STM Blog
Harvard, like all Americans, can’t be punished by the government for speaking freely – and a federal court decision upholds decades of precedents saying so
The Trump administration’s funding cuts to Harvard were deemed unconstitutional by a federal judge, emphasizing that government cannot retaliate against institutions for their views. This ruling underscores the importance of protecting free speech and dissent in American democracy.
Last Updated on October 5, 2025 by Daily News Staff
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Boise State University
When the federal government threatened to cancel billions in research funds from Harvard University – as it has also done to other research universities – the message was clear: Institutions that speak or think in ways elected officials dislike can expect to pay a price.
But in a recent ruling that underscored a principle at the heart of American democracy, a federal judge struck down the Trump administration’s move. The “government-initiated onslaught against Harvard was much more about promoting a governmental orthodoxy in violation of the First Amendment than about anything else,” U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs wrote.
The Harvard controversy began when the Trump administration announced plans to cut off billions in federal research funds because it objected to the university’s public positions, campus culture and some of its academic scholarship. No one contended that Harvard had mismanaged money or failed to meet grant requirements.
Instead, the White House said the school had done too little to eliminate so-called woke diversity, equity and inclusion – DEI – policies and alleged that antisemitism proliferated on campus, as evidenced by student demonstrations against Israel’s conduct in the Gaza war.
Along with the American Association of University Professors, Harvard filed suit in response to the funding cuts, arguing that the administration’s action was punitive and unconstitutional – a textbook case of retaliation. By canceling funding, the government was deploying financial pressure to silence disfavored speech. https://www.youtube.com/embed/rn77N4VGkcU?wmode=transparent&start=0 White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt on April 15, 2025, spoke about President Donald Trump’s moves against Harvard.
Protection for dissent and disagreement
In striking down the funding cut, Burroughs ruled that the administration’s move violated the First Amendment. The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, press, religion and assembly by limiting government intrusion. While government officials may disagree with Harvard’s speech – whether that means faculty scholarship, public statements or the culture of campus debate – they cannot retaliate by pulling federal support, the judge wrote.
As chair of a public policy institute devoted to strengthening deliberative democracy, I have written two books about the media and the presidency, and another about media ethics. My research traces how news institutions shape civic life and why healthy democracies rely on free expression.
The principle at work in the Harvard case is simple: Free speech protections don’t just apply to individuals in the town square or in places where public decisions are being made.
First Amendment rights extend to private institutions, even when their views or policies contravene official government opinions, and even when they receive funding from the government. Government reprisal does more than chill speech – it sets up a system where only state-approved viewpoints can flourish.
Supreme Court has seen this before
The ruling in Harvard’s favor follows a long legal tradition of Supreme Court rulings that bar the government from demanding ideological acquiescence in exchange for support.
In the case Speiser v. Randall that was decided in 1958, the court struck down a California law requiring veterans to sign loyalty oaths to receive tax exemptions. The decision created the doctrine of unconstitutional conditions, a principle that forbids government from making the receipt of a government benefit or entitlement conditional in a way that interferes with the exercise of a constitutional right.
In Perry v. Sindermann, a 1972 decision, a professor was denied reappointment at a state college after criticizing administrators. Even without tenure, the court held, the government could not retaliate against him for protected speech.
And in Legal Services Corp. v. Velazquez, the court in 2001 invalidated restrictions that barred federally funded legal aid lawyers from challenging welfare laws. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that such limits “distort the legal system” by preventing some members of the bar from making arguments on behalf of their clients, while the government would face no similar restriction in promoting their own views.
Supreme Court’s contemporary signals
More recent cases show the court wrestling with the same question in new contexts.
The court’s 2013 decision in Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International struck down a requirement that nonprofits adopt a government-approved position opposing prostitution in order to receive global health funding.
The government, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, could not make program funds dependent on grant-seeking groups adopting particular political or moral beliefs. In this case, that meant the Alliance for Open Society did not have to condemn sex work in order to qualify for public health funding.
Likewise, in Janus v. AFSCME from 2018, the court struck down an Illinois law that required public employees who chose not to join a union to still pay fees to support it. The state had argued that these “fair-share fees” were necessary because unions bargain on behalf of all workers. But the court said that forcing nonmembers to pay was a form of compelled speech – subsidizing union political organizing – that abridged the First Amendment.
While the context is very different from Harvard’s funding dispute, both cases highlight the same principle: The government cannot use money – whether through subsidies, grants or mandatory fees – as a way to compel or suppress expression. These rulings show that the First Amendment protections apply to government funding and policy questions that quietly shape who gets heard and who does not.
Long history of retaliation
While American myth celebrates the idea that the United States welcomes dissent, the government has a history of punishing protesters.
The Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 criminalized criticism of the federal government. During World War I, the Espionage and Sedition Acts were used to imprison activists and silence newspapers. In the 1950s, Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s crusade against alleged communists extended to universities, with faculty losing jobs and having their careers destroyed.
In each of those episodes, dissent was framed as dangerous to national security or social stability. And in each case, the tools of government – whether criminal law, congressional investigations or funding threats – were used to discipline voices that strayed from the party line. The impulse to punish institutions for perceived ideological deviance is part of a recurring American story.
What’s distinctive today is how the tactic has been folded into the culture wars.
Where earlier generations of politicians used criminal prosecution or loyalty oaths, the contemporary fight often plays out in budget spreadsheets. Defund public radio. Cut university budgets. Zero out grants to the arts.
These are not just fiscal decisions; they are symbolic moves aimed at disciplining institutions seen by conservatives as too liberal or too critical.
Why this matters beyond the courts
The latest ruling may protect Harvard in this instance, but the larger conflict is not going away.
The legal decision confirms that retaliation violates the First Amendment, but political leaders may continue to test the boundaries. And among the public, the idea that universities should play along with official doctrine in exchange for continued government funding may eventually gain traction. That possibility feels especially real given Trump’s promises, echoed by Vice President JD Vance and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, to wield federal power against universities and civic groups they portray – often inaccurately – as leftist, radical or violent.
A society where public funding flows only to institutions aligned with those in power is not a free society. It’s one where government can shape the landscape of knowledge and debate to its own ends.
The Harvard decision offers a reminder: The First Amendment is not just about the right to speak without fear of jail. It’s also about ensuring that the government cannot punish speech indirectly by threatening livelihoods and institutions. That’s why this case matters to the future of free expression in American democracy.
Stephanie A. (Sam) Martin, Frank and Bethine Church Endowed Chair of Public Affairs, Boise State University
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
Link: https://stmdailynews.com/%f0%9f%93%9c-who-created-blogging-a-look-back-at-the-birth-of-the-blog/
STM Blog
What is Nude Recreation Week?
Nude Recreation Week is a real event that promotes the idea of enjoying the outdoors without clothing.
Nude Recreation Week is a real event that promotes the idea of enjoying the outdoors without clothing. It is a week-long celebration of the human body and its natural state. The history of Nude Recreation Week is a fascinating one, with its origins dating back to the early 1970s.
The idea of Nude Recreation Week came from a group of naturists who wanted to promote the benefits of nudity in the outdoors. They believed that nudity was a natural and healthy way to enjoy the outdoors, and that it allowed people to connect with nature in a more meaningful way. The first Nude Recreation Week was held in 1976, and it has been celebrated every year since then.
There are many ways to celebrate Nude Recreation Week legally. Many naturist organizations offer events and activities that are open to the public, such as nude hikes, beach cleanups, and other outdoor activities. There are also many private resorts and campsites that cater to naturists, and they offer a variety of activities and amenities for those who want to enjoy the outdoors in the nude.
Nude Recreation Week – July 6–12
Nude Recreation Week celebrates naturism, body positivity, and the freedom to enjoy outdoor activities in a clothing-free environment. Observed at nudist resorts, beaches, and private spaces, it encourages self-acceptance and connection with nature. The week culminates in International Skinny Dip Day. Learn more about the history and celebration: National Today, National Day Calendar, American Association for Nude Recreation.
The opinions about Nude Recreation Week are divided. Some people believe that it is a healthy and natural way to enjoy the outdoors, and that it promotes body positivity and self-confidence. Others believe that it is inappropriate and offensive, and that it should not be allowed in public spaces.
On one hand, some people argue that nudity is a natural state for humans and that it should be celebrated. They believe that nudity is not inherently sexual or offensive, and that it is a healthy way to connect with nature and with other people. They also argue that nudity promotes body positivity and self-confidence, and that it can help people overcome body shame and negative self-image.
On the other hand, some people argue that nudity is inappropriate and offensive, especially in public spaces. They believe that nudity is a private matter and that it should not be displayed in public. They also argue that nudity can be sexualized and that it can lead to inappropriate behavior and harassment.
In conclusion, Nude Recreation Week is a real event that promotes the idea of enjoying the outdoors without clothing. It has a fascinating history, and it is celebrated by many people around the world. While opinions about nudity are divided, it is clear that there are many ways to celebrate Nude Recreation Week legally, and that it is a healthy and natural way to enjoy the outdoors.
https://nationaltoday.com/nude-recreation-week/
National Nude Day – July
National Nude Day celebrates body positivity, personal freedom, and self-acceptance—not sex. Observed by nudist and naturist communities, the day encourages people to embrace their natural form and challenge societal body shaming. Participants may visit naturist beaches or resorts or enjoy private time at home to connect with their body and nature. Learn more about the celebration and its history here: National Day Calendar, National Today, The Guardian on Naturism.
🌿 Enjoying Naturist News? Explore more stories celebrating naturism, body positivity, and the naturist lifestyle. Subscribe to the STM Daily News newsletter to stay informed with the latest articles, community news, and exclusive updates delivered right to your inbox.
Consumer Corner
Lowe’s Is Calling on Creators to Help Design—and Launch—New Products
Lowe’s announced Creator: Into the Blue, a new program letting creators pitch product ideas and work with Lowe’s teams to develop and potentially launch items in retail. Applications are open through Sept. 1, 2026.
Lowe’s is taking its creator strategy beyond sponsored posts and curated storefronts. On June 23, 2026, the home improvement retailer announced Lowe’s Creator: Into the Blue, a new program that invites creators to pitch product ideas and, if selected, work with Lowe’s teams to develop and potentially bring those products to retail shelves.
The announcement arrives as the Lowe’s Creator Network hits its one-year milestone—an initiative Lowe’s launched in 2025 and billed as the first creator network in the home improvement industry. Now, Lowe’s says it’s expanding the pathway for creators: from making content about products to creating products themselves.
From content to creation: what “Creator: Into the Blue” is
Lowe’s Creator: Into the Blue is designed as a forum for creators—both current members of the Lowe’s Creator Network and newcomers—to submit innovative product concepts for consideration. Selected creators could receive support from Lowe’s internal teams across product development, product design, sourcing, and merchandising, with the goal of turning audience-inspired ideas into real-world items that can scale.
In other words: creators aren’t just being asked to promote what already exists. They’re being invited to help shape what comes next.
How this fits into Lowe’s bigger strategy
Lowe’s positioned the new program as a natural next step that builds on two existing pillars:
- Lowe’s Creator Network (launched 2025): A program connecting creators with Lowe’s to share DIY projects, home improvement inspiration, and product recommendations. It also includes personalized Lowes.com storefronts so creators can curate product selections for their audiences.
- Lowe’s Into the Blue (launched 2022): A separate initiative focused on helping entrepreneurs bring innovative products to Lowe’s customers.
Now, Lowe’s is essentially merging the momentum of both worlds—creator-led influence and entrepreneur-led product innovation—into a single on-ramp for creators who want to build businesses through product development.
MrBeast is the proof-of-concept
Lowe’s also pointed to its recent collaboration with global creator MrBeast as an example of how creator partnerships can evolve beyond content and curation. The collaboration included a collectible toy kitdeveloped with Lowe’s—showing how a creator’s audience and brand can translate into physical products that connect with customers in new ways.
That collaboration is now being used as a signal: if a creator with a massive following can co-create a product with Lowe’s, the company wants to open similar opportunities to creators of all sizes.
What creators can submit
According to Lowe’s, creators can submit a range of ideas, including:
- Existing products seeking distribution, scale, and retail exposure
- Product ideas that need development and sourcing support
- Collaborations tied to an existing Lowe’s product line
The message is clear: you don’t have to show up with a fully manufactured item. You can show up with a concept—especially one shaped by what your audience keeps asking for.
Application window and where to apply
Applications are open now through Sept. 1, 2026 at Lowes.com/CreateWithLowes. Lowe’s will review submissions after the application period and announce selected creators at a later date.
Creators interested in applying should also review the full terms and conditions on the application page.
Why this matters for the creator economy—and retail
Creator-led product lines aren’t new, but Lowe’s move is notable because it’s coming from a major home improvement retailer with deep sourcing and distribution infrastructure. If executed well, Creator: Into the Blue could become a meaningful bridge between:
- Audience-driven product demand (what communities want)
- Retail-grade execution (design, sourcing, merchandising)
- Shelf-level distribution (scale and visibility)
For creators, it’s another sign that the creator economy is maturing: the next phase isn’t only about views and engagement—it’s about IP, product development, and scalable revenue.
The bottom line
With Lowe’s Creator: Into the Blue, the company is betting that creators can do more than inspire projects—they can help design the tools, kits, and products people use to complete them. And for creators looking to turn their audience into a business, Lowe’s is offering a new route: pitch an idea, build it with support, and potentially launch it at retail scale.
For more details and application terms, visit Lowes.com/CreateWithLowes.
Related Links
- Apply / program page: https://www.lowes.com/createwithlowes
- Lowe’s main site (company + newsroom gateway): https://www.lowes.com/
- Lowe’s corporate site (investor/corporate info): https://www.lowes.com/corporate
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
Celebrate America’s 250th Birthday with Summer Deals, Savings and Prizes
(Feature Impact) America’s 250th birthday calls for celebration, and this summer, it goes well beyond backyard barbecues and poolside parties.
Watch this video to learn more
To help mark the milestone, Circle K is rolling out refreshing deals, new merch and exciting prizes as America’s Party Stop – the one-stop destination for summer value and fun. The free Inner Circle rewards program is your ticket to the party – join by downloading the Circle K app and creating an account.
Rewards members can enjoy any size Polar Pop for just 25 cents on July 1 at participating locations. Fans can also grab limited-edition merchandise like hats and shirts to show off their love for the iconic drink. From July 1-Sept. 1, anyone can play the new Scratch & Win game daily in the app for instant prizes with members unlocking exclusive eligibility for weekly cash prizes.
The fun extends beyond the store, too. Throughout July, you can support the American Red Cross by rounding up in-store purchases to help disaster relief efforts and first responders across the U.S.
Download the app, join the free rewards program and find more ways to celebrate America’s birthday by visiting CircleK.com/America-250.
SOURCE:
📰 Enjoying STM Daily News? Join the conversation!
💬 Leave a comment, share your thoughts, and subscribe to our newsletter for the latest stories, updates, and “News You Can Use This Moment!” delivered to your inbox.
Stay connected with STM Daily News!
