The rebirth of McCarthyism is unfolding as the government moves to silence dissent in the name of power.
The Trump administration is pressuring universities across 60 college campuses to arrest students engaged in peaceful protests, invoking broad legal provisions to justify crackdowns on dissent. This campaign bears striking similarities to McCarthyism, where fear and intimidation were used to silence political opposition. Just as McCarthy’s era saw government officials and private institutions pressured to root out supposed communists, today’s universities are being urged to identify and detain students based on their political beliefs rather than any criminal wrongdoing.
The administration is leveraging a provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, which grants the president authority to expel noncitizens if their presence is deemed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” This provision, originally designed during the Cold War, is now being used to target international students and activists without due process. Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and pro-Palestinian activist, was recently arrested by ICE under this justification despite facing no formal charges.
In addition to targeting individuals, the administration is threatening to withdraw federal funding from universities that allow what it deems “illegal protests.” Columbia University, for example, recently had $400 million in federal grants and contracts revoked due to alleged inaction against antisemitic harassment on campus. These efforts parallel McCarthy-era tactics, where institutions were coerced into enforcing ideological conformity or risked losing financial and political support.
Both McCarthyism and the current crackdown reveal how the government can manipulate existing laws to suppress dissent, creating a chilling effect on free speech. The reliance on vague accusations and institutional pressure highlights a disturbing pattern: using fear as a tool to erode fundamental civil liberties. This marks one of the most significant threats to free expression in modern U.S. history. The question is, how far will this go?
As the Supreme Court once stated:
“Speech is powerful. It can stir people to action, move them to tears of both joy and sorrow, and – as it did here – inflict great pain. On the facts before us, we cannot react to that pain by punishing the speaker. As a Nation we have chosen a different course – to protect even hurtful speech on public issues to ensure that we do not stifle public debate. That choice requires that we shield Westboro from tort liability for its picketing in this case.”
If we could defend the speech of Westboro Baptist Church, how can we now justify arresting students for speaking out?
Source