In the past year, tensions between the US administration and many of the major US universities have intensified, increasingly putting pressure on their academic freedom. Law professor David Rabban (University of Texas) thinks “it is important to push back against government intrusions into the intellectual life of universities. Some universities have resisted, sometimes bringing successful legal challenges against government pressure.”
Professor David Rabban recently wrote the book Academic Freedom: From Professional Norm to First Amendment Right, and he will be the keynote speaker at STOA’s Annual Lecture on 13 January 2026 in the European Parliament.
What are the root causes of the current tensions in the United States between the federal government and certain universities? What factors or recent developments have contributed to the escalation of the conflict?
Could you give some examples of the sorts of left-wing values concerned here?
David Rabban: Many people believe that left-wing professors vote against the appointment of conservative candidates who meet high academic standards, but who do not share their political views. They attribute the small number of Republicans at many universities, particularly in departments in the humanities and “soft” social sciences at elite universities, to political viewpoint discrimination.
More specifically, people cite requirements that candidates for appointment and tenure submit “diversity statements”, demonstrating their personal commitment to participate in programs designed to increase diversity among the faculty and student body and to apply their research in ways that benefit minority communities. Some call these diversity statements modern “loyalty oaths.”
Is Trump 2.0 different to Trump 1.0 in terms of targeting universities?
David Rabban: Yes, there has been substantially more intrusion in the educational affairs of universities in Trump 2.0.
How does this falling-out affect US higher education and impact global knowledge networks? What are the consequences for international cooperation?
David Rabban: It has caused a reduction in global intellectual collaboration. Professors from abroad are less likely to travel to the United States, and American professors are less likely to travel abroad. Students from abroad are less likely to study in the United States, and students from abroad currently studying in the United States fear that they will not be readmitted if they leave to attend conferences, engage in intellectual collaborations, or visit family and friends.
Are there any signs of a “brain drain” from the US?
David Rabban: Yes, but I’m not sure of its extent. The move of Yale historian Timothy Snyder to the University of Toronto has received a lot of publicity. I have not read about many other examples, though they may exist.
There might be more of a “brain drain” within the United States from states dominated by Trump supporters to more liberal states (“Red” states to “Blue” states in American terminology).
Not all US universities seem to have been affected – why have some been targeted and others not? What distinguishes them?
David Rabban: I think the Trump administration is particularly interested in targeting elite research universities. Reflecting views within some of the general public, the Trump administration has a deep antipathy to claims of expert knowledge by elites, including but not limited to elites in major universities.
Perhaps the targeting of research universities is due to the fact that the US administration has more leverage there because of grants?
David Rabban: Yes, but among the many American research universities, the Trump administration seems to be targeting within the most elite.
To preserve academic freedom, how can we avoid that governments dictate universities what to do?
David Rabban: I think it is important to push back against government intrusions into the intellectual life of universities. Some universities have reached agreements with the Trump administration that limit their academic freedom. But other universities have resisted, sometimes bringing successful legal challenges against government pressure.
Very significantly, the Trump administration lost the two court cases decided in the fall of 2025 that addressed this subject. A federal judge found that demands by the Trump administration violated Harvard’s constitutional right to make its own decisions about educational issues.
Another federal judge found that the Trump administration violated the constitutional interests of professors at the University of California (UCLA) to academic freedom and free speech by cancelling and imposing unjustifiable restrictions on government funding.
Apart from legal actions, public statements asserting the societal value of academic freedom, lobbying or advising government officials, and demonstrations opposing restrictions on academic freedom can be effective.
Opposition by conservatives to government restrictions of academic freedom can be especially influential because it counters the widespread view that academic freedom has been used by the radical left to protect the unjustifiable imposition of its own values on universities.
What could the European Union and European universities learn from this?
David Rabban: They, too, should push back against government attempts to interfere in the intellectual life of universities.
Useful link:
• European Parliament Forum for Academic Freedom