AAUP Declares Victory Over Trump’s ‘Thought Police,’ Promises To Protect Only the Right Kind of Free Speech

Dear Samuel,

In a landmark ruling, a federal court yesterday ruled that the Trump administration, as part of a broad assault on our civil rights, violated the First Amendment in carrying out a policy of arresting, detaining, and deporting noncitizen students and faculty members for ideological reasons. The AAUP, the Middle Eastern Studies Association and several AAUP chapters brought the suit with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, seeking to block the Trump administration from implementing this policy in an attempt to suppress speech (typically pro-Palestinian speech) that Trump opposed.

A two-week trial in July was the first major trial of President Trump’s second term and included the testimony of fifteen witnesses, forcing the disclosure of a wealth of new details about the policy and its devastating effects on campuses nationwide.

This case would not have been possible without the work of courageous members of the AAUP and MESA, who came forward to testify to how the Trump administration policy created a climate of repression and fear on university campuses. We could not be more proud of our members and of the legal team who pursued this case.

Join the fight— become a member of the AAUP or renew your membership today.

The court emphasized Trump’s broad campaign to suppress speech and undermine our constitution and challenged everyone to fight to save our democracy. “Perhaps we’re now afraid to stick our necks out. If the distinguished Homeland Security intelligence agency can be weaponized to squelch the free speech rights of a small, hapless group of non-citizens in our midst, so too can the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation, and the audit divisions of the I.R.S. and the Social Security Administration be unconstitutionally weaponized against the President’s ever growing list of “enemies” or opponents he “hates” notwithstanding that political persecution is anathema to our Constitution and everything for which America stands.”

Read today’s remarkable decision here.

The Trump administration’s attempt to deport students for their political views is an assault on the Constitution and a betrayal of American values. This trial exposed their true aim: to intimidate and silence anyone who dares oppose them. If we fail to fight back, Trump’s thought police won’t stop at pro-Palestinian voices—they will come for anyone who speaks out. Defending democracy means standing up now—loudly, visibly, and together.

Join us.

In solidarity,
Todd Wolfson, AAUP President

P.S. If you’re already a member and received this email, it’s very likely we have two emails for you in our system. You can reply to this message to let us know, and we will update our records. Thank you!

That was the sweeping statement celebrating a federal court ruling against the Trump administration that I received last week from the president of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). According to him, the Trump administration had pursued a policy of arresting and deporting foreign students and faculty based on their political views, particularly those sympathetic to Hamas. The AAUP and the Middle East Studies Association, in collaboration with the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University, brought the case. Following a two-week trial this summer, the court ruled in their favor.

The AAUP’s president called the decision nothing less than a fight for democracy itself, warning that if Trump’s “thought police” could silence pro-Hamas speech, no one’s freedoms would be safe. The letter invoked fearsome language of repression and authoritarianism while urging academics to “join the fight” and renew their memberships.

The rhetoric is dramatic, but it reveals more about the AAUP’s own political project than about the real constitutional issues at stake. A closer look shows why this victory lap is hollow and why the AAUP continues to erode its own credibility as a defender of academic freedom.

[RELATED: The AAUP Discredits Itself]

The Constitutional Question

At the center of the ruling is a fundamental issue: how far the federal government may go in policing political speech and participation within academic institutions. The court found that Trump-era officials had targeted certain foreign students and faculty for deportation based on their viewpoints. If that account is accurate, it raises serious concerns about fairness and due process. The government should never weaponize immigration law or administrative authority to silence disfavored perspectives. Political disagreement, even with foreign nationals, must be addressed through argument and policy, not punishment.

However, the AAUP’s framing—that any restriction on foreign participation in higher education is unconstitutional—overstates the matter. The U.S. government has always drawn distinctions between citizens and noncitizens in matters of entry, residency, and public trust. Noncitizens do not possess an unlimited right to live, work, or teach in the United States, and every sovereign democracy retains the prerogative to decide who may enter and on what terms. To blur the line between immigration policy and censorship is to collapse a nuanced constitutional question into a cartoon of repression.

But even the court’s rhetorical posture merits scrutiny.

The opinion repeatedly leaned into sweeping language about the “weaponization” of federal agencies, drawing attention in other recent rulings. Judge William Young’s 161-page opinion, for example, rejected the government’s claim that noncitizens lack free speech rights but warned that if Homeland Security could be used this way, then “the IRS, Social Security Administration and Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp.” could also be “unconstitutionally weaponized.” CNN reported that the opinion’s rhetoric sparked widespread discussion in legal circles. But it also illustrates the problem: when courts frame constitutional questions in sweeping, politically charged terms, they blur the line between judicial reasoning and political theater. That is precisely why this case requires sober, principle-based analysis rather than grand narrative framing.

American law has always drawn careful distinctions between the speech rights of citizens, permanent residents, and temporary visitors. Citizens enjoy the full protections of the First Amendment, while courts have long recognized that the federal government possesses broad discretion over the entry and removal of foreign nationals. This is not sinister; it is a normal feature of democratic sovereignty. The AAUP’s attempt to present immigration law as censorship ignores this history and distorts constitutional doctrine.

The AAUP’s Own Words Prove the Point

The AAUP’s own language gives away the game. Neutral defenders of academic freedom would have emphasized principle, warned against overreach, and urged vigilance across the political spectrum. Instead, the AAUP declared: “If we fail to fight back, Trump’s thought police won’t stop at pro-Palestinian voices—they will come for anyone who speaks out.”

That is not a professional defense of academic freedom. It is partisan alarmism designed to mobilize membership. By framing the issue in terms of “Trump’s thought police,” the AAUP abandoned any pretense of neutrality. A genuinely principled organization would have said: The court found the administration exceeded its authority; universities must remain spaces where all viewpoints are protected.

Its decision to escalate the case into an apocalyptic battle cry, however, is precisely why the AAUP is no longer trusted as a neutral guardian of academic standards. As I have argued before, the association has steadily transformed itself from a professional body into a political combatant, one that ignores evidence of bias when it cuts against its ideological agenda. When it proclaims to be fighting for “democracy,” it really means fighting for its own political vision of democracy.

[RELATED: Resistance to Trump’s Orders Sows Doubt About Reform]

Academic Freedom as Partisan Shield

The larger problem is the AAUP’s selective invocation of academic freedom. The organization portrays itself as the fearless guardian of free inquiry, but its record is overwhelmingly partisan. When speech restrictions and ideological litmus tests have been deployed against conservatives, religious scholars, or dissenting voices, the AAUP has been largely silent.

Consider a few recent examples. At Georgetown, constitutional lawyer Ilya Shapiro was suspended for a tweet critical of President Biden’s pledge to appoint a Supreme Court justice on the basis of race and gender. Though reinstated, he resigned, citing a hostile campus climate. At MIT, a public lecture by University of Chicago geophysicist Dorian Abbot was canceled after activists objected to his criticisms of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs.

These are not fringe cases. They reveal how faculty and scholars with dissenting views are chilled, marginalized, or punished. Students, too, report widespread self-censorship: a 2023 FIRE survey found that majorities of undergraduates fear social or professional consequences if they express their true beliefs on hot-button issues. Entire academic departments operate as monocultures, where candidates who diverge from progressive orthodoxy never make it past the hiring committee.

Where was the AAUP when these liberties were violated? Where was its litigation when conservative or heterodox scholars were marginalized? As I have written elsewhere, this is why the AAUP is incorrect to claim a monopoly on defending academic freedom. It has evolved into an activist group, rather than a principled professional association.

Collapsing Trust in Higher Education

This politicization is one reason why public trust in universities has collapsed. According to Gallup, only 36 percent of Americans express a great deal of confidence or a lot of trust in higher education. Among Republicans, that figure has fallen to just 19 percent. The decline is sharpest among conservatives, but skepticism is rising across the board.

Why?

Because institutions like the AAUP have traded their role as neutral standard-bearers for that of political actors, they have confused the protection of academic standards with the advancement of partisan causes. As a result, when the AAUP warns of threats to democracy, many Americans simply tune it out. They see not a professional association defending principles, but a political group defending its side.

This is why the celebratory tone of the AAUP president’s letter rings hollow. It does not reassure the public that universities are genuinely committed to free inquiry. It instead confirms the perception that academic elites use “freedom” as a weapon to advance one faction while ignoring others.

What a Real Defense Would Look Like

A genuine defense of academic freedom would look very different.

It would begin with an honest assessment of the limits of academic freedom. Universities are not sovereign entities floating above democratic law. They are institutions embedded within a constitutional order. That means acknowledging the legitimacy of immigration and security policies, even as we debate their reach. Faculty speech is vital, but it does not exempt universities from public accountability.

It would also mean embracing intellectual pluralism. Free inquiry cannot survive if only one side of the ideological spectrum feels protected. The real threat to American higher education is not just external repression but internal conformity. If universities become spaces where only progressive viewpoints are safe, then “academic freedom” has already failed.

Finally, it would mean modeling civic responsibility. Universities should demonstrate what it looks like to host serious debates, welcome dissent, and teach students how to engage with differences with rigor and respect. That example would do far more to restore confidence than another courtroom victory.

The Larger Civic Crisis

The AAUP’s selective defense of speech is not merely an academic issue; it is part of a larger civic crisis. Americans’ trust in institutions—from Congress to the press to higher education—has cratered. Each time an institution demonstrates that its commitments are conditional, applied only to favored groups or causes, public trust erodes further.

This is the real danger of the AAUP’s triumphalism. It reinforces the perception that universities are partisan spaces, accountable only to themselves, divorced from the civic fabric that sustains them. That perception not only weakens higher education; it also undermines the very possibility of shared institutions in a pluralistic society. When universities, once trusted as places of open inquiry, are seen as political actors, the civic fabric frays even further.

Émile Durkheim warned that institutions must reflect shared norms and sustain collective trust. When they fail, social solidarity collapses. The AAUP’s selective defense of academic freedom is not just an internal professional matter; it is one more signal to Americans that elite institutions cannot be trusted to apply principles fairly. And that failure, repeated across various sectors of society, helps explain the deep polarization and cynicism of our time.

[RELATED: AAUP President Embraces ‘Militant Action,’ Betrays Founding Mission]

A Hollow Celebration

The AAUP president is correct about one thing: free speech matters. It matters within universities that welcome international scholars and students, and it matters for Americans across the political spectrum. But free speech is not strengthened by selective outrage, nor is democracy defended by partisan lawsuits that protect only one side of the ideological divide.

If the AAUP truly wishes to defend academic freedom, it must hold itself to the same standards it demands of others. That means challenging the ideological monocultures that dominate many campuses, defending conservative and religious voices with the same vigor it shows toward left-leaning ones, and remembering that universities are not sovereign enclaves; they are public institutions accountable to the democratic society that sustains them.

Until then, its victory laps will remain hollow; rhetoric that may mobilize its membership but does little to rebuild public trust or strengthen the true foundations of free inquiry.

Image: “Todd Wolfson” by AAUP on Flickr