Can Government Cut Funding Based on Speech, Protest Issues?

Key takeaways:

• Lawsuits challenging recent federal funding cuts for universities are likely to call such actions unconstitutional overreaches.
• Courts have affirmed the government’s right to put conditions on funding in certain cases while acknowledging potential chilling effects on speech.
• The line between conditional funding that violates the First Amendment and that which does not remains unclear, and ultimate limits haven’t been set.
• Future court decisions will have to determine the extent to which the government can use its funding power to force institutions that receive federal funds to adopt specific government-set policies and practices.

The use of government funding to control speech or protest represents a controversial and complicated intersection of core First Amendment freedoms and necessary government authority.

Freedom of speech sets out a general rule: The government cannot tell us what to say or not say. That’s called “compelled speech” and is unconstitutional.

But another general rule is that the government should be able to control public spending. Courts affirm that the government has that authority — within limits. And we will see over the next year or more where the courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, set those limits.

Those two long-standing rules have collided in multiple disputes over decades, most recently, in the form of warnings to pull funding from schools and universities over alleged civil rights violations; diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives; and climate change research.

When does the government have the authority to pull funding related to speech issues?

There are certain situations where the government’s “power of the purse” over freedom of speech is clear:

1. Under current law, government officials and agencies can decide, at the outset, whether or not to fund programs, research or free expression. In a 1983 case that dealt with lobbying — which involves two First Amendment rights: speech and petition— the U.S. Supreme Court said it “has never held that Congress must grant a benefit,” including funding, even if the situation involves core freedoms.
2. The Supreme Court has said the government can use “conditional funding” to control what is said when people or programs are speaking on behalf of the government.

What is conditional funding?

Conditional funding occurs when the government provides financial support, grants or tax breaks to individuals, organizations or projects and conditions that funding on specific requirements, goals, milestones, timelines or accomplishments. For example:

• A government research grant is given to a university, which must reach certain results or submit progress reports in order to continue receiving the funding.
• A government program must provide financial support for a business to create a certain number of jobs in a specific period, or the funding will end.
• Government funding for specific activities or programs has rules restricting what people may say, in return for such funding. For example, in a 1991 decision, the Supreme Court said a medical professional receiving public funds could be prevented from providing counseling or information about abortion.

In those examples, if the conditions aren’t met or rules aren’t followed, government funding may be reduced, halted or required to be paid back.

The courts have affirmed the government’s right to condition funding in certain cases, while acknowledging the potential dangers of withdrawing funding based on vaguely written laws or definitions and of overt censorship. One Supreme Court decision on this matter, Rust v. Sullivan, supports the “government speech doctrine,” which allows the government to control funding for its own speech and messages — and even to exclude other views. For example, in funding a law passed by Congress, such as the Clean Air Act, a governmental agency like the Environmental Protection Agency would not be required to also provide funding for groups opposed to antipollution measures.

When does the government’s authority to pull funding get murkier?

Beyond those initial decisions to grant or not to grant funding, and allowances for conditional funding, the intersection of government authority and the First Amendment gets complicated. As Chief Justice John Roberts said in 2013, the line between conditional funding that violates the First Amendment and that which does not is “hardly clear,” in part because the rules of the programs being funded can be manipulated to make the conditions seem integral to that program.

While ultimate limits have yet to be set, courts have ruled that conditioning or withdrawing funding on speech or expression grounds tends to cross a line when the government tries to use funding to control speech outside the boundaries of the program being funded or when the conditions are vague.

Laws that provide for conditional government funding

There are laws in place that outline limits and requirements around conditional government funding, but the details on what could trigger funding being pulled have shifted over the years. Courts will likely need to weigh in to set clearer limits.

Title VI, part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance. It empowers federal agencies to stop funding for activities found to be in violation — an example of conditional funding.

Many of the most recent issues involving conditional funding, which have arisen mostly from government warnings or decisions related to federal funds for universities and schools, have involved Title VI:

• On March 10, 2025, the Trump administration told 60 universities that it is investigating them for what it claims was a failure to protect students from antisemitism amid protests on campus and warned the schools they could face “potential enforcement actions.” Such actions may include warnings or actions to pull federal funding.

• The administration also announced that it is investigating 52 schools for embedding “racial preferences and stereotypes” in educational programs and activities such as DEI initiatives.
• The White House announced in March 2025 that it was “pausing” $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania over its transgender athlete policies.

• Also in March 2025, the Trump administration said it would cut $400 million in federal funding for Columbia University unless the school meets a list of demands. Columbia conceded to the administration’s demands by banning masks, expanding campus police powers and appointing a new senior vice provost to oversee and review programs in the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department.

• Yale Law School said in March 2025 that it had it terminated a research scholar who was placed on leave earlier that month amid warnings from the Trump administration that it would pull funding from schools found to be violating civil rights laws. The scholar had been linked to a group the Biden administration called a “sham charity” with ties to a U.S.-recognized terrorist organization.
• On March 31, 2025, the Trump administration announced a multidepartment review of nearly $9 billion in federal funding to Harvard University and its affiliates, similar to the review of Columbia University. Officials said the review will determine whether any funding needs to be paused and is a part of an effort by the administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. On April 14, Harvard University said it is rejecting the administration’s demands, putting billions of dollars in funding at risk. “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Harvard President Alan M. Garber said in a statement. Hours later, the federal government announced that it would freeze $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts for the school.

In April 2025, administration officials also announced they intend to cut $4 million in funding for a climate research center at Princeton University, saying that several of the center’s projects are “no longer aligned” with federal agency objectives. While not involving Title VI, this move represents another example of government funding being used to control expression.

Threats to withhold federal funds under Title VI aren’t new, although they have historically been rare against universities. But earlier instances involving both universities and other institutions do exist:

• In 2023-2024, under the Biden administration, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights opened investigations into six colleges and universities under Title VI. The investigations came in response to complaints alleging antisemitic or anti-Muslim harassment on college campuses. Then-Secretary of Education Miguel Cardona noted, “If an institution refuses to follow the law to protect students, we would withhold dollars.”
• And in September 2023, as part of a Biden National Strategy to Counter Antisemitism, eight federal agencies issued letters to various institutions that Title VI prohibits certain forms of antisemitic, Islamophobic, and related forms of discrimination in federally funded programs and activities, with loss of funds as a potential penalty for violation.

Multiple organizations responding to the administration’s actions on university funding have mentioned Title VI. On March 20, the New York Civil Liberties Union, in a letter to several U.S. agencies, said that “any restrictions in federal funding must be limited to the specific program alleged to have violated Title VI, not the kind of sweeping withdrawals of funds for scientific and medical research carried out by the Trump administration.” The group also called the Trump administration’s threats to withdraw funding representative of a wider effort to “to control and weaken our universities and suppress dissent.”

In March, the American Civil Liberties Union also mentioned Title VI in its open letter to U.S. college and university presidents. The ACLU wrote, “Speech that is not targeted at an individual or individuals because of their ethnicity or national origin but merely expresses impassioned views ... is not discrimination and should be protected.” It said the government — through funding decisions — “cannot coerce university officials into taking actions inconsistent with ... settled First Amendment law,” referring to Title VI.

The ACLU also quoted a 2018 Supreme Court decision involving an immigration case. That decision held that “the federal government cannot use the ‘sword of federal funding’” to coerce state and local authorities.

Another federal law that deals with discrimination and conditional government funding is known as Title IX. In 2011, the Obama administration issued guidelines under Title IX to combat harassment, discrimination and assault on college campuses. Those guidelines required universities to adopt and enforce speech codes and other policies or face penalties, including the loss of a broad range of federal funding such as money for student loans.

Multiple court decisions have upheld Title IX, including the provision for funding losses, but also have insisted any intrusion on free speech be as limited as possible.

And the details of what can bring a loss of funding under Title IX have changed. In February, the Department of Education told colleges that Title IX protections would no longer apply to explicit protections of transgender students’ rights, reverting to a 2020 policy. The move reversed a controversial 2024 policy adopted under the Biden administration.

Government funding and the First Amendment

Beyond specific court rulings, concerns over threats involving the loss of government funding include the potential for a “chilling effect.” When individuals, universities or other groups rely on government funding that may be withdrawn, self-censorship may result. Also, funding threats may suppress the willingness of grant recipients to recognize or include minority or dissenting views.

Lawsuits challenging federal funding cuts for universities are likely to call such actions unconstitutional overreaches, noting that courts consistently say that restrictions on campus speech and protests must be narrowly tailored and designed to meet compelling government interests, like responding to violence or protecting students from harassment or injury.

But beyond such instances, future court decisions will have to determine the extent to which the government can use its funding power to force institutions that receive federal funds — including both public and private universities and other institutions — to adopt specific government-set policies and practices to which those institutions may not otherwise agree.