On The Front Lines

Rutherford Warns: The Government's War on Academic Freedom and ‘Thought Crimes’ Is Turning Orwell’s 1984 Into Official Policy

BOSTON, Ma. — Today it’s Harvard and the University of Virginia—tomorrow, it could be any institution that dares to dissent. If the government can dictate what is taught in a private university’s classroom, it won’t stop there—it will seek to dictate what is said in the pulpit, printed in the press, and spoken in the streets. That’s the warning being issued by The Rutherford Institute, which has joined a broad coalition of civil liberties groups in opposing the Trump administration’s attempts to wage a political war on academic freedom and ideological independence.

At the heart of the legal challenge is the Trump administration’s move to strip Harvard University of billions of dollars in federal research funding unless Harvard agrees to change its hiring, admissions, and curriculum policies to align with the government’s preferred political ideology. Insisting that the First Amendment prohibits this kind of ideological coercion, the coalition—which includes The Rutherford Institute, the ACLU, ACLU of Massachusetts, Cato Institute, Electronic Frontier Foundation, Knight First Amendment Institute, National Coalition Against Censorship, and the Reporters Committee for the Freedom of the Press—filed an amicus brief opposing the government’s unconstitutional and hostile takeover of academic institutions.

“This is nothing less than a political war waged on thought-crimes. By punishing a private university for refusing to adopt the government’s preferred ideology, the Trump administration is turning Orwell’s 1984 into official policy,” said constitutional attorney John W. Whitehead, president of The Rutherford Institute and author of Battlefield America: The War on the American People. “By weaponizing the federal government to silence dissent and force conformity, Trump is waging war against the Constitution, the rule of law, and anyone who dares to think independently. This is ideological tyranny—precisely what the First Amendment was intended to prevent.”

On April 11, 2025, the Trump administration demanded that Harvard: vet students, faculty, and departments for “viewpoint diversity”; alter its hiring, admissions, and curriculum choices to conform to the government’s ideological preferences; submit to a third-party audit of programs that “reflect ideological capture”; and install new leadership committed to enforcing the government’s demands. When Harvard refused to “surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” the government responded by cancelling billions of dollars in grant funding and blacklisting the university from future federal research support. Harvard then filed a lawsuit challenging the government’s actions.

In coming to Harvard’s defense, the coalition’s amicus brief argues that the government cannot use its financial power to force any private institution—liberal or conservative—to adopt state-sanctioned views. The First Amendment, the brief emphasizes, guarantees that private universities retain autonomy over what to teach, how to teach, who will teach, and whom to admit—free from government control or interference.

Cecillia D. Wang, Ben Wizner, Vera Eidelman, Brian Hauss, Jessie J. Rossman, and Rachel E. Davidson at ACLU advanced the arguments in the amicus brief in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

The Rutherford Institute is a nonprofit civil liberties organization dedicated to making the government play by the rules of the Constitution. To this end, the Institute defends individuals whose constitutional rights have been threatened or violated and educates the public on a broad range of issues affecting their freedoms.