members of their first amendment rights and protections and instill a culture of fear around free speech and the right to protests at UVA.

The UJC charges also cause material harm to those students who cannot obtain diplomas and secure employment, effectively locking them out of the job market despite their successful completion of their degrees. Current students facing charges remain in limbo. As they start the academic year, they are unsure of what will happen in their cases and whether they will be able to finish the semester with their peers.

A local civil rights attorney representing one of the students facing UJC charges recently stated “It’s over the top. ‘Let’s prosecute them. Let’s put them in judicial proceedings. Let’s take away their right to get a diploma.’ What else do you want to do to them?”...All for a small, entirely peaceful demonstration for which the university can give no adequate, truthful answer to why it happened, how it happened and who, in fact, ordered it happening.” (Daily Progress, August 25, 2024)

In a recent Statement the American Association of University Professors (“AAUP Condenms Wave of Administrative Policies Intended to Crackdown on Peaceful Campus Protests”) stated: “College and university students are both citizens and members of the academic community. As Citizens, students should enjoy the same freedom of speech, peaceful assembly, and right of petition that other citizens enjoy and, as members of the academic community, they are subject to the obligations that accrue to them by virtue of this membership. Faculty members and administration officials should ensure that institutional powers are not employed to inhibit such intellectual and personal development of students as is often promoted by their exercise of the rights of citizenship both on and off campus....Administrators who claim that “expressive activity” policies protect academic freedom and student learning, even as they severely restrict its exercise, risk destroying the very freedoms of speech and expression they claim to protect.”

In dropping the UJC charges, UVA administrators could join with peer institutions like the University of Chicago, which have dropped all charges against student protesters. Such actions would serve as the first step towards transparency and healing, actions that they refused to take over the summer in the immediate wake of their egregious decisions on May 4.

More Schools Report Visa Revocations and Student Detentions

Reports have surfaced of a significant increase in the number of international student visas being revoked and students being detained across various universities in the United States. This follows heightened immigration scrutiny, particularly under the administration of Donald Trump. According to Senator Marco Rubio, more than 300 international student visas have been pulled in recent months, primarily targeting students involved in political activism or minor infractions. WeAreHigherEd has named 30 schools where students' visas have been revoked. 

Campus Abductions — We Are Higher Ed

Key Universities Affected

• University of California System (UCLA, UC San Diego, UC Berkeley):
  Universities within the University of California system, which hosts a large international student population, have reported multiple visa cancellations. These revocations have affected students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, political activism, or perceived violations of U.S. immigration policies. For instance, the University of California has seen as many as 20 students affected in recent weeks.

• Columbia University:
  At Columbia University, the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist, has gained significant media attention. Khalil, who was detained and faced deportation, exemplifies the growing concerns over student rights and the growing impact of politically charged visa revocations.

• Tufts University:
  Tufts University is currently battling the Trump administration over the case of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish graduate student whose visa was revoked. Her detention and the ensuing legal battles highlight the growing tensions between academic freedom and government policy. Tufts and its student body are advocating for Öztürk's release and seeking clarification on the legal processes involved.

• University of Minnesota:
  At the University of Minnesota, one international graduate student was detained as part of an ongoing federal crackdown on visa violations. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) actions continue to raise concerns over the rights of international students to remain in the country, especially as visa renewals and compliance checks become more stringent.

• Arizona State University:
  Arizona State University has also reported incidents of international students having their visas revoked without prior notice. These revocations have affected students from various countries, creating uncertainty within the international student community at the university.

• Cornell University:
  At Cornell University, international students have similarly faced unexpected visa cancellations. This has raised concerns about the ability of universities to adequately support their international student populations, as students are left to navigate the complexities of visa status without sufficient notice or explanation.

• North Carolina State University:
  North Carolina State University is another institution where international students have had their visas revoked without notice. The university has expressed concern over the lack of clarity from immigration authorities, which has left students in a precarious situation.

• University of Oregon:
  The University of Oregon has experienced several cases of international students having their visas revoked. This has been particularly troubling for students who were actively pursuing their education in the U.S. and now face the prospect of deportation or being forced to leave the country unexpectedly.

• University of Texas:
  At the University of Texas, international students have faced visa issues, with several reports of revocations and detentions, affecting students who are working toward completing their degrees. This has sparked protests and advocacy efforts from both students and university administration, seeking more transparency in the process.

• University of Colorado:
  The University of Colorado has similarly reported instances of international student visa revocations, particularly affecting those involved in political activism. The university has been working to support students impacted by these actions, although many are left in limbo regarding their ability to continue their studies.

• University of Michigan:
  The University of Michigan has also been impacted by a wave of visa revocations. Similar to other institutions, students involved in political protests or activism have found themselves under scrutiny, facing the risk of detention or deportation. Students, faculty, and staff are pushing for clearer policies and legal protections to support international students, who are increasingly at risk due to the political environment.

The Broader Implications

These incidents of visa revocation and detentions are seen as part of a broader trend of increasing immigration enforcement under the Trump administration. Critics argue that these actions infringe upon students' rights, potentially violating freedom of speech and academic freedom. International students, especially those participating in protests or political discourse, have found themselves at risk of being detained or deported, with little prior notice or transparency regarding the reasons for such actions.

Moreover, the economic impact of these actions is significant. In 2023, a record 253,355 student visa applications were denied, representing a 36% refusal rate. This has major implications not only for the affected students but also for U.S. universities that rely heavily on international students for tuition revenue. The financial loss could be as much as $7.6 billion in tuition fees and living expenses, further emphasizing the broader consequences of these policies.

Legal and Administrative Responses

Many universities are rallying behind their international student populations, with advocacy efforts from institutions like Tufts University and Columbia University. These universities have criticized the abruptness of the visa cancellations and detentions, calling for more transparency and due process.

However, despite these efforts, the political climate surrounding U.S. immigration remains volatile, and it is unclear whether policy changes will result in more lenient or more restrictive measures for international students.

Conclusion

These stories underscore the fragile position of international students in the U.S. today. With incidents of detentions and visa revocations increasing, students face significant challenges navigating the complexities of U.S. immigration law, particularly those involved in political or activist circles. University administrations and students alike continue to call for clearer policies, protections for international student rights, and more transparent practices to avoid the unintended consequences of politically motivated visa actions.

This issue remains ongoing, with much at stake for both 

Democratic Protests on Campus: Modeling the Better World We Seek (Annelise Orleck)

As an aging college professor, I found myself in a surprising position on the evening of May 1: face down in the grass of the Dartmouth College Green, with a heavily armored riot policeman kneeling on my lower back, and three others holding me immobile. Police wrenched my arms painfully behind me as they roughly tightened plastic zip ties on my wrist that cut sharply into my skin. “You’re hurting me,” I cried. “Please stop.”

I found myself croaking the words that I have heard so many victims of police brutality say before me: “I can’t breathe.” One of the officers growled at me, “You can talk. You can breathe.” I thrashed and gasped for air, while they threatened to charge me with resisting arrest, then pulled me up hard to my feet and pushed me toward a college van that the administration had provided police to facilitate the only mass arrests I have seen in my thirty-four years of teaching at Dartmouth.

Like many colleges and universities, after student encampments spread across the country calling for a ceasefire in Gaza and for divestment from companies that profit from Israel’s war, Dartmouth had banned tents on the Green. College policy violations don’t usually result in arrests, so Dartmouth chose to press charges against protesters for “criminal trespass.” As a recent court order made clear, “the State arrested each named defendant at Dartmouth College’s behest.”

When New Hampshire riot police arrived, there were ten students sitting quietly in five tents, surrounded by maybe 150 supporters, who had linked arms around them. It was a notably diverse protest, with Jewish, Christian, Muslim and Buddhist faith communities involved.

Over the years, there have been myriad peaceful student-led protests on the Dartmouth Green: to support campus unions, denounce sexual violence, call for divestment from fossil fuels and, before that, from companies that profited from South African apartheid. There have been rallies decrying racist statements in the famously conservative Dartmouth Review, calling for protection of undocumented students and opposing the incarceration of migrant children. 

Not since the late 1960s has Dartmouth called in riot police to assault protesters. Across the country, student protest has flourished largely unrestrained on college campuses since the disastrous 1970 crackdowns at Kent State in Ohio and Jackson State in Mississippi cost six students their lives. Why now are we seeing beatings and arrests of thousands? What moved college administrators this spring to make such a sharp change in how they handle peaceful student protest?

On the night of May 1, eighty nine people, myself included, were brutally arrested by phalanxes of heavily armed men in full body armor with helmets, truncheons, police dogs, and an armored vehicle. They descended alongside several local police forces, apparently called in by the college president and the Republican Governor of New Hampshire, Chris Sununu, who, hours earlier, had condemned campus protests for peace in Gaza as “100 percent antisemitic.”

A disproportionate number of those arrested that night were students of color. Their own experiences of state violence and discrimination have sensitized them to the suffering of Palestinians. Some of the arrested were, as I am, Jewish. This fact reflects the broader movement for a ceasefire in Gaza, which contains a disproportionate number of Jews who are moved by our religion’s call for tikkun olam (repair of the world) to denounce the genocide being committed in our names. The narrative promoted by politicians, many media pundits and supporters of Israel that these protests are “100 percent antisemitic” is, on my campus and many others, 100 percent untrue.

These violent crackdowns on campuses have been executed in the name of fighting antisemitism, defending free speech and keeping campuses “safe.” Dartmouth’s president and other college administrators have argued that calling riot police and arresting protesters is not an infringement of their rights to free expression. Rather, they insist, there are proper and improper ways to protest. “Occupations,” (the word they use to describe the tent encampments student protesters have used to evoke the situation in which more than a million displaced Gazans are now living,) infringe on the freedom of those who disagree with the protesters, making them uncomfortable and perhaps physically impeding them as they walk to or from classes or dorms. Some Jewish students who have suffered such discomfort have filed class action lawsuits against their universities for not protecting them.

Regardless of where you stand on whether campus officials should arrest peaceful protesters whose speech is making some other students feel uncomfortable, it is crucial to recognize that this new campaign against alleged anti-Semitism on campuses is not instigated by Jewish undergraduates who feel unsafe. It is well-funded and well-coordinated by powerful organizations with international reach – some of them funded to the tune of tens of millions of dollars by wealthy conservative donors from the U.S. and Israeli state coffers. The Institute for the Study of Global Anti-Semitism and Policy,closely tied to Israel’s ruling Likud party, has provided research and data to members of Congress and state governments seeking to pass anti-Boycott Divestment and Sanctions laws. ISGAP research was also cited in Republican-led Congressional hearings investigating the so-called rise of “anti-semitism” on college campuses.

While ISGAP has concentrated on government agencies, many suits against colleges and universities have been litigated by the Louis D. Brandeis Center, founded in 2011 to combat civil rights violations against Jewish or Israeli students. The Brandeis Center usually sues for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which forbids discrimination against or exclusion of anyone on the grounds of race, color or national origin in any program receiving federal funds. It has launched suits and legal complaints against Columbia, Harvard, University of Vermont, American University, Brooklyn College, Tufts, the University of Southern California and many other campuses. The Center has also promised to clean up “the morass of Middle Eastern studies,” mounting complaints against 129 Middle Eastern studies programs and centers on campuses.“When universities fail to comply with their legal obligations,” the Brandeis web site declares, “the center holds them accountable by taking legal action.”
(https://brandeiscenter.com/our-impact/)

Does all of this make politicians and college administrations tread carefully when students protest Israeli policy? You bet. The massive P.R. campaign to delegitimize criticism of Israel has also powerfully influenced mainstream media coverage of the protests. It has been not just relentlessly negative but wildly alarmist: one CNN anchor compared the campus protesters to Hitler youth on campuses in the 1930s; an MSNBC host compared the protesters to those who stormed the Capitol on January 6, arguing that campus protests are motivated only by hate.

As an historian of U.S. politics and social protest movements, it seems clear to me that we are in the grip of a national mass hysteria – not unlike the Red and Lavender Scares of the post-World War II years, when Hollywood actors, writers, New York schoolteachers and postal service workers, federal employees in Washington, D.C. were called in front of Congressional investigating committees and interrogated about past Communist Party sympathies or hidden gay lives.

In that era, Communists and gay people were painted as threatening to U.S. national security, because Communists were thought to want to give away secrets to our enemies and closeted gay people were seen as vulnerable to blackmail by foreign spies. Now it is critics of Israel’s war in Gaza who are seen as threats to U.S. national security, because they question long-standing agreements to supply billions in weapons annually to our primary ally in the Middle East. The U.S.-Israel relationship makes a few people (some of whom are on the Boards of Trustees of colleges and university campuses) a lot of money. 

In 2022, more than 2/3 of foreign investment in Israel came from the U.S. And Israel’s investments on the tech-heavy NASDAQ exchange are fourth in the world – smaller only than those of the U.S., Canada and China. Seen in that light, we can understand why student protesters’ calls for colleges and universities to divest from companies tied to Israel are being seen by Trustees and politicians alike as an existential threat. Dartmouth’s president is a director of the largest hedge fund on earth, headed by an Israeli tech guru and which invests heavily in Israeli technology.

Money is certainly part of what is fueling the bi-partisan response of politicians to this year’s wave of student protests. Politicians heavily funded by Israel’s premier lobbying firm – the American Israel Public Affairs Committee – are more than happy to conflate criticism of Israeli policy with anti-Semitism. Just as members of both parties in Congress -- from the 1940s through the early 60s -- feared being called soft on Communism, now politicians are weaponizing fears of a “new anti-Semitism” to further their own political agendas and line their pockets– bolstering military and technology contractors in Israel and the U.S. as they rile up voters in the 2024 election cycle. Fear sells. It generates both profits and votes.

That’s where the campaign of shock and awe came in. It all happened so quickly it was head spinning. 

On April 27, a student protest at Washington University in St. Louis resulted in 100 arrests. Steve Tamari, a Palestinian history professor from a nearby university, was thrown to the ground by police with such force that he suffered multiple broken ribs and a broken hand. His crime – filming the police action. 

On April 30, the New York Police Department made 300 arrests at Columbia and City College, barricading students into their dorm rooms, jailing protesters without water for 16 hours, holding two in solitary confinement. 

On May 2, the Los Angeles Police Department broke up an encampment of UCLA student protesters. For hours they watched as a right-wing mob (of self-proclaimed Zionists some of whom were armed thugs with ties to actual neo-Nazi and anti-LGBTQ groups) beat them, shot fireworks at them, then sprayed chemical irritants. When the LAPD did step in, officers shot unarmed peace protesters and faculty in the chest, face, arms and legs with “less than lethal” munitions. 

According to one volunteer medic, injured protesters were prevented from seeking much-needed hospital care until police had zip tied and arrested them.

The carnage continued at the University of Virginia where -- seven years earlier – actual neo-Nazis had marched with torches chanting Jews Will Not Replace Us. No police moved in to stop them. But, on May 4, 2024, Virginia riot police called in by UVA’s president pepper-sprayed and violently arrested peaceful protesters, destroying both tents and students’ belongings. 

Two and a half weeks later, on May 21, riot police used gas and chemical irritants to break up a Gaza ceasefire protest at the University of Michigan, on a part of campus that – like our Green - has hosted peaceful protests for decades without incident.

More than 3,100 were arrested at Gaza protests on college campuses from April to June 2024. ACLED (the Armed Conflict Location and Event Data Project) found that 97.4% of these protests were completely peaceful. Most of those arrested, myself included, were charged with criminal trespass – standing on the property of the institutions where they study and work. Interestingly, prosecutors from Manhattan to Austin have begun to drop charges against hundreds of protesters, for lack of evidence and – as one Indiana prosecutor put it – because the charges are “constitutionally dubious.” So far, New Hampshire has refused that route.

This theater of repression did what it was supposed to: bringing in riot police makes it seem that peaceful protest is actually threatening. And those who cracked down on the threat were lauded. In late June, Dartmouth was cited in the Chronicle of Higher Education as the only Ivy League campus not investigated by Congress for anti-Semitism. Our president continued to insist that she was acting in defense of free speech when she called armed police to arrest peaceful protesters.

Similarly, Republican congressional interrogators gloated over the resignations of the Presidents of Harvard and the University of Pennsylvania late last year. In mid-May, as riot police were flooding campuses to “clear” encampments, Elise Stefanik and Virginia Foxx called to Capitol Hill the Presidents of Northwestern University and Rutgers University, where administrators chose to negotiate rather than call police on their own students. The irony of a Jewish, pro-Israel university president Michael Schill, being dressed down by Republican House members with ties to actual white supremacist, homophobic, antisemitic and Islamophobic organizations, should not have been lost on anyone. But alas it was. Because that is how mass hysterias work.

Some of the loudest self-appointed Congressional defenders of American Jewry supported the January 6, 2021 assaults on Capitol Hill, where some protesters wore Camp Auschwitz shirts and others wore clothing with the logo 6MWE – which means 6 Million Wasn’t Enough. Those same members of Congress are now convening hearings to “investigate” how anti-Semitism is allegedly running rampant on college campuses and in K-12 schools.

There’s another piece to this perfect storm. Calling in armed state police to beat and jail teenage protesters may be seen as an alarming new stage in a 70-year-war by conservative politicians and intellectuals to “retake” higher education from “tenured radicals” who, allegedly, poison students’ minds by radicalizing them. Israel and its supporters have their agenda right now regarding campuses but so too do conservative educators and politicians.

The war on campus radicals can be traced at least as far back as William Buckley’s 1951 polemic, God and Man at Yale. It heated up with Roger Kimball’s 1990 screed, Tenured Radicals: How Politics Has Corrupted Our Higher Education. In 1994, Lynn Cheney, former head of the National Endowment for the Humanities, rejected the American History Standards she had commissioned (and which were worked on by actual American historians) as paying too much attention to “obscure” figures like Underground Railroad conductor Harriet Tubman and embarrassing topics like Red Scares and the KKK, and not enough to Confederate generals like Robert E. Lee or inventors like Orville and Wilbur Wright, the so-called fathers of aviation.

Those first battle cries were alarming at the time. They seem almost quaint now. The assault on education has intensified mightily since 2010, with the passage of book bans,bans on trans children competing in team sports and “divisive concepts” laws in more than 20 states that forbid teachers to discuss anything that makes students or, more likely, parents uncomfortable. In some districts this has meant a ban on teaching the history of slavery, systemic racism, sometimes the Holocaust, and certainly anything positive about LBGTQ people. Along with riot police on campus, have come new policies ending or drastically limiting Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programs, and calls for an end to Middle Eastern Studies programs, Women’s, Gender and Sexuality Programs and more.

The bans on teaching the history of minority communities in the U.S. being waged in Florida, Texas and other states, go hand in hand with a spate of laws introduced since the racial justice protests of 2020 to criminalize protest in general. Teaching “divisive concepts” – conservative education officials assert, fuels protests. Post-9/11 anti-terrorism legislation is now being adapted so that all kinds of acts of civil disobedience–blocking pipelines, roads and bridges for example – can be prosecuted as terrorism and protesters can be harshly punished.

A series of steps now being considered in Washington, D.C. (and state capitols) will take us farther down that slippery slope. H.R. 6408, which has already passed the U.S. House and is awaiting consideration in the Senate, will give the Secretary of the Treasury unilateral power to terminate the tax-exempt status of any organization that provides “material support” – and that includes speech acts – to any terrorist organization.

This helps to explain why Columbia University suspended its campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voices for Peace. While there is zero evidence of any links between those groups and Hamas, Israeli government-funded campus surveillance agencies such as Canary Mission, along with the Anti-Defamation League and AIPAC, have repeatedly charged campus activists with providing aid and comfort to Hamas. That charge has been echoed ad infinitum by some vehemently pro-Israel faculty, students and administrators. 

If H.R. 6408 becomes law, we will undoubtedly see numerous colleges and universities suspending or banning student groups engaged in protest – not just of Israeli policy but also of U.S. foreign policy. Student protesters talk of a “Palestine exception” to free speech protections. But if these bills become law, protest for any reason will be subject to harsh punishment.

As part of the crackdown on recent calls for ceasefire in Gaza, Congress reauthorized an expanded version of Section 702 in April. This post-9/11 program of warrantless mass surveillance (including private communications) has already been used against Black Lives Matter activists and journalists. A proposal to reform Section 702 to require warrants for surveillance of U.S. citizens was defeated, with the ADL and other pro-Israel groups arguing that it would hamstring surveillance of “pro-Palestinian” movements.

There has been, without doubt, a rise in anti-Semitism in this country and around the world. But the most worrisome antisemitism is not coming from student protesters calling for an end to the horrific war in Gaza. In the age of Trump we have seen the rise of a vast network of violent white supremacist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic and homophobic groups. Frighteningly, most of them are armed to the teeth with actual weapons of war. Continued erosion of any kind of gun control makes them more dangerous than ever.

But I want to go one step farther and say that - like the Red Scare of the 1950s, the violent crackdown on student and faculty protest over the past few months is itself antisemitic. It has targeted Jews disproportionately, seeks to enforce through state violence, surveillance, and legislation, a particular political stance that all Jews must adhere to, and insists that if Jewish students and faculty ally with Muslims, Christians and Buddhists to oppose Israeli policy, we can all be charged with supporting terrorism.

It seeks to eviscerate the rich array of Jewish identities – which have always included people critical of Zionism. There is no room in this view for Jews whose identity is rooted in the long tradition of Jewish support for minority and worker rights, democratic pluralism and social justice.

It is ironic, even tragic, that campus protesters have been so demonized. Because, in some very real ways, the student encampments have modeled the new world that we must bring into existence if there is to be peace, in Israel/Palestine and beyond. At encampments across the country, Jewish and Muslim students have broken bread together, prayed together and shared insights and rituals from their religious traditions. These students—the very same ones we are targeting for arrest, beatings, suspensions and expulsions—may just be leading us toward new visions of what is possible. And, in these dark times, we need that if we are to move forward.

Donald Trump's 9-Year War Against US Education

Since his emergence on the national political stage, Donald Trump has been a polarizing figure, bringing his brand of combative rhetoric and controversial policies to every corner of American society. One of the key arenas where his influence has been felt the most is in the realm of education. From 2016 to 2025, Trump’s war on education has manifested through a series of legislative actions, executive orders, and cultural provocations that aimed to reshape the American education system. These efforts have targeted everything from public schools to higher education institutions, and even the very curriculum taught to students.

The Deconstruction of Public Education

At the heart of Trump’s vision for education was the dismantling of traditional public schooling. During his first term as president, Trump and his allies sought to undermine the very foundation of public education by promoting privatization and school choice initiatives. His administration pushed for expanded funding for charter schools and private school vouchers, which would allow families to use public funds to pay for private education.

This movement gained momentum in 2017 when Betsy DeVos, a staunch advocate for school privatization, was appointed as Secretary of Education. Under her leadership, the Department of Education rolled back Obama-era regulations designed to protect students and promote equitable access to education. Critics argued that DeVos’s policies favored wealthy families and private institutions while leaving public schools underfunded and underserved, particularly in marginalized communities.

The Attack on College Campuses

Trump’s war on education wasn’t confined to K-12 schooling. Higher education was also a major battleground during his presidency and beyond. In his first few years in office, Trump took aim at what he saw as the liberal indoctrination of students on college campuses. His rhetoric about “political correctness” and “safe spaces” served as a rallying cry for conservative students and faculty, but also sparked fierce resistance from progressives and academics who felt that free speech and intellectual diversity were under threat.

Trump’s administration took several steps to curb what he described as “left-wing bias” in higher education. In 2019, he signed an executive order that threatened to withhold federal funding from universities that did not protect free speech, a move that critics viewed as a political stunt to rally his base. The Trump administration also rolled back protections for marginalized groups, including Title IX protections for transgender students, and shifted the Department of Education’s focus away from investigating discrimination and harassment cases in favor of addressing “free speech” concerns.

Curricular Controversies and Cultural Wars

The Trump era also saw an escalation of the culture wars, particularly with regard to the curriculum being taught in schools. Trump and his allies began to target lessons related to race, gender, and American history, framing them as divisive or unpatriotic. In 2020, following the Black Lives Matter protests, Trump launched the 1776 Commission, a response to what he viewed as a growing movement to “rewrite” American history. The commission’s purpose was to promote a more “patriotic” curriculum that would emphasize the positive aspects of American history, while downplaying the country’s legacy of slavery and racial inequality.

In the following years, many states, particularly those led by Republican governors, passed laws banning the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in public schools. These laws prohibited the teaching of concepts that might make students “uncomfortable” about America’s history of racism, and further entrenched the ideological divide over how history and social issues should be taught in the classroom. Trump’s rhetoric and policies had a direct impact on how schools and teachers navigated the increasingly charged political atmosphere.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on Education

Perhaps the most dramatic intersection of Trump’s policies and education came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump consistently downplayed the severity of the virus and pushed for schools to reopen quickly, even as the pandemic raged across the nation. His administration provided little federal guidance or support for school districts struggling with the challenges of online learning and public health concerns. Trump’s insistence that schools should be open for in-person instruction became a point of contention, with many educators and parents concerned about the safety of students and staff.

While some states followed Trump’s call to reopen schools, others, especially in blue states, opted to remain virtual or implement hybrid models. This divide further exacerbated the political polarization over education, with Trump framing the debate as a fight between “freedom” and “control,” while critics argued that his policies endangered public health and undermined the long-term well-being of students.

Legacy of Division and Reshaping Education

As Trump’s presidency drew to a close, it became clear that his approach to education had left a lasting impact on the country. His administration’s policies had deepened the divisions between public and private schooling, amplified cultural and political debates about what students should learn, and exacerbated existing inequalities in the education system.

In 2024, as Trump continued to remain a significant force in American politics, the ideological battle over education remained unresolved. His push for school choice and privatization, along with his ongoing influence on local education policy, suggested that the “war on education” was far from over. States across the country continued to grapple with issues such as curriculum control, free speech on college campuses, and the role of government in funding education.

Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education

As Trump’s influence stretched into the second half of the decade, the war on education reached a dramatic new phase. In 2025, following his return to office, Trump signed an executive order that effectively began the process of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. This move came as part of a larger effort to reduce the role of the federal government in everyday life, echoing Trump’s long-standing rhetoric of decentralization and states’ rights.

The department’s responsibilities were reassigned to various state agencies, with a strong emphasis on allowing individual states to shape their own educational policies without federal interference. This was seen by Trump as a victory for conservatives who had long criticized federal education policies for being too one-size-fits-all. Critics, however, argued that this dismantling of the department could lead to a patchwork of educational standards across the country, further entrenching inequalities in access to quality education.

Furthermore, the reduction in federal oversight had significant implications for funding, student protections, and the enforcement of civil rights in education. Many feared that without the Department of Education’s regulatory power, vulnerable students, including those from low-income backgrounds and marginalized communities, would suffer from a lack of protections and resources.

Cuts to Science and Research Funding

Trump’s policies also have had a significant impact on scientific research at major universities, with institutions like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) facing severe cuts to critical research funding. Johns Hopkins University, one of the largest recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, announced plans to eliminate over 2,000 positions in response to federal cuts, potentially losing over $100 million in research funding. This reduction in federal support, especially for scientific research, had major consequences for ongoing studies, from medical advancements to climate change research, affecting the broader academic community.

Meanwhile, the University of Pennsylvania also experienced significant financial strain due to cuts in federal contracts, which impacted their research funding and innovation. The Trump administration's cuts to science funding across the board resulted in a stifling of some of the nation’s top research institutions, creating ripple effects throughout the entire academic and scientific community. The loss of funding for groundbreaking research projects at these prestigious institutions further strained the ability of scientists to pursue critical work in fields such as public health, climate change, and cancer research.

Victory Against Columbia University

One of the most high-profile actions taken in the final phase of Trump’s war on education was his administration's attack on elite institutions, particularly Columbia University. As one of the most prestigious Ivy League schools in the U.S., Columbia had become a target for Trump’s criticisms of what he perceived as liberal bias on college campuses.

In 2025, Trump and his allies escalated their campaign against universities, particularly those with strong liberal reputations. Columbia was singled out due to its left-leaning faculty and student body, as well as its vocal support for progressive policies related to climate change, racial justice, and gender equality. The Trump administration levied significant threats of withdrawing federal funding from the university unless it adhered to a more conservative curriculum. Additionally, Trump’s education policy advisers launched investigations into the institution’s handling of free speech issues, particularly in relation to controversial speakers and protests on campus.

By March 2025, Columbia faced a stark financial crisis after losing $400 million in federal funding for its failure to address antisemitism on campus. The administration warned 60 other institutions about similar consequences unless they ensured the safety of Jewish students. In its eventual capitulation to the Trump Administration, Columbia allowed student activist Mahmoud Khalil to be arrested and sent to a detention facility in Louisiana. The decision further fueled national debates about the balance between free speech and university autonomy.

Education as the Frontline in America’s Cultural Battle

Looking back at Trump’s influence on education between 2016 and 2025, it’s clear that the battle over how America educates its children and young adults became a focal point for larger cultural, political, and ideological conflicts. Trump’s legacy in education is defined by attempts to reshape the system in his image—whether through pushing for privatization, engaging in culture wars over curriculum, or sowing division over the future of public education. The ultimate impact of his policies will continue to reverberate for years to come, shaping not just the educational landscape, but the future of American society itself.

U.S. Government Targets Student Activism: Over 300 Visas Revoked Amid Escalating Deportations

In a controversial move, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Thursday that the State Department had revoked the visas of more than 300 students, a number that is expected to rise. This action is part of the White House’s growing crackdown on foreign-born students, many of whom have been involved in political activism, particularly related to pro-Palestinian protests that have been sweeping college campuses.

Rubio made it clear that the government’s focus is on what he referred to as “these lunatics” – individuals who, according to him, are using their student visas not for education but for activism. His statements, made during a visit to Guyana, came amid reports of increasing detentions and deportations of students from countries like Iran, Turkey, and Palestine.

"It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas," Rubio said, underscoring the administration’s intent to target those engaging in political activism. Some of these arrests have taken place in dramatic fashion, with students detained by masked immigration agents and sent to detention centers, often far from their homes, with limited explanation.

Among the high-profile cases is that of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national studying in the U.S. on a student visa. Ozturk was arrested earlier this week in Somerville, Massachusetts, and is currently being held in a Louisiana detention facility. Her arrest follows her involvement in a Tufts University student newspaper article that called on the institution to divest from companies with ties to Israel and to acknowledge what she referred to as the Palestinian genocide. Importantly, Ozturk’s essay did not mention Hamas, yet her arrest has raised concerns over the broader political targeting of students engaged in activism.

Many of the students caught up in this crackdown are believed to have been involved in the pro-Palestinian protests that gained momentum on campuses last year. While the administration has not provided specific reasons for targeting these students, far-right pro-Israel groups have compiled lists of individuals they accuse of promoting anti-U.S. or anti-Israel sentiments. These lists have reportedly been shared with U.S. immigration authorities, further intensifying the political climate surrounding these detentions.

The move is part of a larger agenda by the Trump administration to clamp down on the activities of legal permanent residents and student visa holders. Immigration experts warn that such actions undermine the fundamental American right to free speech and assembly, particularly in academic settings.

Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, described the current situation as "uniquely disturbing," stating that it sends a message to the brightest minds around the world who traditionally chose to study in the U.S. for its openness and intellectual freedom. The message, he argues, is now one of rejection.

The administration's actions are said to be guided by an immigration provision dating back to the Cold War, which allows the revocation of visas if a student's activities are seen as posing "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Some of the students targeted, including Ozturk, have had their visas revoked under this justification, despite no clear evidence of criminal activity.

Other notable individuals caught in the crosshairs include Alireza Doroudi, a doctoral student from Iran at the University of Alabama, and Badar Khan Suri, an Indian graduate student at Georgetown University. Both have been detained without clear charges, sparking concerns over whether their arrests are retaliatory measures for their political views. Suri, for instance, was allegedly detained for spreading Hamas propaganda, although he has denied such claims.

This wave of detentions and visa revocations also extends to other students like Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia University student who participated in protests. Despite being a legal permanent resident, Chung now faces deportation. Similarly, Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian student at Columbia, was detained by ICE after allegedly overstaying her student visa.

The increasing number of student arrests and deportations is drawing the attention of human rights advocates, who argue that these actions are a direct attack on free speech. Samah Sisay, one of the attorneys representing detained students, expressed concern that the government's actions are not only targeting specific political views but are also intended to intimidate future student activists.

This crackdown is also raising questions about the role of U.S. universities in protecting their students. In one high-profile case, Columbia University agreed to implement significant changes after President Trump threatened to withdraw $400 million in federal research funding over accusations that the university was not doing enough to address harassment of Jewish students.

As these events unfold, the future of student activism in the U.S. appears increasingly uncertain. If these trends continue, more students may face the loss of their visas, deportation, or even criminal charges related to their political beliefs and actions on campus. The implications for free speech, academic freedom, and international student exchange are profound, and advocates are calling for a reassessment of policies that allow such widespread and seemingly arbitrary actions against students.

In the face of this growing repression, one thing is clear: the United States is now sending a strong message to the world about what it will and will not tolerate in its universities. Whether that message will stifle the tradition of academic activism remains to be seen.

Trump is Using Jews, Not Protecting Us (Hank Kalet, Channel Surfing)

His Executive Order on Antisemitism is a Threat to Muslims and Palestinians on Campuses and an Attack on the First Amendment

Antisemitism exists. It has a long and painful history that has embedded fear in our DNA as Jews, a fear that grows when incidents occur, like the one in Australia recently.

Police in New South Wales state, which includes Sydney, said on Wednesday they had found explosives in a caravan, or trailer, that could have created a blast wave of 40 metres (130 feet).

There was some indication the explosives might be used in an antisemitic attack that could have caused mass casualties, police said.

There also was an apparently coordinated set of “graffiti attacks” on Jewish sites that have caused the Australian Jewish community to increase security. Similar security efforts are being ramped up by Jewish groups in Europe as threats of antisemitic acts and the growth of the Far Right stoke fears.

Share

There have been reports of violent and deadly incidents throughout Europe, as well, with direct attacks on synagogues and other Jewish institutions. And there are leaders like Viktor Orhan in Hungary and political parties like Alternative for Germany who use antisemitic language and tropes, though often sanitized, amid their more targeted attacks on Muslim immigrants.

Syndicate or Reuse

Books by Hank Kalet

The United States is not immune to antisemitism, of course, but American Jews seem unable to focus on the real threats. Rather than keep our eyes trained on an ascendant right wing — including many of the people in President Donald Trump’s immediate circle, including the president himself — much of the Jewish community is focused on Israel and seems intent on conflating criticism of Israel, its war on Gaza, and the occupation with actual systemic anti-Jewish action.

This is the context for Wednesday’s executive order on “combatting antisemitism,” which targets campus protests and continues a Conservative/Republican push to peel Jews away from teh Democratic Party.

The order, as reported by The Washington Post, “is directed at universities where pro-Palestinian protests broke out last year,” and “threatens to revoke student visas of foreign students who participated in pro-Palestinian protests.”

Supporters of the order argue that these protests were antisemitic. They point to some uncomfortable speech — the equation of Israel with the Nazis, for instance — as proof, and then conflate sloganeering and assembly with physical harassment. Jewish students and faculty, the argument goes, were made uncomfortable by the protests and encampments and felt unsafe. That sense of fear, they say, proves that the protests were designed to harass, even if there was no direct harassment. It is a circular argument, but one endorsed by much of the American political establishment and leading Jewish organizations


Marc H. Ellis addresses the underlying issues with these arguments in his 2009 book Judaism Does Not Equal Israel.1 He describes what I’ll call a “triumphalist Judaism” that mixes Holocaust victimhood with Exodus (the novel) power, constructed in “the aftermath of the great Israeli triumph in the 1967 Arab-Israeli war” (6). That narrative posits several myths: that Palestine was empty and underutilized and had to be redeemed, that the “Arabs” were hostile to Jews as Jews, and that the state that was founded and that still exists remains a democratic outpost in a hostile world. This triumphalism, however, was also tied to our very real history as a persecuted minority. “Jews had once been weak and helpless,” he writes, but that was no longer the case. Yet, “our theology was telling us we were still. The fact was just the opposite. We had become empowered” and were acting as a regional power (59).

The current power dynamics in Israel/Palestine and the actual history — the forced removal of Palestinians from what is now the state and the continued usurpation of land — are treated as though they are benign acts. Israel — Jews — has become the victimizer in the region, acting as a colonial power, an occupying force.

What was “psychological,” he writes, has become “strategic.”

“If we owned up to our newfound power, we would have to be accountable for and to it. We would have to relinquish the Holocaust as the backdrop to everything Jewish.”

So Oct. 7 and the ensuing war play out as if they were new and shocking rather than as another battle — the deadliest and most traumatic, to be sure — in a decades-long rebellion by Palestinians against suppress and control by Israel.

The argument is based on an underlying anti-Muslim/anti-Arab bias that mirrors the hate and discrimination that Jews have faced across our history. It is evident in the language we (Americans and Jews) use consistently to refer to Arabs, Muslims, Palestine, and Israel. Arabs and Muslims continued to be seen as terrorists, even as the “not all” modifier is added.

Deena R. Hurwitz and Walther H. White Jr., in an article at the American Bar Association website, cite authors Sahar Aziz and John Esposito’s May 2024 book, Global Islamophobia and the Rise of Populism, to underscore a “disturbing rise of Islamophobia worldwide.”

Blaming Muslim minorities for economic, political, and social problems is an increasingly common rhetorical strategy for politicians in countries globally. A narrative of the “threatening Muslim invader” is prevalent, regardless of whether the targets of such rhetoric are born citizens or new arrivals.

Trump, for instance, mixes Islamophobic and xenophobic language as he calls for closing the borders. At the same time, he and his conservative allies rely on both anti- and philosemitic imagery when talking with and about Jews.

“In the United States, Europe, and India, Islamophobic rhetoric is essentially normalized,” Hurwitz and White write.

The use of this rhetoric reduces the history and diversity within the Muslim and Arab communities (and within the Jewish community) to “a set of stereotyped characteristics most often reducible to themes of violence, civilizational subversion, and fundamental otherness.”

Anti-Palestinian racism silences, excludes, erases, stereotypes, defames, and dehumanizes Palestinians. This is used to deny and justify violence against Palestinians and fails to acknowledge Palestinians as Indigenous people with a collective identity while erasing their human rights and equal dignity and worth.

Trump’s executive order builds on this structure of anti-Muslim/anti-Arab thought, while also endorsing stereotypes of Jews as a model minority in need of special protection — even as he dismantles what he calls the “DEI regime.” Pitting Jewish and Muslim communities against each other creates hierarchies among aggrieved groups, which the right can then use to abrogate our rights of speech, assembly, and petition. It’s also a solution that is out of proportion to the problem.

It creates a threat to international students (mostly Muslim) based purely on their protected speech and assembly, while doing nothing to improve the actual safety of Jewish students. Remember, we already have strong protections in most jurisdictions; prohibiting speech does nothing to address this.

Alex Morey of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a group that defends speech and academic freedom on campus and that has usually been allied with more conservative groups, describes what I’ll call an existential threat. She told the Forward that the order’s language might push universities to crack down on protest, because it functions as an implied threat — to funding and to visas.

Morey said that her organization was already fielding frantic queries from international students at American universities who are worried about being caught in a legal dragnet.

“These are not students that got arrested at a protest or vandalized a building, these are students who just went out and protested,” she said. “What we don’t want to see is schools saying, ‘Hey, Students for Justice in Palestine, I’m going to need a list of everyone in that club and we’re going to comb it for foreign students.’”

What we are talking about is the loss of immigration status and potential deportation as retribution for protest. It is a direct attack on the 14th Amendment’s equal rights clause, which provides “any person within (the United States) the equal protection of the laws,” including the First Amendment’s five basic freedoms.

The order brings together several of Trump’s favorite targets — higher education, Muslims, immigrants and protesters — and is part of a broader effort to undermine the academic freedom and speech rights of faculty and students in higher education. Trump is a wannabe autocrat. He sees these groups as a threat to his control. While fighting antisemitism is the ostensible reason for the order, the larger targets are our democratic institutions.

Channel Surfing is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.