President Donald Trump ignited a firestorm of controversy with a Tuesday morning Truth Social post threatening to strip federal funding from colleges and universities that permit “illegal protests” on their campuses.
Trump wrote, “All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter.”
While the president did not explicitly define “illegal protests,” the message follows months of heightened tensions over pro-Palestinian demonstrations on campuses such as Columbia University, UCLA, and others, where students have demanded an end to U.S. support for Israel’s military actions in Gaza.
The First Amendment’s guarantee of the right to peaceably assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances forms the bedrock of protest rights in the United States. Enshrined in 1791, this protection emerged from colonial-era struggles against British oppression, where dissenters faced persecution for challenging authority. The amendment’s language—“the right of the people peaceably to assemble”—was shaped by Enlightenment ideals and historical precedents like the Magna Carta’s recognition of petitioning rights, which later influenced parliamentary debates over slavery and civil liberties. Courts have consistently interpreted this right as encompassing public demonstrations, marches, and symbolic acts, provided they remain nonviolent and adhere to reasonable regulations.
While the First Amendment broadly shields protest activities, it does not grant absolute immunity from government oversight. Authorities may impose time, place, and manner restrictions to balance free expression with public safety and order. There are unprotected speech categories—such as incitement to violence, true threats, or obstruction of government functions—which fall outside First Amendment safeguards.
The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) swiftly rebutted Trump’s claims, emphasizing that the president lacks unilateral authority to revoke federal funding from institutions. Federal law requires a lengthy process involving congressional notification, administrative hearings, or court orders to withhold funds, typically tied to violations of anti-discrimination statutes like Title VI or Title IX. FIRE warned that Trump’s threats would compel universities to preemptively crack down on protected speech to avoid financial repercussions, chilling campus discourse on contentious issues like the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) condemned these measures as reminiscent of McCarthy-era suppression. In an open letter to universities, ACLU Legal Director Cecillia Wang urged administrators to resist federal pressure, stating, “Trump’s latest coercion campaign, attempting to turn university administrators against their own students and faculty, is at odds with American constitutional values”.
Trump’s ultimatum aligns with his broader campaign to reshape higher education. Since taking office in January 2025, he has pledged to abolish the Department of Education, ban diversity initiatives, and eliminate teachings on structural racism and gender identity. A federal task force is currently investigating ten universities—including Columbia University, George Washington University, Harvard University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, Northwestern University, the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Minnesota and the University of Southern California.
The Department of Education has already initiated a review of Columbia’s $5.1 billion in federal grants and contracts, signaling a willingness to leverage financial penalties. However, legal scholars caution that withholding funds without judicial oversight would violate separation of powers principles.
