Texas Passed a Law Protecting Campus Speech. It's on the Verge of Rolling It Back.
In 2019, Texas guaranteed expansive First Amendment protections on college campuses with a new law intended to be a corrective to ideological conformity in higher education.
Then came the Oct. 7, 2023, attack by Hamas on Israel. Tents, loudspeakers and student protesters, some masked, some in kaffiyehs, soon followed at Texas universities.
So did the second thoughts.
Republicans in the Texas Legislature — including some who helped write the 2019 law — did an about-face earlier this month and approved a bill that would restrict how students can protest. The bill is awaiting Gov. Greg Abbott's signature.
If he signs it, as expected, free speech advocates said Texas will enter new legal territory, just as Republicans across the country test the limits of their authority to tighten control over the culture on college campuses.
While states set many policies that affect how public universities are run, they have not typically tried to regulate student conduct with an act of law.
But the Texas bill would greatly expand the state's influence over 'expressive activities' on campus — which are defined to include what students wear, how much noise they make and the hours of the day when expression is allowed.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
DAVID MARCUS: Trump's base trusts him to play strong hand in Iran
Of all the ways to try to influence President Donald Trump, the absolute worst is to threaten him. And yet, there is a segment of MAGA world podcasters and influencers insisting that if the commander-in-chief takes direct action against Iran, it will divide and crush Trump's base. Don't count on it. The argument from podcast land is that Trump ran on a promise of no new wars and that any direct American action against Iran would betray that promise and plunge America into another forever war in the Middle East. Let's slow down a bit. In his first term, Trump killed Quasim Soliemani, the top Iranian general, to howls from the left, and some of these same right-wing podcasters, that it would start World War III. It didn't. They were wrong, Trump was right. Here we are again, the president faced with a choice. He can use U.S. bunker bombs to deal the lethal blow to Iran's nuclear program, or he can take the Joe Biden route, and sheepishly back off his demand for unconditional surrender, and let Iran continue its march to nukes. Depending on the polling, about 80% of Republicans think that a nuclear Iran poses a critical threat to the United States. And while voters are more split on direct U.S. action, Trump is laser-focused on stopping Tehran's bomb. Trump excels at solving problems everyone else says are impossible. Just look at the southern border, sealed tight as a Ziploc bag, even though everyone swore only Congress could do that. Likewise, in Iran, Trump doesn't want to hear a rehashing of the 8 million reasons why nobody can stop their nuclear program. He wants to hear how to stop it, and if those urging restraint can't tell him how, he's going to listen to those who can. This goes back to the farcical threat that Trump is going to lose his base if he bombs Iran, that the guy in an Ohio diner is going to side with the podcasters over the president he voted for. How did that work out for Elon Musk? The analogy is an apt one, because Musk's threats and criticisms over the Big Beautiful Bill potentially raising the debt had real resonance among GOP voters, and yet, they chose Trump over a chastened richest man in the world. They support Trump's overarching economic goals more than they dislike the debt. Same thing in Iran. Is there skepticism about using direct American military might? Of course. This ain't a pickup game of shirts and skins. But do they trust Trump overall to stop Iran from getting nukes? Absolutely. Talk of regime change and threats to kill Iran's supreme leader understandably make Americans jittery 25 years after the launch of the disastrous war in Iraq, but Trump isn't talking about invading with boots on the ground, and his base knows this. What the podcasters don't seem to understand is that the only way to influence Trump is to influence his voters. He doesn't care how many followers an influencer has on social media, half of which could be bots from foreign information operations, anyway. Actually, one has to wonder if our geo-political foes, whose bot farms seek to manipulate social media platforms in America and sow discord, are disappointed by their return on investment. On X, it seems like to bomb or not to bomb is a divide ripping our country apart. In real life, it simply isn't. The final thing that Trump understands and that his base trusts, is that the United States was losing the international status quo under his predecessors, on global trade, on the border, on China policy, and yes, in the Middle East. In all of these cases, he is determined to reverse that trend. There is nothing wrong or unpatriotic about arguing that direct U.S. action against Iran would be a mistake, and Trump no doubt welcomes lively debate. But as Vice President JD Vance, no chickenhawk, pointed out Tuesday, this is Trump's decision to make. Trump promised that Iran would never obtain a nuke, and he has a habit of keeping his campaign promises, even when taking slings and arrows from noisy voices on his own side. There isn't a podcast in the world that can keep Trump from fulfilling this promise as he sees fit, and his base, the real power behind the administration, expects nothing less.
New York Times
25 minutes ago
- New York Times
Live Updates: Trump Is Cryptic on U.S. Plans as Iranian Leader Is Defiant
News ANalysis Smokes after Israeli airstrikes in Tehran on Tuesday. In Iran, Israel is carrying out the kind of broad and brazen attack that it long threatened but never dared to enact before. For nearly two decades, Israel avoided all-out war with its biggest enemies. It fought contained conflicts with Hamas, but ultimately allowed the group to retain power in Gaza. It maintained an uneasy calm with the Lebanese militia Hezbollah, even as its fighters entrenched themselves in southern Lebanon. And despite planning a major assault on Iran, it limited its attacks to smaller, clandestine operations. Israel's massive, ongoing assault on Iran highlights an extraordinary shift in Israeli military doctrine since Hamas, Iran's Palestinian ally, attacked the country in October 2023. It is a change that has redrawn the power dynamics in the Middle East, unraveled Iran's regional alliance and enshrined Israel as the dominant military force in the region. Having given Hamas years to prepare for the Oct. 7 attack, Israel reversed course afterward to unleash one of the most destructive campaigns in recent warfare. It then assassinated most of Hezbollah's leadership and decimated large parts of southern Lebanon. Now, in Iran, it is carrying out the kind of broad and brazen attack that it long threatened but never dared to enact. 'We are changing the face of the Middle East,' said Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of Israel during a press briefing on Monday. 'And this could lead to far-reaching changes within Iran itself,' he added. For now, that second claim remains unproven. The Israeli military campaign has weakened Iran, but it has not yet destroyed the country's nuclear program or collapsed its government, and it may still fall short of both. The war could also devolve into an intractable quagmire with no exit strategy or offramp. Image Iranians lined up at gas stations in Tehran on Monday. Credit... Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times Mr. Netanyahu's broader point is harder to contradict. Hamas is no longer a threat to Israel. Hezbollah's influence over Lebanon — let alone the danger it poses to Israelis — is much diminished. The government in Syria, a pillar of Iran's regional alliance, was overthrown last December, in part because Hezbollah could no longer come to its aid. These tectonic shifts also speak to a vast change within the Israeli psyche and strategic outlook since Hamas's attack in October 2023. For Israel's critics, the attack was the inevitable consequence of the country's blockade of Gaza, occupation of the West Bank, and failure to resolve the Palestinian conflict through diplomatic concessions. Many Israelis have drawn the opposite conclusion: They believe that the October attack — the deadliest in Israeli history — stemmed from Israel's failure to pre-emptively and decisively defeat its enemies. 'In the 20 years before Oct. 7, we allowed threats to develop beyond our borders, trusting that our intelligence would give us prior warnings of any attack,' said Maj. Gen. Amos Yadlin, a former head of Israeli military intelligence. 'The trauma of Oct. 7 completely changed that mind-set and made us willing to take risks that we didn't take in the past,' General Yadlin said. 'We will no longer wait to be attacked, and we will not wait to be surprised.' The approach echoes Israel's strategic outlook in the early decades of its existence, when it often acted more swiftly and decisively to remove threats on its borders, General Yadlin said. The clearest example was in June 1967, when Israel pre-emptively attacked Egypt after the Egyptian military moved troops toward the Israeli border. Image Israeli fighter aircraft over the Sinai Peninsula of Egypt in June 1967. Israel's current approach in the Middle East echoes its strategic outlook in the early decades of its existence, when it often acted swiftly and decisively to remove threats on its borders. Credit... Israel Defense Forces, via Agence France-Presse — Getty Images 'As Egypt massed troops on our southern border, we did not wait to be surprised,' General Yadlin said. 'Now, we are reviving that doctrine.' Israel's new approach is the culmination of months of re-evaluation, during which the military's confidence — crushed by the failures of Oct. 7 — was gradually restored. While Israel's approach to Hamas was immediately wrathful, the country was initially wary of taking on Hezbollah and Iran. Mr. Netanyahu called off a pre-emptive attack on Hezbollah in the first week of the war in 2023, amid fears that Israel would struggle to maintain a multi-front war against the Iran-led alliance. For nearly a year, Israel fought only a low-level border conflict with Hezbollah. Despite increasing clashes with Tehran in 2024, Israel limited its strikes on Iran to avoid an all-out conflict. Israel's approach began to change last September, when a sequence of unexpected moves allowed Israel to decimate much of Hezbollah's senior leadership. That increased Israel's confidence and prompted its leaders to order a more decisive assault on the group. Troops invaded southern Lebanon and the air force killed Hezbollah's secretary general, Hassan Nasrallah. Israel then severely weakened Iran's air defense systems and successfully repelled massive barrages of Iranian missiles, giving Israel greater confidence in its offensive and defensive abilities. More than a year after Oct. 7, Israeli leaders finally concluded that they had a rare window of opportunity to mount a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear program. Image An oil storage west of Tehran was hit by Israeli airstrikes on Sunday. Credit... Arash Khamooshi for The New York Times Though Israel's new approach has undercut Iran's regional influence, it has done little to resolve Israel's oldest and most intractable problem: the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. In Gaza, Israel's retaliation has led to widespread destruction and bloodshed, reinstating a fearsome sense of Israeli might and reducing Hamas's threat for a generation. But the conflict has provided no clear long-term trajectory for either Gaza or the wider Palestinian question. Mr. Netanyahu has consistently ignored opportunities to end the war, balking at the idea of either leaving Hamas's remnants in charge or allowing other Palestinian groups to take over. 'Instead, we are left with only bad options,' said Tzipi Livni, a former Israeli foreign minister. 'Either occupation or chaos, rather than a diplomatic process involving moderate regional and Palestinian stakeholders that could change the reality on the ground for both Palestinians and Israelis.' A similarly aimless dynamic could yet emerge in Iran, analysts said, if the Israeli leadership fails to clearly define its goals there and set an exit strategy. For now, Israeli officials hope the United States will join the attack and help Israel destroy Iran's nuclear enrichment facilities. If the United States stays away, and if Iran refuses to stop the enrichment by choice, it is unclear whether Israel's forceful new doctrine will achieve the kind of game-changing outcomes that many Israelis desire. 'One wonders whether effective military performance is matched by a sober political vision,' said Nimrod Novik, a former senior Israeli official and a fellow at Israel Policy Forum, a research group in New York. 'Or, like in Gaza, we are left without an endgame. Time will tell.' Johnatan Reiss and Gabby Sobelman contributed reporting.
Newsweek
25 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Republicans Out Of Step With Voters On Medicaid Funding
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. While Republican lawmakers have pushed for federal spending cuts to major safety net programs, like Medicaid and SNAP, new polling shows their position is out of step with voters—even within their own party. According to an Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research survey, around half of all American adults say Medicaid receives too little funding, and nearly 45 percent felt the same about food assistance programs like SNAP. The survey's findings show that only 2 in 10 Americans agree with House Republicans that Medicaid is overfunded, while about one-quarter say the same about food assistance programs. Jacob Wallace, a professor in the department of health policy and management at the Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek, "Medicaid and SNAP are critical safety net programs in the United two programs form a foundation of health care and food security for tens of millions of low-income Americans, increasing their health, wellbeing, and productivity." Newsweek has contacted the Department of Health and Human Services via email for comment. Why It Matters The polling shows a clear disconnect between proposals from Republican leaders in Congress—who are considering significant spending reductions in Medicaid and SNAP to pay for extended tax cuts and other priorities—and the views of the public, including their own voters. Majorities across party lines have expressed opposition to cuts in funding for widely used insurance and assistance programs because of the impact it could have on America's most vulnerable populations, as well as on health more widely. Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the... Activists with the Poor People's Campaign protest against spending reductions across Medicaid, food stamps and federal aid in President Donald Trump's spending and tax bill being worked on by Senate Republicans this week, outside the Supreme Court in Washington, Monday, June 2, 2025. More J. Scott Applewhite/AP What To Know President Donald Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," if passed, would bring in cuts to Medicaid and changes to eligibility, such as work requirements, which a recent study by researchers at Harvard Medical School and City University of New York Hunter College predicted could increase the number of annual deaths in the U.S. by more than 16,500 and leave 7.6 million more Americans without health insurance. The proposed cuts to the SNAP program could also mean some states may stop providing constituents with food assistance benefits if they are left to shoulder the brunt of the costs. These decisions, suggested in order to enable the president to bring about sweeping tax cuts, have been divisive from the start. However, a new study by AP-NORC, conducted among 1,158 U.S. adults from June 5 to 9, shows that even the GOP's own party members are not widely in favor of its political strategy regarding these assistance programs. Only around one in 10 Republicans believed that too much is spent on Medicare or Social Security, while around one-third of Republicans said Medicaid spending was excessive. For SNAP, 46 percent of Republicans felt the program was overfunded. Overall, 60 percent of Americans said not enough is spent on Social Security, Medicare, or education. The poll also noted Americans are divided on military and border security spending, with Democrats more likely to say that "too much" is being spent on border security, and Republicans more likely to say it's "too little." The survey used NORC's probability-based AmeriSpeak Panel and has a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points. What People Are Saying Jacob Wallace, a professor in the department of health policy and management at the Yale School of Public Health, told Newsweek: "Medicaid and SNAP are critical safety net programs in the United States. Medicaid serves over 80 million low-income Americans, including children, pregnant women, people with disabilities, and families. There is growing evidence that Medicaid saves lives and improves economic opportunity. Children exposed to Medicaid in childhood made greater contributions to the tax system by age 28, both by earning more and relying less on social programs. They were also less likely to die prematurely. SNAP, which provides food assistance to over 40 million Americans, is associated with improved health and lower health care spending. "These two programs form a foundation of health care and food security for tens of millions of low-income Americans, increasing their health, wellbeing, and productivity." Michael Sparer, chair of the department of health policy and management at Columbia University, told Newsweek: "Millions of Americans rely on Medicaid for their health insurance and SNAP to help put food on their tables. As the number of beneficiaries have increased, the stigma of accepting these benefits has declined and the programs themselves have become more entrenched and more popular. Indeed, many who are skeptical of government and opposed to "welfare" are themselves Medicaid and SNAP beneficiaries. "In this context, proposed cuts to these programs could generate a significant political backlash for the Trump Administration. Nonetheless, the Administration continues to move ahead with the proposed cutbacks, mainly because they are searching for federal budget savings that would help to finance the massive tax cuts that are their highest priority. The Administration is trying to balance this political equation by arguing that the cuts to both programs will focus on "fraud and abuse" and not needy individuals. But there is strong evidence that the imposition of so-called work requirements will result in millions of eligible beneficiaries losing their coverage, including large numbers of Trump supporters. It is too soon to tell how this will play out politically." Jack Hoadley, a professor in the Health Policy Institute of Georgetown University's McCourt School of Public Policy, told Newsweek: "For the Trump administration, this is about cutting back the social safety net, but using the rhetoric of waste, fraud, and abuse to do so. These cuts will be a key part of the political pushback against the Trump administration in the upcoming 2025 and 2026 elections. But the fundamental red-blue divide may overshadow any particular issue." What Happens Next Congressional debate over spending on Medicaid and SNAP, as well as other programs, is set to continue as lawmakers negotiate the federal budget. This article contains reporting from the Associated Press.
