MINNEAPOLIS – Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is facing one of the biggest welfare fraud scandals in American history, with federal officials warning that theft from state and federal aid programmes could top $8 billion.

The alleged fraud, centred on schemes that targeted food assistance, housing support, and services for vulnerable families, has highlighted serious gaps in oversight under Democratic Governor Tim Walz. As the FBI and Department of Justice (DOJ) ramp up investigations,

Tim Walz is under intense pressure for refusing to accept responsibility and instead pointing to federal Covid-era rules and partisan attacks.

What started as a few reports of oddities in child nutrition spending has grown into what prosecutors now describe as the largest Covid fraud case in the country. Shell companies, many reportedly linked to Minnesota’s Somali-American community, are accused of billing for services that never happened, then spending the cash on luxury cars, high-end goods, foreign transfers, and possibly terror-linked transactions.

So far, 78 people have been charged and more than 50 convicted, while the needs of vulnerable children and families were pushed aside in favour of yachts, mansions, and designer labels.

How the Fraud Grew

At the centre of the scandal is the Feeding Our Future case, involving a nonprofit that grew at astonishing speed during the Covid pandemic. The group received federal child nutrition funds that were distributed by the Minnesota Department of Education and meant to pay for meals for low-income children.

Instead, operators are accused of submitting invoices for millions of meals that never existed, with some sites operating as little more than paperwork mills pretending to serve food at $4.50 per fake meal.

DOJ documents outline how the fraud spiralled once rules were loosened in 2020. As pandemic emergency measures relaxed checks and documentation, Feeding Our Future’s annual budget jumped from about $3.4 million to around $200 million.

Insiders at the state agency flagged odd claims as far back as 2019, but meaningful action lagged. A 2022 state audit condemned officials for “creating opportunities for fraud” by brushing aside glaring warning signs, such as meal counts that made no sense and sites listed in strip malls with no proper verification.

The problems were not limited to food programmes. Similar scams cropped up in Housing Stabilization Services (HSS), a scheme created to keep older people and people with disabilities from becoming homeless. Launched in 2020 with a forecast cost of about $2.6 million, it exploded to $104 million in payments by 2024, with investigators now saying most of that money was fraudulent.

Some providers allegedly scraped names from rehab centres, then billed Medicaid for bogus counselling that never took place, pocketing about $61 million in just the first half of 2025. Another group is accused of netting $14 million through false claims for autism therapy, exploiting families desperate for real support.

Unemployment benefits were also hit. During the height of the pandemic, officials say roughly $500 million went out in fake jobless claims. The Centre of the American Experiment’s Minnesota Scandal Tracker now records more than $1.2 billion in confirmed losses since Walz took office in 2019. Even so, whistleblowers and some lawmakers now talk about a much higher figure.

Representative Claudia Tenney (R-N.Y.) has repeated concerns that the true total could reach $8 billion, which she said is “growing by the day”. That would exceed the state’s entire annual corrections budget and comes straight from programmes meant to help the poorest residents.

Critics, including former fraud investigator Kayseh Magan, blame political caution for the slow response. They argue that leading Democrats in Minnesota felt uneasy about targeting fraud in the Somali community, which numbers around 80,000 people and has political influence in the state.

Magan, himself Somali-American, has said it is “uncomfortable and true” that most defendants come from his community, while stressing that the offenders represent a small group exploiting the system. Photos showing convicted offender Abdul Dahir Ibrahim smiling alongside Walz and Representative Ilhan Omar have fuelled public anger and strengthened claims that cosy political relationships gave scammers cover.

Tim Walz’s Pushback: “I Take Responsibility for Putting People in Jail”

Governor Tim Walz, once marketed as an easy-going everyman, has become the political face of the scandal. On NBC’s “Meet the Press“, when asked about his responsibility, Walz replied, “Certainly, I take responsibility for putting people in jail.”

The remark has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. An anonymous account claiming to speak for 480 staff members at the Minnesota Department of Human Services called him “100% responsible” and accused his administration of ignoring alarms and punishing whistleblowers.

Walz’s defence has not convinced many sceptics. He has described Minnesota as a “well-run” state with “generous” programmes and has pointed to strong rankings in education and health coverage to argue that the system works overall, even with major fraud cases. Records and court filings tell a different story.

In 2020, a judge reprimanded state officials for cutting off payments to Feeding Our Future without proper procedure, a decision that delayed tougher action. Later, federal authorities asked the state to hold back on some moves to avoid tipping off targets. Even so, state audits have still faulted Walz’s team for earlier failures and poor controls.

On 3 December, House Oversight Committee Chairman James Comer (R-Ky.) opened a formal inquiry and demanded documents from Walz and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison by 17 December. His letter accused the administration of a “cover-up”, citing reports of retaliation against staff who tried to expose fraud.

Comer asked, “What did your administration know, and when?” The U.S. Treasury is also looking at whether money stolen from welfare schemes might have moved to al-Shabaab through hawala networks, a type of informal money transfer, raising fresh concerns about national security.

Walz insists he has nothing to hide and says he welcomes review of the state’s actions, but he has attacked Republican critics for what he describes as anti-immigrant motives and election-year tactics. In a state where Somali voters have helped deliver key wins for Democrats, the political risks are obvious.

Some critics say that focusing on accountability could upset a core voting bloc. Social media is full of anger, with one user writing, “Walz’s Elmer Fudd act isn’t fooling anyone, this happened on his watch.”

Federal Investigators Move In: FBI and DOJ Take the Lead

With trust in state oversight weakening, federal agencies have stepped in as the main force tackling fraud in Minnesota’s welfare system. Since raids on Feeding Our Future sites began in 2022, the FBI and DOJ have brought charges against 78 people tied to that network alone. As recently as August 2025, three more defendants pleaded guilty to about $2.4 million in fake claims.

Acting U.S. Attorney Joseph H. Thompson described the situation as a “far-reaching fraud crisis swamping Minnesota” and praised FBI financial experts for piecing together complex chains of shell companies and bribes.

In September, eight more individuals were indicted in the Housing Stabilization Services case after a joint investigation by the FBI, IRS Criminal Investigation, and the Office of Inspector General at the Department of Health and Human Services. BCA Superintendent Drew Evans said, “Criminals selfishly defraud these programmes, depriving vulnerable Minnesotans,” as investigators tracked stolen money into luxury goods from brands like Louis Vuitton and into foreign business accounts.

In one instance, a defendant is accused of washing about $1.38 million through personal bank accounts.

The investigations are still active and expanding. FBI Special Agent in Charge Alvin M. Winston has promised that investigators are “steadfast in holding accountable those who steal from underprivileged children.”

With questions mounting about possible links to al-Shabaab through hawala transfers, former counterterrorism officials have warned that yes, Covid fraud can feed into extremist networks abroad. Figures in former President Trump’s orbit have seized on the scandal, with ICE raids in Somali neighbourhoods and public comments painting Minnesota as a “fraud hub.”

Pressure on the Somali Community

Minnesota’s Somali community, which has become a central part of life in Minneapolis over the past three decades, now finds itself caught in the middle of a national controversy. Community leaders condemn efforts to “demonise an entire group fleeing civil war”, a line Walz echoed during his NBC interview.

Representative Ilhan Omar, who has faced renewed scrutiny for her connections to some involved figures, told CNN that “these Covid programmes were set up so quickly,” arguing that rushed design and weak controls opened the door to abuse.

Inside the community, tensions are rising. Some Somali Americans say they feel treated as suspects simply because of their background, while others demand a tougher response to those who exploited public trust. Social media comments show how raw the debate has become. One user ranted, “At least 75% of the Somali community on welfare, Walz, Omar, Ellison taking cuts?”

Right-wing commentators have linked the scandal to “open borders and expansive welfare”, while analyst David Asman and historian Victor Davis Hanson have accused Walz of refusing to speak plainly about the scale and nature of the problem.

Tim Walz’s Future in Doubt

As federal investigations press forward and new details emerge, the scandal is reshaping Minnesota’s political outlook. Walz is expected to seek re-election in 2026, but opponents already see an opening. Republicans frame the saga as proof that Democrats have turned Minnesota into a “failed state”.

House Budget Committee Chairman Jodey Arrington (R-Texas) has used the case to hammer home a simple message, asking voters which party they trust with their tax money. Media figures have joined in, with Meghan McCain calling for Walz to resign and calling the welfare scandal “one of the greatest frauds in American history.”

Efforts to claw back stolen funds have moved slowly. So far, only a small part of the billions believed to be lost has been recovered. Policymakers are talking about new guardrails, such as tougher background checks for providers, real-time data tracking, and dedicated fraud units with more independence.

For now, though, many Minnesotans feel punished twice, once when the money was stolen, and again as the state tries to repair broken systems using the same taxpayers’ funds.

The sense of betrayal runs deep. Posts on X warn that “what we uncover will shock America,” and many residents say their faith in state government has sunk to a new low. While lakes and natural beauty still define Minnesota in the public imagination, trust in public institutions seems to sink further every week.

Whether Governor Walz will take full responsibility for what critics call an £8 billion disaster, or continue to argue that federal rules, courts, and political enemies tied his hands, remains at the centre of the fight. Federal agencies keep filing cases, new defendants keep appearing in court, and public outrage continues to grow. For now, the scandal shows no sign of fading from view.

Related News:

Tim Walz’s Weak Racism Fears Cost Minnesota Taxpayers Over $1 Billion

WASHINGTON, D.C. –  The New York Times is under heavy fire from conservative commentators after publishing a headline story claiming President Donald Trump, now 79, is showing “signs of fatigue” and facing the “realities of aging in office”. The article has sparked a fierce row over media bias, with critics accusing the paper of giving former President Joe Biden far softer treatment over his own well-known cognitive and physical issues.

At the same time, leading Democrats are pushing for Trump to release full medical records, including details of a recent MRI scan. The clash over transparency and presidential health has turned into a heated partisan fight, and interest is surging in search terms such as “Trump fatigue New York Times”, “Biden age coverage hypocrisy”, and “Trump medical records release”.

The New York Times hit piece, titled “Shorter Days, Signs of Fatigue: Trump Faces Realities of Aging in Office”, portrays a president who has eased back on his once relentless workload. Reporters Katie Rogers and Dylan Freedman tracked his public events and noted that Trump now tends to start his day around midday and finish by early evening, usually by 5 p.m., a noticeable shift from the long and chaotic days of his first term.

The article points to moments such as Trump appearing to nod off during an Oval Office press event on weight-loss drugs and looking drowsy during a recent Cabinet meeting. “Trump has always used his stamina and energy as a political strength. But that image is getting harder for him to sustain,” the piece claims, reminding readers that he is now the oldest person ever elected president.

Trump responded on Truth Social with a furious tirade, again branding the Times a “failing” paper and an “enemy of the people”, and taking a personal swipe at co-author Katie Rogers, calling her “ugly, both inside and out”.

He insisted, “I have never worked so hard in my life… Yet despite all of this the Radical Left Lunatics… did a hit piece on me that I am perhaps losing my Energy.” He highlighted a recent “perfect physical exam” and claimed he had aced a cognitive test.

According to White House visitor and schedule logs obtained by the New York Post, Trump has spent more hours in the Oval Office this year than Biden did in his final year as president. Allies have seized on those figures as proof that Trump is still working harder than his predecessor and that the Times is cherry-picking anecdotes to build a narrative.

Conservative Outrage: ‘Now the Media Cares About Age, Because It’s Trump’

The conservative reaction has been immediate and fierce, with right-leaning commentators accusing the Times of staggering hypocrisy. Fox News host Stuart Varney tore into the article on-air, calling it a “hit piece” and arguing, “The New York Times never said a word about Joe Biden’s obvious decline, stumbling on stairs, forgetting names, whispering incoherently. But Trump takes a nap? That is a front-page scandal.”

Even MSNBC’s Katy Tur, who is not known as a Trump supporter, questioned the focus of the story. On her programme, she remarked, “Trump is doing much more than Biden ever did,” contrasting Trump’s frequent press gaggles and media interactions with Biden’s more withdrawn approach during his presidency.

On X (formerly Twitter), the backlash broke into trending topics under hashtags such as #NYTHypocrisy and #TrumpFatigueFakeNews. One user, @iammarco75, wrote, “Katy Tur says Trump doing ‘much more’ than Biden ever did as NYT reports on president’s ‘fatigue’ – He’s doing a great job!” Another, @George85337002, vented, “FUNNY HOW THE FAKE NEWS NEVER CRITICIZED THE DEMENTED BIDEN BUT LOOKS FOR ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CRITICIZE PRESIDENT TRUMP.”

OutKick’s Clay Travis published a blistering column claiming, “The Times avoided criticising Biden’s mental decline but now scrutinises Trump’s schedule and Oval Office behaviour. It is enough to make you tear your hair out.”

This anger is not limited to a small pocket of commentators. USA Today columnist Glenn Garvin echoed the charge, asking why so many outlets downplayed concerns about Biden. He wrote that the media “ignored President Joe Biden’s obvious mental decline” but now focuses obsessively on Trump’s age and work habits.

The sense of a double standard meshes with a wider collapse in trust. A recent Rasmussen survey found that only 28% of Republicans trust mainstream media coverage about health and medical issues, down from 35% before the last election. On his podcast, Ben Shapiro called the Times coverage “selective outrage”, joking that “Biden wandered off stages and mixed up world leaders, and the press said nothing. Trump ends a rally early and suddenly it is an existential crisis.”

The frustration intensifies when set against the Times’ own polling and archives. A 2024 New York Times/Siena College poll showed that 73% of voters, including many who had backed Biden in 2020, believed he was too old for a second term. Even then, a lot of the paper’s coverage framed those concerns as voter “perceptions” rather than hard questions about fitness for office.

As one X user, @KJSpringer, put it during the latest MRI debate, “To hell with what the Democrats want. We put up with a freaking invalid in the white house for 4 years and the Democrats didn’t ask for crap.”

Democrats Turn Up the Pressure: ‘Release Trump’s Medical Records, Starting with the MRI’

While conservatives hammer the media, Democrats are trying to push the story in a different direction, focusing on full transparency around Trump’s health. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz helped ignite the latest row with a video on X that quickly went viral.

In it, he declares, “The President is unwell. Release the MRI results.” The clip, viewed more than 3 million times, refers to Trump’s October MRI at Walter Reed, which the White House called “preventive”, but has not fully explained.

Appearing on NBC’s Meet the Press, Walz pushed the issue harder. “Here we got a guy on Thanksgiving… ranting. This is not normal behaviour. It is not healthy… Has anyone ever had an MRI and had no idea what it was for?” he asked.

When reporters later asked Trump about Walz’s criticism, he shot back, “You mean the incompetent Governor Walz? I have no idea what they analysed,” before turning his fire on female journalists and making digs about their intelligence.

The demands did not stop with Walz. The Democratic Governors Association posted, “Release the MRI results,” on X, which quickly drew tens of thousands of views. Influencer Harry Sisson shared a photograph of Trump, captioning it, “He’s clearly not well… Release the MRI results.” Former Republican congressman and CNN commentator Adam Kinzinger also joined in, writing, “Time for full disclosure.”

A petition on Care2 calling for Trump to release his “FULL medical records” has passed 8,000 signatures. It lists visible bruising on his hands and his July diagnosis of chronic venous insufficiency as reasons for concern.

For many observers, this feels like a replay of 2024, when more than 200 doctors associated with Doctors for Harris urged Trump to match Kamala Harris’s detailed medical disclosures. At that time, Trump told CBS he would “very gladly” release his records once Biden dropped out of the race. Biden did step aside, but Trump has still not provided a full set of documents.

His October physical produced a memo from the White House physician declaring that Trump was in “exceptional health”, but the summary contained little detail about the MRI. Critics on social media have demanded more. Popular X account @JoJoFromJerz wrote, “The press needs to ask about this every single day.” Trump has now said publicly that he will release the MRI report, but sceptical voices like @atrupar argue, “There is no such thing as a preventative MRI. She’s lying.”

Others push back on the growing demands. An account named @TruthSeekerBPL pointed out, “Presidents aren’t legally required to release their medical records… Biden never released full medical records either.”

There is no law forcing presidents to share their full files. Ronald Reagan tended to release summaries, Bill Clinton provided full examination details, while both Trump and Biden relied on short doctors’ letters and selective information rather than full transparency.

Echoes of Biden: Critics Say NYT Went Soft on His Cognitive Decline

For many conservatives, the New York Times’ coverage of Trump only reinforces their belief that the paper treated Biden far more gently, especially when serious questions about his physical and mental sharpness emerged.

A major Times investigation in January 2025, titled “How Biden’s Inner Circle Protected a Faltering President”, acknowledged that top aides managed his “physical frailty”. According to that report, staff reshuffled his diary to catch him in better moods, cut meetings to shorter slots, and sometimes held back bad polling to avoid triggering stress. It quoted Biden adviser Mike Donilon, who warned as early as 2022, “Your biggest issue is the perception of age.”

A separate book extract published in May 2025 described Biden aides blocking a proposed cognitive test in 2024 out of fear it would draw more attention to possible decline rather than calm concerns.

Going back further, a 2022 Times piece, “President Biden Is Turning 80”, interviewed ageing experts but leaned towards reassurance, arguing that Biden’s background, habits, and lifestyle were in line with healthy ageing.

Even after his shaky 2024 debate performance, much of the commentary focused on context and normal slip-ups. A February 2024 opinion article by a neuroscientist argued that Biden’s stumbles and verbal lapses were “normal” for someone in their early eighties.

Only later, in October 2025, did a House Oversight Committee report accuse Biden’s team of a “cover-up”, claiming that his cognitive issues had undermined decision-making in office. The Times did cover the report, but conservatives insist the paper treated these concerns as political theatre in the pre-2024 period, rather than digging in with the same intensity it now directs at Trump’s schedule and nap habits.

Wikipedia’s entry on “Age and health concerns about Joe Biden” records that outlets such as the Times, CNN, and the Washington Post began discussing Biden’s age and health as early as 2019. Yet the coverage often included caveats and reassurances. A poll in 2024 showed 61% of Democrats wanted a younger nominee, but Biden advisers shrugged off calls for formal tests like the Montreal Cognitive Assessment.

After Biden left office, even some liberal commentators looked back with regret. Former CNN analyst Chris Cillizza admitted he “didn’t push hard enough… on his mental and physical decline.”

On X, user @BrokenBerean summed up the sense of repeating history: “Democrats elected Biden… Republicans will not release Trump’s… It is like watching the same play back to back.” Another user, @AnimalsRockOn, complained, “Trump could release the medical records at any time but refuses… Just like he refuses to release the Epstein files.”

A Country Looking in the Mirror: Age, Power, and Faith in the Press in the Trump Era

Trump will turn 80 in June 2026, and the latest controversy has refocused attention on America’s ageing political class. In 2024, voters faced a choice between two men in their late seventies and early eighties. Now, Trump holds the record as the oldest sitting president, and new polling suggests that age worries have only grown.

A recent New York Times/Siena survey found that 59% of voters are concerned about Trump’s fitness for office, up from levels during the 2024 race. At the same time, his job approval rating has slipped to around minus 14 points, according to a Times analysis on 5 December, with economic frustrations and cost-of-living pressures weighing him down.

Conservatives argue they have been proven right about media bias. They note that when Republicans shared clips of Biden freezing on stage or flubbing basic facts, many outlets dismissed them as “cheap fakes”. Now that similar age-related questions hover over Trump, coverage has become relentless. Trump’s team has responded with its own data, highlighting his packed diary and the amount of time he spends in the Oval Office compared with Biden’s last year.

Democrats, backed by figures such as Tim Walz, present the argument as a simple matter of public safety and normal behaviour. They say a president who spends late nights firing off angry social media posts and picking fights with reporters should welcome the chance to prove his health is sound, starting with that disputed MRI.

The New York Times has stood by its reporting. Editors insist the article reflects careful sourcing and direct observation. “Our reporting is accurate… Name-calling does not change that,” a spokesperson said, after Trump attacked the paper and its reporters online.

Within the paper itself, columnists are wrestling with the broader question. In a conversation published on 4 December, Times writer Bret Stephens asked, “What Is Going On With Trump?” and speculated that a second term would likely focus more on foreign policy and less on domestic battles, simply because of Trump’s age and experience.

On social media, the argument often reduces to one blunt point about double standards. As user @Charles07788205 wrote, “When every democrat demanding Trump releases his medical records… demand the same from Biden… you will have some moral high ground.”

As the noise grows, one theme cuts across party lines. Voters want honesty about the health and stamina of whoever holds the nuclear codes. Many feel burned by years of spin and half-answers around both Biden and Trump.

With midterm elections on the horizon, the question hanging over Washington is whether Trump will actually publish his MRI and fuller records, or whether the story will drag on with rumours, partisan demands, and selective leaks. Search interest in “presidential age transparency” keeps rising, a sign that the public is paying close attention.

In the end, the real verdict will not come from cable news segments or trending hashtags. It will come from a weary electorate, weighing energy, judgment, and trust as they decide how long they are willing to accept an ageing presidency at the top of American politics.

Related News:

Trump Signs New Taiwan Law Amid Heightening Tensions With China

In what used to be centers of open thought, many American universities now feel tense and restricted. Places that once prized open debate now lean toward strict ideological rules. Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, first sold as tools for fairness and belonging, have grown into powerful bureaucracies that police what people can say. Critics argue that these programs silence debate, punish disagreement, and enforce a narrow version of “woke” ideology.

Federal pressure, faculty firings, and rising student self-censorship have pushed the campus free speech crisis to a breaking point in 2025. As President Donald Trump’s new executive orders roll back what opponents call discriminatory DEI policies, universities are left dealing with years of speech controls and ideological tests. This is not just another policy fight; it is a struggle over what higher education should be and who gets to speak inside it.

The Rise of DEI: From Inclusion to Indoctrination

How a push for fairness turned into enforced orthodoxy

DEI programs started with a clear goal: to address past injustices and open doors for people who were shut out. Over time, many students and faculty say those programs shifted in focus. Instead of helping individuals, they now promote group identity and demand agreement with a specific framework on race, gender, and power.

These programs shape hiring, curriculum, training, and student life. On many campuses, they expect public support for ideas like “anti-racism” and “intersectionality.” Dissenting from these ideas can carry social or professional risks. Viewpoint diversity and merit often feel secondary.

A major study from Heterodox Academy found that schools with larger DEI bureaucracies, such as the University of California, Berkeley, tend to show less tolerance for conservative speakers and more support for protests that shut down unpopular views. UC Berkeley increased its equity staff from 110 in 2017 to 170 in 2022, and critics point to that growth as part of a system that enforces a single worldview using public money.

The climate on campus reflects this shift. In a 2025 survey by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), more than 60% of faculty said they self-censor when discussing race, gender, or politics. Many fear investigations, online mobs, or career damage if they speak honestly.

The case of Dr. Tabia Lee at De Anza Community College stands out. A tenured Black faculty member who worked in a DEI post, she raised concerns about the constant focus on “whiteness” and “white supremacy culture” in her office. She refused to stereotype people by race and said she was branded the “wrong kind of Black person” for it. The college dismissed her. She is now suing under Title VII, saying her termination was retaliation for protected speech and disagreement with the dominant DEI outlook.

The roots of this trend go back to early 2010s activism linked to social justice movements and events like the Black Lives Matter protests. By 2020, many universities required DEI statements for hiring and promotion. Applicants had to show support for race-conscious and identity-based policies as part of the job process.

Physicist Lawrence Krauss wrote in a widely discussed Wall Street Journal column that this DEI fixation creates “a climate of pervasive fear.” He argued that merit is pushed aside in favor of ideological tests and equity targets. The result is a campus culture where many feel forced to repeat approved views rather than think freely and argue honestly. Graduates leave college trained in cancel tactics, not in open debate.

Federal Hammer: Trump’s War on Woke Mandates

How new executive orders shook higher education

The political tide shifted sharply in January 2025. After returning to the White House, President Trump signed Executive Order 14151, titled “Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing.” The order shut down federal DEI work and described many of those efforts as illegal discrimination under civil rights law.

Soon after came Executive Order 14173, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity.” This directive put colleges and universities in the crosshairs. It warned that federally funded schools must dismantle race-based scholarships, cultural centers that exclude by identity, and hiring preferences tied to race or ideology, or they would risk losing large sums of federal funding.

The fallout was immediate. On February 14, 2025, the Department of Education sent a “Dear Colleague” letter to more than 4,000 institutions. The letter said that all race-conscious programs conflict with the Supreme Court’s 2023 ruling on affirmative action. By March, over 50 universities, including Harvard and Yale, were under investigation for allegedly ignoring the new guidance.

States began to move as well. In Ohio, Senate Bill 1, signed by Governor Mike DeWine in March, banned DEI-based scholarships and added monitoring of faculty speech. Teachers’ unions, including the American Federation of Teachers, sued, arguing that the law violates the First Amendment and restricts academic freedom.

The pushback exposed how entrenched DEI structures had become. The University of Michigan, once held up as a leader in campus diversity, quickly scaled back or closed some DEI offices due to fear of losing federal aid. Supporters said this showed federal overreach. Critics called it long overdue.

Commentators like Christopher Rufo praised the executive orders as a needed course correction. He warned that elite schools were “on notice” and must “abolish DEI or get wrecked.” Advocacy groups and DEI officials fired back. The National Association of Diversity Officers filed suit on February 21 and won a preliminary injunction from a New Hampshire judge, who said parts of the federal guidance were vague and presented a real threat to academic freedom and expression.

By November, the State Department proposed removing 38 universities, including Stanford and Duke, from the Diplomacy Lab program due to DEI hiring practices that appeared to favor identity over merit. Columbia agreed to pay $200 million in penalties and committed to race-neutral hiring. The University of Virginia’s president stepped down as Justice Department pressure grew.

Supporters of the crackdown see these developments as proof that DEI structures have crossed a line into compelled speech and discrimination. Opponents call it a political attack on diversity efforts. Either way, the clash has drawn national attention to how deeply DEI has reshaped campus culture and how much it affects free speech.

Silencing Dissent: The Human Cost of Woke Orthodoxy

What happens to the people who refuse to fall in line

The impact of these trends shows up most clearly in the lives and careers of those who speak against them. Since 2015, FIRE has recorded more than 600 attempts to punish scholars for protected speech. Over half of those cases have come since 2020, many tied to criticism of DEI or to comments on hot-button issues like gender identity and race.

In the last few years alone, almost three dozen tenured professors have lost their jobs. Their supposed offenses usually fall under vague labels like “harmful” or “offensive” speech, or they are accused of “creating an unsafe environment.”

History professor Matthew Garrett at Bakersfield College offers a clear example. He helped start the Renegade Institute for Liberty, a campus group focused on free speech and open inquiry. After he questioned a racial climate survey, the college fired him in May 2024, claiming “immoral conduct” and “dishonesty.” A federal judge later recommended that he be reinstated and found that his punishment was based on “pure political speech,” not misconduct.

Garrett’s successor, philosophy professor Daymon Johnson, also came under fire. Johnson opposed DEI policies and argued for color-blind standards. Administrators labeled his views as “promoting exclusion” and opened investigations. In July 2025, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals revived key parts of his lawsuit, recognizing a credible threat to his First Amendment rights.

The pattern repeats across the country. At St. Philip’s College in Texas, biology professor Johnson Varkey taught that biological sex is linked to X and Y chromosomes, a view still common in standard textbooks. After some students complained that this clashed with their beliefs about gender identity, the college fired him after 19 years.

At the University of Arizona, Professor Brent Abraham says he was removed from faculty governance roles because he opposed race-based DEI hiring. He has filed a Title VII lawsuit alleging retaliation. Other campuses, including UC Berkeley and Northwestern, have removed or disciplined faculty members over pro-Palestine statements or mild criticism of Trump, often under the banner of fighting “antisemitism” or “hate.”

Students feel the pressure as well. A GB News investigation into UK and U.S. campuses found widespread self-censorship. Many students said they avoid speaking in class if their views challenge dominant opinions on topics like gender, colonialism, or race. One student at Colchester described seminars where people stay silent to avoid being shamed or reported.

FIRE’s 2025 student survey paints a similar picture in the U.S. About 70% of students said that professors who say something “offensive” should be reported to administrators. That number reflects a generation more willing to involve authorities in speech disputes instead of answering words with words.

Protest or Persecution? Woke Activism’s Disruptive Edge

When activism crosses from expression into suppression

Campus activism has always been part of university life. Recent protests, however, have taken on a more aggressive and censorious style. During the 2024–2025 academic year, protests over Gaza swept campuses. At Columbia, Rutgers, and many other schools, student encampments blocked buildings, shouted down speakers, and demanded more DEI staff and race-based programs.

Protesters often borrow language from the 1960s Free Speech Movement, but the tactics look different. Instead of pushing for more speech, many modern activists try to deny platforms to those they dislike, citing “safety” or “harm.” Psychologist Jonathan Haidt has called this trend “safetyism” in his book “The Coddling of the American Mind.” Under safetyism, emotional discomfort is treated like physical danger, and offensive words are seen as a form of violence.

Past incidents show how harsh this can get. At Middlebury College, protesters physically attacked social scientist Charles Murray and a faculty host. At William & Mary, students shouted down an ACLU representative with chants like “The oppressed are not impressed” until the event had to be canceled.

Irony runs through many of these episodes. Activists say they stand against oppression, yet often target conservative, religious, or Zionist voices for silencing. In response, some states have passed laws to curb what they see as ideological training. Florida’s Stop WOKE Act tried to forbid certain “woke” ideas in schools and workplaces. Courts struck down parts of the law for targeting viewpoints, saying the government cannot favor one side of a debate.

Trump’s executive orders have already prompted schools such as the University of Iowa and Ohio State to scale back or close DEI offices. Leaders say they do this to protect funding, but it also shows how quickly institutions will change course when money is at stake.

The tension between protest rights and speech rights is now central to campus life. A peaceful protest is part of free expression. Shutting down events, threatening speakers, and turning disagreement into grounds for discipline crosses into censorship.

A Path Forward: Reclaiming the Ivory Tower

How universities can protect free speech without giving up fairness

The current crisis has created a rare opening for real reform. Princetonians for Free Speech, a faculty and alumni group, predicts that 2025 could become a turning point. In Congress, H.R. 3724, the End Woke Higher Education Act, is moving forward in the House. The bill would require colleges that receive federal funds to protect free speech, teach basic principles of open inquiry, and stop using ideological litmus tests in hiring and promotion.

Faculty advocacy groups have begun to organize as well. Backed by large grants, including a $100 million gift to the University of Chicago, some professors are building new centers focused on free thought and academic freedom. Their goal is simple: create spaces where people can argue, learn, and change their minds without fear of punishment.

For universities to regain trust, they need to return to their core purpose: the pursuit of truth through evidence, debate, and open discussion. That means rejecting any enforced orthodoxy, whether it comes from the left or the right. As FIRE often warns, once a single viewpoint becomes untouchable, academic freedom withers.

Students are also pushing back. People like Inaya Folarin Iman are starting free-speech projects across campuses, even while facing heavy bureaucracy and resistance from administrators. They remind their peers that a real education requires the right to hear and express unpopular ideas.

Policy makers can help by tying public funding to clear, neutral protections for speech, not to ideological goals. The focus should be on viewpoint-neutral rules that protect everyone’s rights, including those who hold minority or controversial views.

In the end, what some describe as a “DEI-woke” grip on the university is not just about controlling language. It shapes what students learn, which ideas they consider, and which careers survive in academic life. As federal scrutiny grows and campus conflicts intensify, higher education faces a choice. It can renew its role as a home for free inquiry, or it can double down on ideological enforcement and censorship.

The outcome will affect more than just universities. A society that trains its future leaders to fear open debate will struggle to keep a healthy democracy. The stakes could not be higher.

Related News:

Zuckerberg to Allow Violent Speech on Russia After Facebook Blocked