The Authors Guild Censorship Tracker: Monitoring Threats to Free Speech and Authors’ Rights

The Authors Guild condemns the current administration’s numerous breaches of free expression rights. These attacks on free speech strike directly at the fundamental right of writers and individual Americans to express themselves freely and to comment, critique, or even take positions opposing the government. This is the cornerstone of the First Amendment and democracy.   

This administration has touted itself as a defender of free speech (going so far as to issue an Executive Order entitled “Restoring Freedom of Speech and Ending Federal Censorship,” aimed at preventing fact-checking measures on social media), and yet it is actively engaged in suppressing Americans’ free speech and freedom of the press on views that the administration disagrees with. The First Amendment was adopted precisely to protect against this form of viewpoint censorship. 

The Bill of Rights protections were a condition to the Founders’ adoption of our Constitution. The first of those was the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and freedom of religion. The Founders understood and time has borne out that free speech is the crux of democracy because it allows for the freedom to think and the open exchange of ideas, and specifically because it enables citizens to critically evaluate government actions and views and to participate in political discourse.

The First Amendment allows us to hold power accountable and prevent it from forcing us to adopt particular religious or other views. Without this inviolate free speech right, citizens can’t express their individual thoughts or advocate for change—people cannot govern themselves—the core principles of a democratic society. As the esteemed Justice Louis Brandies noted nearly a century ago, “Those who won our independence believed that the final end of the State was to make men free to develop their faculties… They believed that freedom to think as you will and to speak as you think are means indispensable to the discovery and spread of political truth; that without free speech and assembly discussion would be futile.”

Alarming Patterns of Speech Suppression  

The current administration has been especially concerned with banning certain terms and concepts it objects to, including words like “diversity, inclusion, equity, environmental justice, and gender,” and recently even “history, respect, and dignity” have been stripped from the military’s web presence. Through Executive Orders, it has prohibited agencies from using words the Executive branch does not like and barred all government contractors and grantees from expressing the ideas and the views implicit in them. These orders violate the most sacred of Americans’ rights—to think and speak freely and exchange their ideas. The administration’s policing of language and purging of words and concepts it disagrees with threatens the free and diverse “marketplace of ideas” that is so critical to our democracy.  “[T]he best test of truth,” Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes observed, “is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market, and . . . truth is the only ground upon which [people’s] wishes safely can be carried out.”

The Guild is particularly troubled by the incidents described below.

Campus Speech Suppression

The administration has launched a two-pronged assault on university discourse through aggressive immigration enforcement and strategic defunding, effectively weaponizing federal powers to stifle campus expression.

Deportation Threats Against Campus Protesters

On March 11, 2025, Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate, was detained by federal immigration agents despite being a lawful U.S. resident. While a federal judge has temporarily halted his deportation, President Trump declared this arrest would be “the first of many to come,” promising to “deport these terrorist sympathizers from our country.” Federal agents also attempted to detain a second student at Columbia.

Khalil’s attorneys argue the government is retaliating against him for “constitutionally protected advocacy on behalf of Palestinian human rights.” Despite no criminal charges related to his free speech activities, the administration has made unfounded accusations about his affiliations. This use of immigration enforcement against non-citizen protesters threatens First Amendment rights of students and faculty engaging in protected speech.

Punitive Funding Cuts Threatening Academic Writing and Research

The administration has weaponized federal funding to pressure

universities over campus speech. On March 11, the NIH announced it was “terminating more than $250 million in funding—including more than 400 grants—to Columbia University” following directives from the administration’s antisemitism task force. This represents over half of the $400 million in cuts to Columbia.

These cuts directly impact academic authors who rely on research grants to produce scholarly work. The termination of hundreds of grants affects numerous academic writers whose ability to conduct and publish research is now jeopardized. Columbia’s interim president noted these cuts “will immediately impact research and other critical functions of the university.”

The administration has threatened similar action against approximately 60 other colleges, warning they could lose federal funding if they fail to meet the administration’s standards regarding campus protests. This use of funding as leverage to control speech threatens the ability of academic authors to produce work without government interference.

Funding Controls   

The Executive Orders entitled Defending Women from Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth to the Federal Government (EO14168), Ending Radical and Wasteful Government DEI Programs and Preferencing (EO14151), and Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity (EO14173) instruct all federal agencies, including the National Endowment for the Arts (NEA) and the National Endowment for the Humanities (NEH), which provide grants to writers and literary programs, that the agencies may not provide any funding to organizations that have any programs that promote diversity, equity, and inclusion (EO 14173) or use federal funds to “promote gender ideology” (EO 14168) or “environmental justice.”

This means that writers, artists, researchers, historians, and others may not receive federal funding or support if they choose to express views which the administration disapproves of, even, in the case of the DEI Executive Orders, outside of the funded programs. This prohibition applies to federal contractors as well—which is a not insignificant part of the U.S. economy. The administration has also threatened to go after organizations and corporations that express support for DEI principles. For instance, on February 5, the DOJ issued a memorandum stating that “the Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division will investigate, eliminate, and penalize illegal DEI and DEIA preferences, mandates, policies, programs and activities in the private sector and in educational institutions that receive federal funds.” On January 23, the Department of Education stated that pursuant to the recent Executive Orders, “the Department removed or archived hundreds of guidance documents, reports, and training materials that include mentions of DEI from its outward facing communication channels.”  

These actions are a direct attack on viewpoints the administration disagrees with and violate the key principles of free speech described by the Supreme Court. While Congress is free to decide what activities it wishes to fund or not, the government cannot regulate the speech of grantees and contractors outside of funded activities. Nor can the government condition eligibility for federal funding on the viewpoint an applicant chooses to express. Moreover, Congress, not the President, has the constitutional power to determine appropriations.   

Indeed, a federal court in Maryland has already temporarily blocked key provisions DEI order from going into effect on grounds that it violates the Constitution, stating that the requirements of the order are “unconstitutionally vague on their face” and “squarely, unconstitutionally ‘abridge the freedom of speech.'”  

Media Access Restrictions  

Associated Press (AP) reporters have been denied access to the Oval Office and Air Force One because the AP chooses to use language of which the Administration disapproves: it continues to refer to the internationally known “Gulf of Mexico” by that name, rather than as this administration’s unilaterally-determined “Gulf of America”—explaining that the gulf is not a body of water within U.S. borders, but touches other nations and that it has an international audience. (By contrast, it agreed with the administration’s changing Mount Denali back to Mount McKinley as it is within U. S. borders.) As stated in the lawsuit brought by the Associated Press, Associated Press v. Budowich, the “press and all people in the United States have the right to choose their own words and not be retaliated against by the government.” That the AP’s exclusion is intended as punishment for its speech was confirmed by the President himself, who said, “We’re going to keep them out until such time that they agree that it’s the Gulf of America.”  This is a direct attempt to compel journalists to only use language that the government approves, and yet another violation of the First Amendment. Although the judge refused to grant the AP’s request that the denial of access be immediately rescinded (and instead set a hearing date in late March), he stated that “it seems pretty clearly viewpoint discrimination.”  

White House Taking Control of Press Access  

Since the 1950s, the White House Correspondents’ Association (WHCA) has determined the composition of the press pool of journalists who regularly report about the President and the White House.  Since there is often not enough space in the Oval Office or on Air Force One to accommodate all of the journalists who cover the President, the WHCA has historically determined the membership of the press pool to ensure a range of views and coverage. 

On February 25, 2025, after the WHCA issued statements opposing the exclusion of AP reporters from the press pool and from a press conference with Indian Prime Minister Modi (referring to the latter as “a textbook violation of not only the First Amendment, but the president’s own executive order on freedom of speech and ending federal censorship”), the White House press secretary announced that the administration and not the WHCA will henceforth determine which media outlets may participate in the presidential press pool. As the WHCA has stated, “this move tears at the independence of a free press in the United States. It suggests the government will choose the journalists who cover the president. In a free country, leaders must not be able to choose their own press corps.” These activities reflect further attempts by this administration to violate the freedom of the press and free speech and to control the journalists who report on its activities, down to the words they use.   

Regulatory Intimidation  

The Federal Communications Commission has commenced attempts to use its regulatory authority to intimidate, suppress, and influence speech. It has announced investigations against Microsoft, Meta, Apple, and Alphabet’s relationship with Newsguard, a company that “helps enterprises and consumers identify reliable information online”; is engaging in unwarranted investigations of certain broadcasting companies; and has threatened on live television to investigate legitimate live media coverage of law enforcement operations.  

Criminalizing Journalism 

The administration has signaled a willingness to attack journalists by using the Department of Justice to threaten and criminalize reporting it deems objectionable. This became clear when WIRED published an article naming six young engineers hired by Elon Musk to work for the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a move that prompted Musk to declare, “You have committed a crime.” The chilling effect deepened when the U.S. Attorney for D.C., Edward R. Martin Jr., warned that legal action could be taken against anyone “impeding” Musk’s work or threatening DOGE personnel. The message was clear: report on the government at your own risk. But the Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed that journalists have the right to publish newsworthy information about government employees, particularly those in public roles. 

The Authors Guild, along with a coalition of free speech and press organizations, has joined Demand Progress Education Fund and the Freedom of the Press Foundation in condemning these threats. If the government can selectively punish reporting that it finds inconvenient, the consequences extend far beyond journalism. Authors, historians, and political writers all rely on the ability to document government actions without fear of retaliation. 

Scientific Censorship  

The National Science Foundation and the National Institute of Health, as well as other federal grantors, were instructed to tell grant applicants that they cannot use certain words (such as “female,” “women,” “disability,” “Black and Latinx,” or “COVID”) if they seek governmental support for their work. This list does not exclude words such as “male” or “White.” The elimination of certain words is likely to lead to the elimination of crucial medical research, including in areas that directly impact certain underserved communities.  

Medical Information Control  

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) was instructed to retract articles from potential publication if they include certain words (such as “LGBT” and “gender”) and require these articles to undergo additional examination and review. By targeting the use of certain words or terms, these instructions not only limit the ability of scientists and medical professionals to speak freely but also put the health of individuals in these communities at risk and have caused the removal of website pages designed to help these communities.   

Historical Erasure  

In yet another example of the administration’s effort to police language and erase history, the National Park Service removed references to transgender people from its website for the Stonewall National Monument, which commemorates the 1969 Stonewall uprising—a pivotal moment in the fight for LGBTQIA+ rights. The edits, made shortly after Trump signed the executive order redefining gender as strictly male or female, systematically erased references to transgender individuals and the broader LGBTQIA+ community. The words “transgender” and “queer” were deleted from the site, and the acronym “LGBTQ+” was altered to “LGB” in multiple locations. This was done despite the well-documented role of transgender activists—particularly transgender women of color—at the forefront of the Stonewall movement. This act of censorship aligns with a disturbing trend of government-backed efforts to whitewash historical narratives and remove marginalized voices from public records. 

Political Intimidation  

The administration has made direct legal threats against elected officials for criticizing it. California Representative Robert Garcia recently became the target of a Department of Justice (DOJ) investigation after he made critical remarks about Elon Musk, who was appointed by President Trump to oversee the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). 

The DOJ inquiry began after Garcia, in an interview, made a metaphorical reference to the fight for democracy, which was twisted by the DOJ into a supposed threat against Musk. The U.S. Attorney for D.C., Edward R. Martin Jr., sent Garcia a letter demanding he “clarify” his remarks, framing them as a possible violation of the law. Garcia immediately condemned the probe as an effort to silence critics of the Trump administration and Musk, stating, “So if you criticize Elon Musk, Trump’s DOJ will send you this letter. I will not be silenced.”  

The message here is unmistakable: those who challenge the administration’s allies risk legal retaliation. This is a chilling warning—not just for elected officials, but for journalists, authors, and all those who document and criticize government power. 

---

This is not even a complete list of the administration’s assaults on speech. The Authors Guild has previously spoken out against other encroachments on free speech and censorship-motivated activities, including the Department of Education’s shocking dismissal of book ban cases, the unjustified removal of National Archivist Dr. Colleen Shogan, and threats to prosecute journalists for factual reporting.  

We as a community of writers must insist that this administration respect the free speech rights of all Americans. It behooves us to write and speak about the utmost importance of allowing all ideas to circulate in society—not only of those with whom we agree, but of those with whom we disagree. We need to remind ourselves, our fellow citizens, and our government that our current culture wars in no way justify the banning of certain words and ideas.

The Authors Guild Council has adopted a new principle on protecting the freedom to choose one own’s words:

We believe that no word should be banned. 

Words are the raw materials from which writers build their essays, novels, poems, and stories.  Writers choose their words carefully and the freedom to choose the right word is fundamental to good writing and to the freedom of expression that underpins any open society.  Sadly, today we are faced with a new and intrusive form of censorship in the form of regulations that seek to condition grants on the elimination of certain words.  The list of “banned words” reflects a clear ideological agenda—troublesome enough in and of itself—but it also sweeps so broadly that it would impede ordinary careful expression of a host of ideologically neutral topics.  Not only progressive neologisms like “intersectionality” and “LGBTQ+” but also everyday words such as equity, bias, diversity, prejudice, inclusion, sex, and gender appear on lists of banned words.  Just as a sculptor must be free to choose from marble, bronze, or wood, or a painter to select from oils, acrylics, or watercolors, a writer must be free to choose the right word to convey not only specific assertions, but also subtle connotations, elusive inflections, nuances of emphasis, and hints of implication.  Banning words—especially commonly used and wholly inoffensive ones—not only reflects unjustified prejudice as to how a word might be used, but it will also bias writing in favor of clumsy prose and artless expression. The Authors Guild stands for the inclusion of a rich diversity of written words.