Over the past several years, college campuses have experienced a number of incidents related to free speech. These have included cases of disruptive protests, controversial speakers being "disinvited," and in rare cases, physical altercations. The speakers who have been the focus of these controversies are often identified with conservative causes. Notably, in early March, a conservative activist was assaulted on the UC Berkeley campus.
These high-profile incidents apparently inspired President Trump to issue a rather dramatic threat in early March: campuses that don't protect free speech could see their research funding cut. On Friday, he ostensibly followed through on this, issuing an executive order targeting "free inquiry" at colleges and universities. But the language of the order is vague enough that its consequences for research funding are completely opaque.
The order itself actually lumps together two unrelated issues. The first is the cost of education relative to its likely payoff in terms of gainful employment; the order seeks to ensure better disclosure of this by colleges. That has been joined to what the order refers to as "free inquiry" issues, which the order defines as related to First Amendment compliance—meaning free speech on campuses.
As noted above, there's a popular narrative that these are under threat and that conservatives are disproportionately targeted. But it's not clear precisely what those issues are. An analysis by a center-right think tank suggested that actual issues of free speech curtailment peaked a few years back and are now in decline. There is also extensive legal precedent in this area that has determined that publicly funded universities are bound to protect the First Amendment, while private ones may set their own speech policies. Thus, there is already legal redress available to anyone whose speech has been improperly limited on a campus.
Even the UC Berkeley punching incident is less relevant than it appears, as neither the person throwing the punches nor the one being punched were students. The campus administration condemned the assault, and the campus police helped in the investigation, which ultimately resulted in felony charges.
There are clearly some cases where universities have had to balance protecting free speech against providing a platform from which speakers could make false statements. But it's not clear that this is a widespread problem or one that could be solved with federal intervention.
Met with uncertain threats
Trump's response, however, is to threaten campuses and the research that goes on there with massive financial consequences. According to CNN, Trump used the signing ceremony to threaten colleges with the loss of federal money: "If a college or university does not allow you to speak, we will not give them money."
Trump himself made it clear that this threat was specifically focused on scientific research. "Every year the federal government provides educational institutions with more than $35 billion dollars in research funding," he said. "All of that money is now at stake." The executive order also specifically commands the involvement of the agencies that fund most of the US' scientific research, including the Department of Energy, Environmental Protection Agency, the National Institutes of Health, and the National Science Foundation.
But the order itself doesn't clearly follow through on Trump's threats. Those agencies are directed to identify any institutions that receive federal research or education grants and ensure that they "promote free inquiry, including through compliance with all applicable Federal laws, regulations, and policies." "Free inquiry" is defined within the context of this order as First Amendment-focused for public universities, while for private institutions it is defined with whatever self-imposed policies they have.
Critically, however, the executive order does not spell out how these agencies should measure compliance, nor what they should do if any institutions come up short. If there's a threat to withhold research funding, it's not spelled out in the actual executive order. In addition, it's not sure what the order adds compared to existing standards. Private institutions can simply alter their policies so that their existing management of speech issues is in compliance, while public institutions were already bound by the First Amendment.
In other words, while the announcement includes threats to $35 billion in research money, it's not clear whether the actions that followed change anything.