In a larger trend of censoring opinions which the Trump administration views as undesirable, the Trump administration’s actions towards schools and universities has a negative impact on democracy as a whole. Such a system depends on the free transmission of information, so that the public can, to the best extent, freely formulate their opinions and beliefs. Manipulating schools and universities not only raises red flags that democracy is being eroded, but also reduces the probability that modes of democratic accountability can serve as a barrier against increasing authoritarianism. 

To the democratic party, global watchlists, and other countries, the United States is becoming a repressive environment where only a narrow ideological view is tolerated. Given how free speech is heavily entrenched in American culture, its degradation should theoretically unite and mobilize Americans to fight against the current administration. 

However, this is not the case– as right wing media outlets distort Trump’s policies, there are many citizens who are not aware that free speech is being attacked at all. This, in conjunction with how notable institutions are being pressured into ideological submission, compromises the ability for citizens to gain access to information that is critical of the current administration– thus making it unclear whether a majority consensus will be able to fight authoritarianism. 

Trump’s unprecedented actions towards educational institutions reflects a clear example of this worry. Executive orders, such as one that is titled Ending Racial Indoctrination in K-12 Schooling, seeks to ban schools from addressing trans children by their chosen names. It also bans teachers from teaching content that paints the United States in a critical lens, thus leaving many teachers unsure of how to discuss aspects of American history related to concepts such as slavery and colonialism. The Trump administration has also launched an online portal where parents can file complaints about lessons with content that relates to DEI, thus pressuring teachers to self-censor. 

While republican state legislatures have arguably censored content in elementary schools prior to Trump’s second term, the pressure on institutions of higher education is highly unprecedented. So far, at least 60 universities have had their funding threatened for having policies, curriculum and a history of actions which do not align with the Trump administration’s current goals . Notable examples include Columbia, which implemented the administration’s demands to increase disciplinary action towards student protestors, ban masks, and to alter the material that is taught under the Middle eastern, South Asian and African Studies Department. In addition, the University of Pennsylvania had 175 million dollars threatened over its permission of transgender athletes and Harvard is expected to see 2.2 billion dollars worth of federal grants withheld for refusing to suspend DEI practices and alter certain academic programs. 

In addition, dozens of students across universities have faced disciplinary action for participating in seemingly peaceful pro-Palestinian protests that were not proven to be hateful or violent. The arrest and attempted deportation of pro-palestiain activist Mahmoud Khalil serves as an especially chilling example, as he was legally in the United States on a green card, and was not charged of any crime.

Schools have previously been spaces where children and young adults have been able to question and reformulate their beliefs- by limiting access to knowledge, the Trump administration is able to control the flow of information to individuals who are in their most formative years, thus reshaping the views of future generations in a matter that they find favorable. In addition, restricting protest activity is a clear assault on free speech, and often serves as a notable signal that human rights are being eroded. 

Beyond how the Trump administration’s actions violate democratic norms, there are also partisan reasons why one would expect a majority opposition to such actions. Many liberal and left learning officials have championed programs that attempt a form of restitutive justice, in order to ‘level the playing field’ for historically underprivileged minorities. As such DEI initiatives are being scaled back, many of the gains that Democratic officials have made over the past few years are rapidly being deemed discriminatory and obsolete. 

With regards to the right, contemporary Republicans generally oppose governmental overreach, as  they view it to be incompatible with conceptions of freedom. This has often manifested with regards to schools, as many republicans have advocated to uncouple educational institutions from state and federal demands, in favor of higher degrees of autonomy. 

As external bodies take note of the degradation of civil liberties within the United States, it is highly logical that American citizens, who cited free speech as a top issue prior to the 2024 presidential election, and who largely oppose educational censorship, would be unanimously enraged by the manner in which the Trump administration has been targeting bodies of education. 

However, this does not entirely appear to be the case. A recent poll published by Quinnipiac University suggests that 89% of republicans are optimistic that freedom of speech will continue to be protected in the United States, which is in contrast to the mere 24% of Democrats that believe so. More generally, a UMASS Amherst poll suggests that Donald Trump has an 89% approval rate among republicans. 

On one hand, many conservatives had previously felt unable to speak freely on campuses prior to Trump’s recent inauguration, as they cite examples of conservative speakers being cancelled, and hostile environments towards those with republican views. It is true that such environments also fail to fully promote free speech. However, withholding millions or billions of dollars worth of federal funding, which universities are dependent on for their lifeline, and banning certain information from being taught reflects an extreme measure to impose ideological goals that is arguably unprecedented. 

Rather than republicans merely viewing the recent governmental actions to be restitutive, right-leaning media sources are selectively distorting the information that is being relayed. For instance, actions against universities are depicted to be a mere, rightful response to a crackdown on anti-semitism. Such a characterization not only negates the existing efforts of universities to address anti-semitism, but ignores how the Trump administration’s efforts more largely seek to censor peaceful protests and educational content that they view to be controversial. Similarly, right-leaning reporting on elementary schools often works to falsely sexualize and exaggerate the frequency of the amount of LGBTQ content in lessons. 

Once again, given how censoring classroom content and free speech is unpopular among the majority of Americans, the educational policies implemented by the Trump administration represent a stark break from the values which are commonly celebrated and taken for granted in the United States. 

In addition, the need to manipulate how such policies are relayed raises the possibility that they might not enjoy majoritarian support if they were relayed to the public truthfully. This suggests a potential disconnect between the American citizens and the Trump administration’s educational policies, and raises the question of whether the United States’ democracy, in which policies reflect the will of the people, is functioning adequately.

Moreover, limiting historical and cultural context will make the next generation more likely to hold discriminatory views towards minorities. This might reduce their support for policies which support marginalized groups, such as widening social security. Not only does this have concerning implications for the future of equality, but it also suggests a mechanism through which the Trump administration’s policy goals become more likely to be voted for in the future. Therefore, the utilization of censorship manipulates the electoral field and enables the concentration of power. 

Lastly, weakening the power and influence of Universities will have a negative impact on programs which train people to go into law, policy, research, journalism, teaching, and a variety of other fields. These professions play a large role in the fight against authoritarianism, as they work to investigate, educate, and take legal recourse. Consequently, Trumps’ educational policies are likely to weaken civil society, which has worrying implications for the ability to protect Democratic Erosion in the future.