Dive Brief:
- The U.S. higher education sector experienced at least 40 attacks on its academic freedom from July 2025 to June 2026, according to a new analysis released Tuesday by the international Scholars at Risk network.
- During this period, state and federal politicians repeatedly sought to undermine colleges’ autonomy and pressure them “into political or ideological compliance,” SAR said.
- “These actions created an enabling environment for monitoring, covert recording, and scrutiny of classroom expression that triggered widespread faculty self-censorship and contributed to several dozen cases in which faculty members and staff were disciplined for statements or publications made inside or outside of the classroom,” the report said.
Dive Insight:
SAR’s U.S.-specific data is part of a broader analysis by the network focused on worldwide attacks on higher education.
Against “deteriorating global conditions for academic freedom,” the U.S. stood out as an example of “illiberal policies, laws, and extralegal actions targeting higher education in democratic contexts,” according to SAR.
The organization said government interference in higher education poses “a concerning threat to academic freedom,” pointing to state legislation limiting teaching and weakening tenure and shared governance.
Meanwhile, governments in several countries, including the U.S., have “banned research topics” and “cut funding on ideological grounds,” SAR said.
“While often justified in neutral terms — such as fiscal discipline, public accountability, or anti-discrimination — these interventions are often used to impose ideological control,” it said.
The report cited examples such as the Trump administration’s threats to cut funding from colleges if they didn’t yield to its demands, including Harvard University. While Harvard refused, the administration has since brokered deals with several high-profile universities.
SAR also noted the administration’s proffered compact last year that would have seen colleges adopt its policy goals in return for priority for federal research funding.
But the attacks on higher education didn’t come solely from the government.
Amid political pressure, some public universities and systems enacted new “vaguely worded and overly broad” policies suppressing personal expression, the report said. This increased the odds that faculty and students would self-censor — an argument raised repeatedly in lawsuits challenging these changes.
At least 60 instructors “faced professional retaliation” over comments they made related to the killing of right-wing activist Charlie Kirk on the campus of Utah Valley University last year, the report said. It also noted that several colleges have since entered costly settlements to end lawsuits over those disciplinary decisions.
Meanwhile, some colleges and systems — in certain cases, those led by political appointees or former politicians — have targeted classroom instruction.
The Texas A&M University and Texas Tech University systems, for example, have enacted policies restricting what faculty can teach, targeting subjects related to gender and race. Both systems are being sued over the changes.
Other U.S. colleges punished students over “academic, extramural, or political expression.”
SAR’s analysis this week follows the latest Academic Freedom Index report, released in March, that found the U.S. experienced a 50% decline in university autonomy from 2015 to 2025. Over the past six years, the U.S. has experienced a faster fall than the early declines experienced by Hungary and Turkey when slipping into autocracies.
While the index classified the U.S. as a country with “fully free” academic freedom in 2019, it had dropped that rating in 2025 to “moderately restricted” and was on the verge of becoming “severely restricted.” Hungary is classified as “severely restricted,” while Turkey is rated as “completely restricted.”
This week, SAR advised colleges to defend the free speech rights of the campus community, push state authorities for accountability among those who attack academic freedom, and strengthen their shared governance procedures to help protect against outside pressure from politicians and donors.
