When President Trump signed his Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship executive order on January 20, 2025, the White House framed it as an effort to protect Americans’ constitutional rights and the First Amendment. The order declared that government censorship of speech is intolerable in a free society and directed federal agencies to ensure that no taxpayer resources are used to “unconstitutionally abridge the free speech of any American citizen.”
In practice, however, the landscape for open expression on college campuses remains complex. Even as the administration pledges to safeguard free speech, it has faced legal challenges and public scrutiny over actions that appear to restrict certain viewpoints—particularly those critical of U.S. policy or aligned with pro-Palestinian advocacy.
Federal Action and Judicial Pushback
Trump’s executive order was intended to reverse what it described as the previous administration’s censorship of Americans’ speech on online platforms. It tasked the Attorney General with investigating federal conduct inconsistent with the purposes and policies of this order and making recommendations for corrective measures.
At the same time, the administration has defended efforts to revoke visas and sanction individuals it accuses of spreading anti-American or pro-terrorist messages. Those measures became the focus of a recent high-profile court case, when U.S. District Judge William Young ruled that such actions violated constitutional protections.
In a 161-page opinion, Young found that federal officials deliberately and “with purposeful aforethought … intentionally sought to chill the rights to freedom of speech and to assemble peacefully.” The lawsuit, filed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the Middle East Studies Association, alleged that immigration authorities had relied on information from Canary Mission, an anonymous website that tracks pro-Palestinian students and faculty.
“The president’s palpable misunderstanding that the government simply cannot seek retribution for speech he disdains poses a great threat to Americans’ freedom of speech,” Young wrote.
The Department of Homeland Security criticized the ruling as undermining public safety, while the State Department said it would continue to revoke visas from individuals deemed security risks. The Justice Department declined to comment.
Shifting Boundaries in the Classroom
Beyond federal actions, tensions around expression have also surfaced within colleges and universities. Conservative organizations such as Turning Point USA have renewed efforts to expose what they describe as political bias among faculty.
The group’s Professor Watchlist—an online database that highlights instructors accused of promoting “leftist” or “anti-American” views—has been cited by critics as contributing to a culture of intimidation. NBC News reported that several professors listed on the site received threatening messages or harassment.
“If you make statements that right-wing politicians don’t like, then you can lose your job. Period. That is chilling,” said Isaac Kamola, director of the AAUP’s Center for the Defense of Academic Freedom.
Turning Point founder Charlie Kirk defended the project in a 2018 interview, calling it “an awareness tool” designed to “shine a light on what we feel has been an unfair balance toward left-leaning ideas and biases in our universities.”
In an ironic twist, more than 18 institutions have terminated, suspended, or expelled faculty, staff, or students who expressed unfavorable comments about Kirk immediately after his assassination. Lawsuits have been filed against universities in South Carolina, Indiana, and more.
The debate has raised broader questions about whether calls for ideological diversity are compatible with academic freedom. Some scholars argue that the watchlist and similar campaigns discourage open discussion by transforming classrooms into politicized spaces.
SIDEBAR: Measuring the Campus Climate for Free Speech
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) released its 2026 College Free Speech Rankings this fall, offering a comprehensive look at how students perceive open dialogue on campus. The survey, conducted with College Pulse, drew responses from more than 68,000 undergraduates across 257 institutions—making it the largest of its kind in the nation.
The results paint a sobering picture: 166 colleges received failing grades for protecting free expression, while only 11 earned a C or higher. Claremont McKenna College topped the list for the second year in a row, followed by Purdue University, the University of Chicago, Michigan Technological University, and the University of Colorado Boulder.
Students reported growing discomfort with discussing controversial topics, especially those related to the Israeli–Hamas conflict. On more than 20 campuses, three-quarters of students said it was difficult to have open conversations about the issue.
Equally concerning, one-third of respondents said they viewed violence as acceptable in some circumstances to stop a speaker.
“More students than ever think violence and chaos are acceptable alternatives to peaceful protest,” said Sean Stevens, FIRE’s chief research advisor. “This finding cuts across partisan lines. It is not a liberal or conservative problem—it’s an American problem.”
Students and the New Free Speech Divide
According to new data from the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), the climate for campus dialogue is worsening across the political spectrum. In its 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, 166 of 257 institutions earned failing grades for promoting open discourse.
“This year, students largely opposed allowing any controversial campus speaker, no matter that speaker’s politics,” said FIRE President and CEO Greg Lukianoff. “Rather than hearing out and then responding to an ideological opponent, both liberal and conservative college students are retreating from the encounter entirely.”
Still, some institutions have improved their standings. Dartmouth College, Vanderbilt University, and Yale University all rose in the rankings after revising policies and creating new programs on expression. Harvard University, which ranked last in the previous two years, moved up slightly to 245th.
A Debate Without Clear Lines
Across higher education, the push and pull over free speech continues to evolve. While the Trump administration emphasizes its commitment to protecting expression, its enforcement actions have drawn accusations of political selectivity. Meanwhile, college communities face their own challenges in balancing safety, inclusivity, and the exchange of ideas.
As both courts and campuses grapple with the meaning of free speech in an era of polarization, the question may be less about whether it is protected and more about who decides what it protects—and why.
