Columbia Global Freedom of Expression seeks to contribute to the development of an integrated and progressive jurisprudence and understanding on freedom of expression and information around the world.  It maintains an extensive database of international case law. This is its newsletter dealing with recent developments  in the field.

Concluding the first major trial of Trump’s second term, the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that the administration’s targeting – by arresting, detaining, and deporting – noncitizen students and faculty for their pro-Palestinian views is unconstitutional. The Knight First Amendment Institute called the ruling “historic.”

Judge William G. Young put it firmly: “[T]he intent of the Secretaries was more invidious – to target a few for speaking out and then use the full rigor of the Immigration and Nationality Act […] to have them publicly deported with the goal of tamping down pro-Palestinian student protests and terrorizing similarly situated non-citizen (and other) pro-Palestinians into silence because their views were unwelcome.”

Waging an assault on higher education for 9 months by now, the Trump administration communicates, loudly and clearly, which opinions it does not tolerate. Even with faculty and students standing up to the attacks, the “terrorizing a few” tactic is effective: last spring’s arrests of students have chilled speech on American campuses.

Anya Schiffrin, the co-director of the Technology Policy & Innovation concentration at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, reports on self-censorship among student journalists, who increasingly avoid controversial topics, omit bylines, or request takedowns; their sources often choose anonymity or refuse to speak at all.

“You can imagine if there is so much fear in newsrooms it is even more widespread among students,” Joel Simon, the director of the Journalism Protection Initiative at CUNY, told Schiffrin. “[I]n the current climate we can’t offer categorical assurances that your first amendment rights will be protected.”

As court battles grind on, it is the immediate silencing brought by witnessing the injustice – Tufts doctoral student Rümeysa Oztürk arrested for an op-ed or journalist Mario Guevara deported to El Salvador for his critical reporting – that takes weight. These arbitrary reprisals target a few but warn many more into silence. The chilling effect in itself may be hard to measure; yet, in today’s America, it is already tangible

At the recent launch of Hate Speech and the European Court of Human Rights by Natalie Alkiviadou, co-hosted by CGFoE, Aryeh Neier, President Emeritus of Open Society Foundations, recounted the history of attacks on free speech in the US.

“The difference between what is going on today and what went on in those earlier periods in American history,” Neier reflected, “is that a lot of the attacks on freedom of speech in the current period have involved establishment institutions, elite universities, major law firms, broadcast media, and now looks as though the foundations are going to be next in line.”

We will soon share the event’s recording and more insights. Stay tuned.

United States
President and Fellows of Harvard College v. the Department of Health and Human Services
Decision Date: September 3, 2025
The United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts held that multiple federal agencies unlawfully froze and terminated over $2 billion in federal grants awarded to a prominent research university. A federal multi-agency task force, tasked with combating antisemitism, issued letters to the university conditioning continued funding on sweeping governance reforms, increased “viewpoint diversity,” and the elimination of certain diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. The university rejected these demands and the agencies then imposed grant freezes and issued termination letters. The Court found that the agencies’ actions violated the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which protects freedoms such as speech and academic expression, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination, and were also arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA). The Court held that these actions constituted unconstitutional retaliation for the university’s refusal to accept viewpoint-based conditions and for filing litigation to defend its academic freedom, characterizing the government’s invocation of antisemitism as a pretext for an ideologically driven campaign. Accordingly, the Court vacated the Freeze Orders and Termination Letters and permanently enjoined the agencies from reimposing the measures or taking any future funding actions in retaliation for protected speech or without adherence to Title VI.

Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission
Decision Date: August 15, 2025
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted a preliminary injunction in favor of a non-profit media research center, Media Matters, finding that a federal agency likely violated the U.S. Constitution’s protection of free speech by issuing a retaliatory Civil Investigative Demand (CID). The dispute arose after the organization published a report documenting that advertisements from major companies were appearing alongside antisemitic content on X, the social-media platform. In the months that followed the organization was subjected to litigation by the platform and investigations by state attorneys general before the agency, under its new chair, served a broad CID ostensibly to probe coordinated advertiser boycotts. The Court treated the organization’s reporting as protected speech and found the CID’s demands sufficiently sweeping and burdensome to deter a person of ordinary firmness from speaking again, constituting a chilling effect. As the organization demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits and satisfied all the remaining preliminary injunction factors, the Court enjoined enforcement of the CID pending further proceedings.

RFE/RL v. Kari Lake
Decision Date: April 29, 2025
A U.S. district court granted a temporary restraining order, ordering the U.S. Agency for Global Media (USAGM) to disburse funds to Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, Inc. (RFE/RL), a non-profit broadcasting organization. RFE/RL, funded almost entirely through congressional appropriations, faced a funding disruption after the federal agency withheld disbursements and attempted to impose new grant terms following an Executive Order from U.S. President Donald Trump. RFE/RL, which had historically relied on regular monthly disbursements, sought emergency relief to access its congressionally appropriated funds. The Court highlighted the USAGM’s failure to provide a reasoned explanation for the termination of the funding and, given the risk of undermining the organization’s ability to continue its mission of providing news and disseminating information, ordered a temporary restraining order for the immediate disbursement of funds to the organization. The Court later partially granted a preliminary injunction compelling the agency to execute a grant agreement for FY 2025 on materially identical terms to those previously governing prior months, while declining to rule on the legality of proposed provisions for future fiscal years due to an incomplete record.

Widakuswara v. Kari Lake
Decision Date: April 22, 2025
The United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted in part a preliminary injunction, holding that executive actions dismantling an independent federal media entity likely violated statutory and constitutional constraints. The suit, brought by employees, contractors, unions, and NGOs, challenged mass terminations, defunding of affiliates, and suppression of programming implemented after a U.S. Presidential executive order by Donald Trump. The Court found a substantial likelihood that the actions were arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, unlawfully withheld appropriated funds, contravened statutory mandates protecting independent broadcasting, and infringed constitutional provisions requiring faithful execution of the law and respecting Congress’s control over appropriations. Finding irreparable harm to the agency’s operations, personnel, and international broadcasting mission, and determining that the public interest favored lawful agency conduct, the Court ordered restoration of staff, funding, and programming while denying relief related to certain entities pending further proceedings.

● US: Open Letter Rejecting Presidential Attacks on Nonprofit Organizations. In a joint statement, a coalition of more than 3,700 nonprofit groups, including Human Rights Watch, condemns the Trump administration’s unjust targeting of the civil society sector. The letter directly responds to the president’s September 25 memorandum on “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Political Violence,” issued in the aftermath of the assassination of conservative political commentator Charlie Kirk. “Political violence is unacceptable,” the coalition states. “But efforts by the president of the United States to defund, discredit, and dismantle nonprofit groups he simply disagrees with are reprehensible and dangerous – a violation of a fundamental freedom in America.”

● US: Journalist Mario Guevara’s Deportation Signals Growing Threats to Press Freedom. PEN America deplores the deportation of journalist Mario Guevara to El Salvador, from which he fled two decades ago due to retaliatory threats for his reporting. Guevara was initially arrested while livestreaming a protest in June, but had all the charges against him dropped. His deportation case, however, was reopened. Although Guevara possessed a valid work permit, and an immigration judge granted his release on bond, the federal authorities continued to detain him until his deportation on October 3. “Mario Guevara’s [case] will be remembered as a grave betrayal of America’s principles of due process and press freedom,” said Tim Richardson of PEN America.

● US: FIRE on the White House’s Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) raises concerns as the White House asks colleges to sign an agreement in return for preferential access to federal funds. FIRE flags some of the compact’s troubling requests that threaten free speech and academic freedom, like getting rid of departments that “punish, belittle, or even spark violence against conservative ideas” or directing university employees to abstain from “actions or speech related to politics.” Tyler Coward of FIRE responds, “A government that can reward colleges and universities for speech it favors today can punish them for speech it dislikes tomorrow.”

● Canada: Civil Society Organizations Urge Withdrawal of the Combating Hate Act. The Centre for Free Expression joins 36 civil society groups urging Canada’s federal government to withdraw Bill C-9, also known as the Combating Hate Act. In their letter to the Minister of Justice, the groups outline the bill’s flaws, like the introduction of a new “intimidation” offense, which, due to its broad and vague definition, could undermine the rights to freedom of expression and peaceful assembly. Other concerns include criminalizing the “willful promotion of hatred, terrorism, and hate symbols,” removing the requirement for the Attorney General’s consent to “hate propaganda” charges, and introducing a new “hate crime” offense that could result in overly harsh sentences.

This section of the newsletter features teaching materials focused on global freedom of expression which are newly uploaded on Freedom of Expression Without Frontiers

● Joint Submission to the UN UPR of the US: Rights to Education, Free Expression, Opinion, and Non-Discrimination. Ahead of the UN Universal Periodic Review (UPR) of the US, scheduled for November 2025, PEN International and PEN America submitted a report on the violations of the rights to freedom of expression, education, and non-discrimination. The submission documents both state-level and federal actions that contribute to censorship in education: attacks on institutional autonomy, curriculum restrictions, dismantling of DEI programs, and educational gag orders. The report underscores the disproportional impact of such measures on students of color, women, LGBTQI+ persons, people with disabilities, and those from low-income families. (This past August, the Trump administration withdrew its participation in the upcoming UPR.)

● 2026 College Free Speech Rankings: America’s Colleges Get an “F” for Poor Free Speech Climate. The latest edition of the annual College Free Speech Rankings, compiled by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) and College Pulse, reveals a continued deterioration of the free speech climate on American campuses. Based on 68,510 responses in the survey spanning 257 schools across the country, the report indicates that students on all sides of the political spectrum are highly reluctant to engage with ideas they consider controversial. The total of 166 schools received an “F” for their speech environment, while only 11 were graded with a “C” or higher. For the first time, 1 in 3 students shows some level of tolerance, even if minimal, for resorting to violence to prevent a campus speech.

● The Kicker Podcast: Chicago’s Block Club Is Ready for ICE. Last week, several Chicago news outlets and reporters filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration and other top officials arguing that federal agents used excessive force against journalists and others at protests; a federal judge followed by issuing a temporary restraining order that bars federal agents from, among other things, “using riot control weapons” against the press and protesters outside the Broadview immigration processing center. What is covering the besieged Chicago like these days? In this podcast of Columbia Journalism Review, co-executive editor Stephanie Lulay and reporter Francia García Hernández, both of Block Club, one of the plaintiffs in the case, answer the question.

In case you missed it…

● Journalism Under Surveillance in Latin America – Cases, Challenges, and Responses From a Human-Rights Perspective. CGFoE recently hosted a critical conversation on surveillance practices directed at journalists in Latin America and the relevant protections granted by national and regional courts. “Impunity is the strategy of the state,” said speaker Claudia Duque, a journalist from Colombia. Following her investigation into the assassination of journalist and satirist Jaime Garzón, Duque was targeted with severe harassment classified by Colombia’s Attorney General’s Office as “crimes against humanity,” which led to the conviction of nine former officials of the now-defunct Colombian secret police. To learn more about the cases of reporters under surveillance, watch the recording in the original Spanish or the English translation.

This newsletter is reproduced with the permission of Global Freedom of Expression.  For an archive of previous newsletters, see here.