More stories

  • in

    Every American should read this judge’s stirring rebuke to Trump | Austin Sarat

    Democracy requires that we do more than look out for our own interests and defend our own rights. Ever since the birth of this nation, its citizens and leaders have echoed Benjamin Franklin’s admonition that “we must all hang together, or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately.”In Donald Trump’s America, hanging separately seems to be the order of the day. This seems especially true when it comes to his treatment of this country’s millions of non-citizen residents.From the start of his political career, demonizing immigrants has been Trump’s stock in trade. Since his return to office, he has been unusually aggressive in his campaign to round up, detain and deport people whose citizenship status is questionable, and, in some cases, citizens have been caught up in the dragnet.The administration has repeatedly violated the constitution by targeting people because of how they look or the sound of their accents. It has even singled them out because of what they have said or written.On 30 September, Judge William Young of the United States district court of Massachusetts made clear that when it comes to freedom of speech, the constitution does not distinguish between people born in the United States and those who have come here as immigrants. His decision in American Association of University Professors v Rubio offers both a stirring civics lesson and an unusually personal rebuke against the Trump administration. The court found that the Trump administration had violated the right to free speech in its push to detain and deport pro-Palestinian foreign scholars.In his opinion, the judge went beyond the usual bounds of a judicial decision to note that the president “ignores everything … The Constitution, our civil laws, regulations, mores, customs, practices, courtesies – all of it; the President simply ignores it all when he takes it into his head to act”. Young added: “While the President naturally seeks warm cheering and gladsome, welcoming acceptance of his views, in the real world he’ll settle for sullen silence and obedience. What he will not countenance is dissent or disagreement.”The judge also accused the president of “bullying”.Legal purists who might applaud the judge’s reading of the constitution will be offended by seeing that kind of language in a judicial opinion. But what he did helps frame the danger Trump poses to the rights of immigrants in a way that connects them to the rest of us.Bravo, Judge Young.Recall the case of Mahmoud Khalil, a green card holder and graduate of Columbia University. He was arrested and detained in March for participating in pro-Palestinian protests on the Columbia University campus. He was held for more than a hundred days in Louisiana.As his lawyer said on Democracy Now: “If free speech means anything in this country,” he noted, it means “government agents can’t pick you up off the street and throw you into jail because of what you’ve said.” But that is exactly what the administration did, hoping to make an example out of Khalil and send a chilling message to other immigrants.Or how about Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University graduate student, arrested by masked Ice agents for writing an op-ed calling on Tufts to do something to protect human rights in Gaza? As a Washington Post story notes, “Ozturk had committed no crime, yet her detention was a priority for the new Trump administration. US officials used the immigration system in unprecedented ways to covertly research and detain noncitizen students, relying on an investigative arm of the Department of Homeland Security whose work traditionally has focused on crimes such as drug smuggling and human trafficking.”“The effort to deport pro-Palestinian student activists,” the Post reports, “represented the Trump administration’s first major challenge to free-speech norms in the United States.” It had to know that what it was doing violated the First Amendment but went ahead anyway under the pretext that it was acting to prevent or punish terrorist activities.This is not the first time that immigrants have been punished for saying or doing things that an administration labelled dangerous. But since the middle of the 20th century, the supreme court has held that the government cannot deport people because of their views or what they say.At that time, Justice William Douglas explained that “freedom of speech and of the press is accorded aliens residing in this country” and that “the utterances made by … [them] were entitled to that protection”. Justice Frank Murphy joined him and stated: “Once an alien lawfully enters and resides in this country he becomes invested with the rights guaranteed by the Constitution to all people within our borders.”Young cited those views in his own opinion. “Noncitizens’ speech rights are,” he said, “identical to those of citizens.” He argued: “Political speech is not, on its own, a facially legitimate reason for expelling persons from this country.”After laying out in great detail all the things the Trump administration has done to violate that principle, including its mistreatment of Khalil and Öztürk, he called out Trump for ignoring the constitution and acting as if “the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech applies to American citizens alone”.Young called the case he was deciding “perhaps the most important ever to fall within the jurisdiction of this district court”.Citing the language of the first amendment – “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech” – the judge insisted: “‘No law’ means ‘no law.’ The First Amendment does not draw President Trump’s invidious distinction” between citizens and non-citizens, “and it is not to be found in our history”, Young wrote.That reference to “our history” suggests that Trump’s treatment of non-citizens is un-American. But Young was not finished.He added: “Triumphalism is the very essence of the Trump brand. Often this is naught but hollow bragging: ‘my perfect administration,’ wearing a red baseball cap in the presidential oval office emblazoned ‘Trump Was Right About Everything,’ or most recently depicting himself as an officer in the First Cavalry Division.”He criticized Trump for his “triumphal, transactional, imperative, bellicose, and coarse” language that “seeks to persuade – not through marshaling data driven evidence, science, or moral suasion, but through power”.Near the end of his opinion, Young quotes former president Ronald Reagan. “Freedom,” Reagan said, “is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction. It is not ours by way of inheritance; it must be fought for and defended constantly by each generation, for it comes only once to a people …”Returning to Trump, the judge goes on to say: “I’ve come to believe that President Trump truly understands and appreciates the full import of President Reagan’s inspiring message – yet I fear he has drawn from it a darker, more cynical message … [and that he] believes the American people are so divided that today they will not stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values so long as they are lulled into thinking their own personal interests are not affected.”By going beyond the precise issue in this case, the free speech rights of immigrants, and going after Trump, Young’s opinion helps frame threats to the rights of immigrants in a way that connects them to the rest of us. He hopes to rekindle the spirit of Reagan and inspire Americans to prove Trump wrong by showing that they will “stand up, fight for, and defend our most precious constitutional values”.

    Austin Sarat, William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College, is the author or editor of more than 100 books, including Gruesome Spectacles: Botched Executions and America’s Death Penalty More

  • in

    ‘Unprecedented in history’: global academic freedom group warns of dismantling in US

    A global academic freedom group has warned that the Trump administration’s assault on universities is turning the US into a “model for how to dismantle” academic freedom.“We are witnessing an unprecedented situation – really as far as I can tell in history – where a global leader of education and research is voluntarily dismantling that which gave it an advantage,” said Robert Quinn, executive director of Scholars at Risk (SAR).In its annual Free to Think report, the Academic Freedom Monitoring Project at (SAR), an international network devoted to the promotion of academic freedom worldwide, counted some 40 attacks against academic freedom in the US in the first half of 2025, ranging from the government’s revocation of research funds to the detention and attempted deportation of foreign scholars over their political views, as well as a “torrent” of executive, legislative and other actions targeting diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives and other programs.The report noted that the data points to a continued erosion of academic freedom in the US after it counted 80 instances of pressure against universities in the prior year. While most of those came from state governments and local actors, the “nature of these attacks shifted after January 2025” to pressure from the federal government following the re-election of Donald Trump, and his administration’s efforts to control university admissions, hiring, research, teaching and disciplinary processes, the report noted.The SAR report analyzed 395 attacks on higher education leaders, faculty, staff and students in 49 countries between mid-2024 and mid-2025, including targeted killings, disappearances, arrests and prosecutions, as well as firings, travel restrictions and administrative measures. In addition to the US, the report highlights “concerning developments” in 15 other countries – including Bangladesh, where student-led anti-government protests were met with a brutal crackdown that led to the deaths of up to 1,400 people, and Serbia, where authorities threatened to defund public universities and withheld the salaries of faculty who supported a student-led movement against government corruption.Globally, the picture for academic freedom painted in the report is grim.“The space for academic freedom has shrunk at an accelerating pace over the past decade,” the report concludes. “Even in societies that have long had strong and stable democratic institutions, elected officials with autocratic impulses are using both the levers of democracy and extralegal administrative measures to undermine democratic institutions, including universities.”In the US, the war in Gaza, and widespread campus opposition to it, has offered a pretext for the targeting of universities, students and faculty whose values and views don’t align with the government’s agenda. Before 2023, SAR tallied an average of 15 to 20 attacks on academic freedom, many driven by elected officials at the state and local levels.“The pressure on the higher education space has been going on for decades,” said Quinn, noting that before the targeting of pro-Palestinian views and diversity initiatives, universities and scholars faced attacks over critical race theory and gender studies. “That being said, there’s no question that the administration is using as a bold pretext the allegations of antisemitism centered around the Palestinian issue to justify in many cases extralegal activity to crack down on the space for independent thought.”Trump’s return to power marked a “turning point”, the report notes, including more than 30 pieces of legislation related to higher education introduced during the first 75 days of his administration, executive orders eliminating diversity and gender equity programming, antisemitism investigations of more than 60 universities that flouted established processes, the freezing of billions in federal research funds and new caps on student loans and restrictions on Pell grants’ eligibility.The report also underscored the negative impact on global education of the Trump administration’s abrupt cancellation of international students’ visas and new restrictions for foreign applicants, as well as cuts at the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) that devastated higher education and research initiatives from Africa to Afghanistan. More

  • in

    The US government is facing a crisis of legitimacy | Daniel Mendiola

    Between anti-immigrant zeal and a general disdain for any rules whatsoever, the Trump administration has shredded the constitutional order that makes government legitimate.This is now a legitimacy crisis.There are different philosophical approaches to government legitimacy, but in the United States, the most straightforward explanation is the social contract. Often associated with Enlightenment philosophers such as Locke and Rousseau and extremely influential with US founders, the social contract refers to the idea that the government requires the consent of the governed to be legitimate.Crucially, in exchange for this consent, the government accepts certain limits on what it can do. In other words, the government also has to follow the rules.The US has suffered crises of legitimacy before. Arguably, the 1964 Civil Rights Act emerged from just such a crisis. At a base level, the act conceded that to be legitimate, the government needed to actually recognize the rights of all its citizens – not just those of a certain race. It didn’t fix everything, but it was an important step in creating a stronger social contract for the next generation.The Trump administration, however, has reversed course on civil rights, abandoned limited government and eviscerated the social contract beyond recognition. From defying courts, to attacking judges, to capriciously revoking legal immigration statuses, to executing suspected drug smugglers, there is no shortage of examples.One example that deserves a lot more attention than it is currently receiving, however, is the horror story of Trump’s collaboration with a megaprison in El Salvador.To summarize, in March, the Trump administration forcibly sent more than 250 people, mostly Venezuelans accused of having ties to the Tren de Aragua gang, to El Salvador to be detained in a paid arrangement with Salvadorian president Nayib Bukele. Investigative reporting quickly confirmed that the entire operation – ostensibly to target dangerous criminals – was based on lies: only a small percentage of the targets had any criminal record at all, accusations of gang affiliations came from spurious evidence, and many of the detainees had followed the rules to enter the country legally.Nonetheless, instead of enjoying the rights guaranteed by US law, they suddenly faced imprisonment and alleged torture. Lower courts tried to halt the flights, but the Trump administration acted anyway.All of this would be horrifying enough as an isolated incident, but the legal saga surrounding the case has further disturbing implications. At first, the administration justified its actions through a controversial 18th-century law allowing the government to expel “alien enemies” in times of war – even though the country was not at war, and these were not “alien enemies”.However, the administration soon switched to a different argument that might be described like this: it doesn’t matter how many laws we broke – as long as the victims end up in a prison in a foreign country, US courts have no power to stop us. Also, we may do the same to US citizens.When the Trump administration first made these claims, news agencies covered them with much alarm. However, commentators since have avoided stating an uncomfortable truth: the administration was right. Apparently, it didn’t matter how many laws they broke. No one stopped them, nor have they faced any consequences.Significantly, the supreme court has played a critical role in this legitimacy crisis, not only by giving the Trump administration an unprecedented series of wins – often employing mind-boggling logic and blatant distortions of plain text – but also gutting the mechanisms that courts have to stop the executive branch when it gets caught doing illegal things.Here the battle over injunctions is revealing. In normal times, if the government gets caught doing something illegal, then judges have the power to issue an injunction to make the government actors in question stop. Government officials may appeal to a higher court, but in the meantime, the injunction prevents them from continuing to do harm while the case plays out.Now, think about a reality where injunctions don’t exist. If courts can’t issue an injunction to stop the government from doing illegal things, then no matter how blatantly the government is violating people’s rights, it can keep doing it unimpeded so long as the case stays tied up in appeals – a process that often takes years. In this scenario, law exists in theory, but there are virtually no limits to what the government can do in practice.This is shockingly close to the reality that the supreme court has now created. By rushing to overturn injunctions with no regard to who is being harmed, as well as creating seemingly arbitrary technicalities to prevent future injunctions, the message from the supreme court is clear: It doesn’t matter how many laws they broke. Now that Trump is in office, courts are simply not supposed to stop executive officials from putting Trump’s agenda into practice, regardless of how unlawful those practices might be.The extreme inability of our government to police itself becomes even clearer when it is placed alongside Brazil – the second-largest democracy in the Americas – where the former president Jair Bolsonaro was recently convicted for an attempted coup: after losing re-election in 2022, Bolsonaro tried a variety of tactics to stay in power, including inciting his followers to swarm government buildings to physically stop the peaceful transfer of power. If that sounds familiar, that’s because it was, indeed, strikingly similar to what Trump did in the January 6 riots after losing the 2020 election.Now, consider the difference in how our respective constitutional systems handled this. In the US, the supreme court not only blocked any potential trial for Trump’s role in the highly visible attempt to overthrow the government; it also took the opportunity to give him sweeping immunity for just about anything else. According to the logic of the majority decision, it doesn’t matter how many laws he broke. Being president is hard, and it is even harder if he has to worry about getting in trouble for breaking the law. So he should just have a virtual license to commit crimes. That way, he can take “vigorous, decisive” action.The Brazilian supreme court took a strikingly different approach. Apparently, it does matter how many laws Bolsonaro broke. Prosecutors presented strong evidence that he broke the law, so the supreme court decided that he should be prosecuted.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTellingly, this infuriated the Trump administration, which heaped criticism and sanctions on Brazilian judges in response. Brazilian courts refused to back down, however, and the trial ultimately resulted in a conviction.After watching this play out, I can’t help but wonder: what would it look like if my country had the courage to hold a lawless executive accountable?Here I want to be clear that in posing this question, I am calling for peaceful action. People will have to decide for themselves what this peaceful action looks like, though there is strength in numbers, and I think those numbers exist. As I have written previously, the nationwide protests against capricious and unlawful immigration raids are a testament to how many people are already fed up, and looking for ways to remind the government that it owes us rights.I also don’t think that questioning the government’s legitimacy right now is radical, partisan or even unpatriotic. In fact, nothing I am saying here contradicts what I was taught about legitimate government in my fifth grade social studies class at a conservative, patriotic public school in rural Texas. It is simply our civic duty to call out the government when it strays from the social contract.What’s giving me hope nowIn the classic Latin American protest anthem Me Gustan los Estudiantes, the celebrated Chilean composer Violeta Parra lauds the indomitable spirit of students. “Long live the students!” the song declares. They are the “garden of our joy” because they fearlessly defend truth, even when those in power try to force them to accept lies.Students give me hope as well.Overwhelmingly, the students that I have worked with over the years have shown themselves to be insightful thinkers with an unyielding dedication to truth, empathy, and solidarity. This is hopeful for many reasons, not the least of which being that this seems to terrify the people in power. Indeed, the same architects of our legitimacy crisis are also waging an aggressive campaign to squash campus protests, restrict institutional autonomy, and generally abolish academic freedom. Clearly, academic institutions have the potential to serve as a counterweight to government abuses. Otherwise, why would a lawless government be trying so hard to suppress us?Sadly, too many university leaders are now sacrificing academic legitimacy by caving to government pressure. The situation is bleak on this front as well, yet the battle is far from over.Our best hope: we need to be as fearless as our students.

    Daniel Mendiola is a professor of Latin American history and migration studies at Vassar College More

  • in

    The Guardian view on Donald Trump’s hate for opponents: practising politics the wrong way | Editorial

    At Sunday’s memorial for the rightwing activist Charlie Kirk, Donald Trump paid a peculiar tribute. Having quoted Mr Kirk’s words of forgiveness, he put aside the script. “That’s where I disagreed with Charlie,” he said. “I hate my opponents, and I don’t want the best for them.” It was a stark and clarifying admission. Mr Trump does not seek to criminalise hate speech so much as to criminalise speech he hates.The US is being dragged into a state of emergency. Speech is framed as terrorism. Satire is rebranded as enemy propaganda. Employers punish workers for personal posts. The predictable result is a chilling climate of surveillance and reprisal, in which citizens learn to keep quiet. The assassination is not just being used to police manners; it is being used to reconstruct the public square so that dissent equals disloyalty, and disloyalty is treated as a security threat.Hannah Arendt warned of the existential peril in blurring the line between truth and lies: then truth doesn’t stand; it becomes optional. Mr Trump’s reported falsehoods about paracetamol and autism will harm mothers, stigmatise families and erode trust in medicine. But in Trumpland such costs are outweighed by the political payoff of pitting supporters against the scientific “establishment”.His assault is twofold. First, speech is being weaponised through partisan media, online influencers and harassment networks that seek to capture attention while corroding the conditions for open dialogue. Second, state power is weaponised by cowing social media platforms, threatening network licences and politicising information. Handing TikTok to rightwing billionaires is a morbid symptom of democratic decline.“Authority is to be controlled by public opinion, not public opinion by authority,” said the US supreme court. That defines the first amendment: citizens, not the state, decide which ideas survive, with narrow limits like fraud or defamation. By presuming to define “truth”, Mr Trump subverts self-government. Hate rallies thrive in Trump’s America because, since 1969, speech is unprotected only if intended and likely to incite “imminent lawless action”.The US is a free-speech outlier. Other democracies accept broader, more collective trade‑offs to protect vulnerable groups, maintain public order and prevent incitement and harassment. Each country is different but the bargain is similar. Speech is presumptively free, yet words are considered acts with foreseeable harms. Words can mobilise mobs, direct harassment and orchestrate violence. The point isn’t to shield anyone’s feelings, it’s to make coexistence possible.Mr Trump has inverted the American model. Rather than robust exchanges under neutral rules, he selectively rewards allies while degrading the conditions of honest debate. All this while the infosphere is saturated with viral lies, making it easier to justify punitive state action “to keep order”. That is how an emergency becomes a system.The answer is not the censor’s pen nor a free-for-all. It requires resilient democratic plumbing; social media platforms made accountable for publishing harms; and properly defining dangerous conduct. The aim – particularly in the US – must be to preserve free expression as the bedrock of self-government while dismantling the machinery that warps attention toward outrage and partisan mobilisation. Mr Trump’s speech was disgraceful. When power learns to hate its opponents, democracy will fail. More

  • in

    Pentagon demands journalists sign pledge not to gather certain information

    The US military has issued new media restrictions demanding that journalists pledge not to gather any information – including unclassified documents – that has not been authorized for release or else risk revocation of their press passes.In a memo issued Thursday, the Pentagon stated that “it remains committed to transparency to promote accountability and public trust”. However, using an abbreviation for the recently rebranded Department of War headed by the Trump administration’s Pete Hegseth, the memo added: “DoW information must be approved for public release by an appropriate authorizing official before it is released, even if it is unclassified.”It went on to say: “Only authorized persons who have received favorable determinations of eligibility for access, signed approved non-disclosure agreements, and have a need-to-know may be granted access to [classified national security information].”Journalists reporting from the Pentagon are now required to sign a pledge agreeing to restrict their movements within the building and not to access any unauthorized materials. If they refuse to sign the pledge, their Pentagon press passes will be revoked.In a post on X, Hegseth said Friday: “The ‘press’ does not run the Pentagon – the people do. The press is no longer allowed to roam the halls of a secure facility. Wear a badge and follow the rules – or go home.”The latest memo follows the announcement by Hegseth in May regarding new press restrictions at the Pentagon. These restrictions limit reporters’ movements within the building to specific areas including the press pens, food court and courtyard. This is a departure from the usual practice under previous presidential administrations where reporters typically had more freedom of movement within the Pentagon.Hegseth has severely limited media access after facing backlash for sharing sensitive information about US strikes in Yemen in March in a Signal group chat where a journalist was accidentally included.Since he assumed office, Hegseth has maintained a hostile attitude towards major media networks. He ordered the removal of various longstanding news organizations including the New York Times, CNN, Politico and NPR from their dedicated offices in the Pentagon.The Pentagon’s latest memo has drawn criticism from journalists and free press advocates, with the National Press Club’s president Mike Balsamo saying: “This is a direct assault on independent journalism at the very place where independent scrutiny matters most: the US military.“If the news about our military must first be approved by the government, then the public is no longer getting independent reporting. It is getting only what officials want them to see. That should alarm every American.”Similarly, Freedom of the Press Foundation said “this policy operates as a prior restraint on publication, which is considered the most serious” violations of the press freedoms guaranteed by the US constitution’s first amendment.“The government cannot prohibit journalists from public information merely by claiming it’s a secret,” the foundation said.Meanwhile, Thomas Evans, editor in chief of National Public Radio (NPR), said his outlet was “taking this very seriously”.“We’ll be working with other news organizations to push back,” Evans remarked. “We’re big fans of the first amendment and transparency, and we want the American public to understand what’s being done in their name.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe Pentagon’s restrictions on media access come as Trump suggested recently that TV networks should be punished for “negative coverage”. That statement followed widespread backlash over ABC’s indefinite suspension of Jimmy Kimmel’s popular late-night show, on which the veteran comedian said that many in Trump’s Make America Great Again movement “are working very hard to capitalize on the murder of Charlie Kirk”, referring to the 10 September killing of the rightwing activist.Speaking on Air Force One on Thursday, Trump said – without providing evidence – that “97% [of major US networks are] against me”.“They give me only bad press,” he said, adding that he believed broadcasters should have their licenses “taken away” as a result.Among those to endorse Trump’s argument was the US senator Cynthia Lummis. The Wyoming Republican recently told the US news website Semafor that such licenses are “a privilege” rather than a “right” – and she said to the outlet that she no longer believes the first amendment is “the ultimate right”.“I feel like something’s changed culturally,” Lummis said, in part. “And I think there needs to be cognizance that things have changed.” More

  • in

    How Charlie Kirk turned campuses into cultural battlefields – and ushered in Trump’s assault on universities

    Charlie Kirk, the far-right activist killed this week while speaking at a campus event at Utah Valley University, never graduated from the community college he briefly attended. But his lack of a degree didn’t stop him from assuming a defining role in the ongoing transformation of US higher education.Kirk pioneered a style of ideological warfare against what he viewed as bastions of leftism, helping turn campuses into cultural battlefields and paving the way for Donald Trump’s unprecedented campaign to weaken American universities and subject them to his movement’s ideological agenda.“Charlie Kirk will be remembered as one of the foremost architects of the political strategy of treating faculty and students with whom he disagrees as enemies to be defeated,” said Isaac Kamola, a political science professor at Trinity College whose research focuses on conservative efforts to undermine higher education.Kirk’s murder at the age of 31 followed more than a decade of on-campus activism, which was characterized by his staunch bigotry and Christian nationalism; hundreds of often incendiary “debates” – his favored medium; and the 2012 establishment of Turning Point USA, a conservative powerhouse that calls itself, with more than 900 chapters, the nation’s largest youth movement. Starting from his parents’ garage in suburban Chicago, Kirk often boasted, the movement grew one viral attack line at a time, supercharged by social media’s conflict-rewarding algorithms.View image in fullscreenKirk wore his lack of a degree as a point of “pride”, he told California governor Gavin Newsom in a podcast interview earlier this year, and as ammunition for his characterizations of American campuses as elitist and out of touch.“I didn’t even graduate community college,” Kirk said. “I represent most of the country. Actually, still, the majority of the country does not have a college degree and if I may, you know, bluntly critique the Democratic party, you guys have become so college-credentialed and educated that you guys snobbishly look on the muscular class of this country.”While Kirk had in recent years moved from campus activist to the upper echelons of Republican politics and Trump’s inner circle, on university campuses he will mostly be remembered for his role galvanizing the so-called “culture wars” with his regular diatribes against diversity initiatives, immigration and minority groups. Kirk emboldened conservative students to turn on faculty and classmates, established a “professor watchlist” for faculty it accused of spreading “leftist propaganda”, and embarked on an anti-woke crusade that has since become official government policy.View image in fullscreen“Turning Point was not the first group to target professors, and of course attacking higher education is not new,” said Matthew Boedy, a professor of English at the University of North Georgia who has been studying the group and its founder after being targeted on its watchlist. “What Turning Point did was take the traditional, old ways of conservatives fighting the culture war and translated it into millennial speak.”Katie Gaddini, a history professor at Stanford University who studies US conservatism, recalled seeing Kirk speak at an event years ago, where he boasted that if given 15 minutes with any college student, he could “de-program years’ worth of indoctrination”.“His whole mission, and Turning Point’s original mission, was what he called de-programming the woke indoctrination that he thought was taking place on college campuses,” she said. “And of course, we’re seeing the contestation over what can be taught in college campuses playing out on a macro, policy-level scale right now.”Beyond the campus warsIf Kirk’s aggressive, often rude style and frequent forays into explicit racism and sexism ruffled feathers with more traditional conservative groups on campus, he quickly surpassed them in relevance. Boedy recalled attending an event with Kirk and Black conservative activist Candace Owens, a TPUSA veteran who resigned from the organization in 2019 after making comments in which she appeared to defend Adolf Hitler. When a group of Black students raised their fists and walked out of the event in protest, Kirk and Owens mocked them and stirred the crowd to cheer them off. “It was emblematic,” said Boedy. “They’re in it for the culture war and that does mean warring against other people.”Hasan Piker, a leftwing political commentator who rose to prominence about the same time as Kirk and had been scheduled to debate him in two weeks at Dartmouth College, said that while Kirk wasn’t the first to debate speakers on opposite ends of the ideological spectrum, “he was able to serialize this format better than other people, especially because he had a lot of institutional backing”.“He was a true operative,” Piker added, noting that his relationship with Kirk had been “cordial” even as their worldview was “diametrically opposite”. Still, he cautioned against interpreting Kirk’s predilection for debates as a sincere effort to engage in an argument.View image in fullscreen“It’s being presented right now with this notion that everyone was doing these debates because they wanted to arrive at the truth,” said Hasan. “The ultimate purpose of these sorts of debate culture, focused video sequences, is not to actually arrive at some kind of hidden truth through discourse or the Socratic method, but more so to just ritualistically humiliate your interlocutors.”Kirk’s influence soon expanded well beyond campuses, said Boedy, whose forthcoming book examines Kirk’s mobilization efforts in churches, media and beyond. “Turning Point expanded beyond merely college campus wars. Kirk used the college campus wars as a springboard to talk about the larger national culture war,” Boedy added, noting that TPUSA now has more high school chapters than it has college ones, and that the group is also involved in canvassing for conservative candidates.TPUSA “incubated” more than 350 rightwing influencers over the years, the group said last year, and more recently Kirk had also taken his activism abroad, promoting Turning Point chapters in the UK and Australia. In May, Kirk debated the Oxford Union’s president-elect, and earlier this month he traveled to Japan and South Korea to spread his message before new audiences.Kirk successfully tapped into conservative students’ feelings that they had been persecuted on campus by intolerant liberals. Now, his killing risks turbocharging those grievances. “There is now proof in the minds of a lot of young conservatives that they are persecuted for their views on college campuses,” Gaddini said.As some brace for retribution from the president, others warn that the chilling effect of the violence will be devastating for universities already battered by months of conflict and division.“This is a terrible day,” said Kamola, the Trinity professor. “Even if we disagree, the project of teaching and learning, and pursuing knowledge, is fundamentally threatened by violence.” More

  • in

    Arizona Republicans seek to expel lawmaker who reposted Ice raid information

    A Democratic lawmaker in Arizona who is facing calls for expulsion for resharing an Instagram post warning of immigration enforcement activity near an elementary school said that state senate Republicans “absolutely are trying to make an example out of me”.Analise Ortiz, a Democratic state senator in Arizona, shared an Instagram post from a community organization that warned, in text only, that immigration enforcement agents were near a local elementary school.“Alert/Alerta: ICE activity near Southwest Elementary,” the post in early August said, adding the cross streets of the school. “ICE is present. La migra esta presente.”That post is at the center of an ethics complaint filed this week against Ortiz and a viral rightwing campaign against her.“The ethics complaint very clearly says that they want to stop other people from sharing this type of information,” she said, calling it “a stunning escalation of intimidation”.The controversy began when Libs of TikTok, the X account known for going after liberals online, posted about Ortiz’s reshare, claiming she was “actively impeding and doxxing ICE by posting their live locations on instagram” and that law enforcement officials should “charge her”.No photos of agents were shared, nor were names or other identifying information about agents.“I was not there,” Ortiz said. “There were no pictures of anybody taken. It was simply a post that said Ice presence is possible outside of an elementary school. And I think that the fact that they are outside of sensitive locations where kids should be able to learn in peace is something that people should know about. They should know how the government is acting on their behalf.”The Libs of TikTok post went viral, leaving Ortiz with an inbox full of harassing and threatening messages. The mischaracterization that she “doxed” agents had led to the vast majority of the threats she had received, she said.Jake Hoffman, a Republican state senator, and a handful of other Republican leaders in the chamber filed a formal ethics complaint that seeks to expel Ortiz from the chamber or, failing a vote to expel, remove her from all committees and take away her office and administrative staff. The ethics committee chair also referred the complaint to the US attorney’s office in Arizona for a potential investigation, saying Ortiz’s actions “may implicate federal law”.After the ethics complaint was filed, Libs of TikTok egged on Arizona senate Republicans. “Make an example out of her! Enough is enough,” the account tweeted.“What surprised me about the ethics complaint was the level of punishment they want to inflict upon me for simply exercising my first amendment right,” Ortiz said.As immigration enforcement agents have ramped up activity across the country, activists have shared locations where they see raids or Ice agents as a way to warn people to avoid the area. In Arizona, a southern border state, fear of deportations – and of detaining people who are in the US legally – is a facet of daily life in the second Trump administration. Ortiz said she had heard from constituents who are terrified to drive without a passport on hand because they fear law enforcement won’t believe they are US citizens if they are pulled over.Ortiz said she would not be intimidated by the ethics inquest or attempts to criminalize her sharing of information.“If the United States of America is going to continue as a free and fair democracy, it demands that people speak out against constitutional violations,” she said. “It demands bravery, so I am going to continue to be brave in this moment.”Hoffman claimed Ortiz’s reshare was “reckless” and “dangerous”, saying that “by publicly posting alerts about federal law enforcement activity, she actively tipped off individuals being pursued by Ice, jeopardizing the safety of officers and law-abiding citizens”. He wanted the committee to investigate her for “behavior unbecoming of an elected official and embarrassing to the entire Arizona legislature on a state and national stage”.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionHoffman was charged for his role as a fake elector after the 2020 election. Earlier this year, he was pulled over for driving 89mph in a 65mph zone in his Tesla Cybertruck emblazoned with the word “Freedom” on the back, though he was not cited because of a legal provision called legislative immunity.The ethics complaint details how Ortiz did not back away from her reshare after Libs of TikTok posted about it. Instead, she wrote that she would alert her community to stay away when Ice is around and that she was “not fucking scared of you nor Trump’s masked goons”. After Hoffman wrote on X that he would bring an ethics complaint and wanted her expelled, she said: “Bring it on, Jake.”Warren Petersen, the Republican state senate president, previously asked for a federal investigation into Ortiz’s reshare, claiming she may have broken a federal law that prevents “assaulting, resisting or impeding certain officers or employees”.The US attorney’s office in Arizona did not respond to a request for comment.Ortiz said Republican lawmakers want to deprive her legislative district of its voice in the senate and silence her and others who want to stand against deportations.“The fact they are trying to escalate it and are blatantly lying about my actions proves that this is really about authoritarianism and wanting to have a system where masked men carry out police operations in secret, and that should really concern anyone who cares about the United States constitution,” Ortiz said.Free speech experts and other elected officials, including the state’s Democratic attorney general, have spoken out against the attacks on Ortiz for her post, which they say is well within her first amendment rights.“Senator Ortiz’s post is clearly protected speech under the first amendment,” Arizona’s attorney general, Kris Mayes, said in a statement. “This ethics complaint is nothing more than a pathetic attempt to intimidate and silence a democratically elected legislator. Warren Petersen and Jake Hoffman should be ashamed of themselves for weaponizing the ethics process just because they disagree with Senator Ortiz politically.”The ethics committee has not met yet this year and does not have operating rules in place, but will consider the complaint once those are established, said its chair, Shawnna Bolick, a Republican. An expulsion would require a two-thirds vote of the chamber, an unlikely prospect.Ortiz previously faced an ethics investigation after she and another Democratic lawmaker shouted “shame” and protested on the state house floor against their Republican colleagues over an abortion vote in 2024. She was found to have violated house rules for conduct, but no official action was taken against her. More

  • in

    Burner phones, wiped socials: the extreme precautions for visitors to Trump’s America

    Keith Serry was set to bring a show to New York City’s Fringe festival this year, but pulled the plug a few weeks out. After 35 years of traveling to the United States, he says he no longer feels safe making the trip.“The fact that we’re being evaluated for our opinions entering a country that, at least until very recently, purported to be an example of democracy. Yeah, these are things that make me highly uncomfortable,” said Serry, a Canadian performer and attorney.“You’re left thinking that you don’t want to leave evidence of ‘bad opinions’ on your person.”Serry is among a substantial cohort of foreign nationals reconsidering travel to the US under the Trump administration, after troubling reports of visitors facing intense scrutiny and detention on arrival.In March, a French scientist who had been critical of Donald Trump was refused entry to the US after his phone was searched. An Australian writer who was detained and denied entry in June said he was initially grilled about his articles on pro-Palestinian protests, and then watched as a border agent probed even the most personal images on his phone. He was told the search uncovered evidence of past drug use, which he had not acknowledged on his visa waiver application, leading to his rejection. German, British and other European tourists have also been detained and sent home.More than a dozen countries have updated their travel guidance to the US. In Australia and Canada, government advisories were changed to specifically mention the potential for electronic device searches.On the advice of various experts, people are locking down social media, deleting photos and private messages, removing facial recognition, or even traveling with “burner” phones to protect themselves.In Canada, multiple public institutions have urged employees to avoid travel to the US, and at least one reportedly told staff to leave their usual devices at home and bring a second device with limited personal information instead.“Everybody feels guilty, but they don’t know exactly what they’re guilty of,” said Heather Segal, founding partner of Segal Immigration Law in Toronto, describing the influx of concerns she’s been hearing.“‘Did I do something wrong? Is there something on me? Did I say something that’s going to be a problem?’”She advised travelers to assess their risk appetite by reviewing both the private data stored on their devices and any information about them that’s publicly accessible, and to consider what measures to take accordingly.US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has broad powers to search devices with minimal justification. Travelers can refuse to comply, but non-citizens risk being denied entry. CBP data shows such searches are rare; last year, just over 47,000 out of 420 million international travelers had their devices examined. This year’s figures show a significant increase, with the third quarter of 2025 reflecting an uptick in electronic device searches higher than any single quarter since 2018, when available data begins.“Anecdotally, it seems like these searches have been increasing, and I think the reason why that’s true is, undoubtedly, I think they are more targeted than before,” said Tom McBrien, counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.“It seems like they are targeting people who they just don’t generally like politically.”Travelers who are concerned about their privacy should consider minimizing the amount of data they carry, McBrien said.“The less data you have on you, the less there is to search, and the less there is to collect,” he said. Beyond using a secondary device, he suggested securely deleting data, moving it to a hard drive or storing it in a password-protected cloud account.A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson rejected claims that CBP had stepped up device searches under the new administration or singled out travelers over their political views.“These searches are conducted to detect digital contraband, terrorism-related content, and information relevant to visitor admissibility, all of which play a critical role in national security,” the spokesperson told the Guardian in a statement.“Allegations that political beliefs trigger inspections or removals are baseless and irresponsible.”The statement acknowledged, however, that there had been heightened vetting under Trump and the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Under the leadership of the Trump Administration and Secretary Noem, we have the most secure border in American history,” it said. “This has allowed CBP to focus to actually vet and interview the people attempting to come into our country.”Alistair Kitchen, the Australian writer who was denied entry to the US in June, said the DHS’s denial of political targeting directly contradicts what he was told on arrival.Border officials “bragged actively that the reason for my targeting, for my being pulled out of line for my detainment, was explicitly because of what I’d written online about the protests at Columbia University”, he told the Guardian.While he doesn’t plan to return to the US under the Trump administration, Kitchen said that if he ever did, he would either not take a phone or bring a burner.“Under no conditions would I ever hand over the passcode to that phone,” he added. “I would accept immediate deportation rather than hand over the passcode. People should think seriously before booking travel, especially if they are journalists or writers or activists.”Various foreign nationals told the Guardian they are rethinking travel plans for tourism, family visits, academic events and work.Donald Rothwell, a professor who teaches international law at the Australian National University, says he no longer plans to accept speaking invitations to the US over fears of being detained or denied entry – which, he noted, could also trigger red flags on his record for future travel.He’s even considered traveling without a device at all, but is concerned his academic commentary in the media could be used against him regardless.“I might be commenting on matters that could be quite critical of the United States,” he said. “For example, I was very critical of the legal or lack of legal justification for the US military strikes on Iran in June.”Kate, a Canadian whose name has been withheld due to privacy concerns, said she has wrestled with complicated decisions about whether to travel across the border to see American relatives, including for an upcoming wedding. During a trip earlier this year, she deleted her social media apps before going through customs.Despite DHS assurances that travelers are not flagged for political beliefs, she said “it’s hard to believe things that this government is saying”.“It would be really nice to have trust that those kinds of things were true, and that these kinds of stories that you hear, while absolutely horrific, are isolated incidents,” she said.“But I do feel like in many ways, the United States has sort of lost its goodwill.” More