"Younger Americans have soured on the second Donald Trump presidency, but they are not protesting it." — Jon Penney and Bruce Schneier, The Conversation
Campus silence and the mechanics of a chill
Penney and Schneier report a striking dissonance: widespread unhappiness among young people coexists with an absence of the campus protests that might be expected. They attribute this not primarily to apathy or digital distraction — explanations that have been offered in other reporting — but to fear. In law and social science terms, they write, students are displaying a "chilling effect" — a behavioral tendency to self-censor and restrain activities to avoid punitive measures. The authors point to a "relentless Trump administration war on campus speech" that has included "lawsuits, arrests, deportations and expulsions," and argue that those concrete actions have produced widespread restraint.
Federal tactics named: surveillance, threats, uncertainty, abuse of power
The essay identifies four mechanisms that researchers link to chilling effects: surveillance, personal threats, uncertainty and abuse of power. Penney and Schneier argue these mechanisms are not isolated but deployed systematically across domains, from militarized Immigration and Customs Enforcement raids to journalists being arrested and indicted for covering protests. They note a pattern of investigations and threats against a "long list of political enemies," specifically including "the Federal Reserve chairman."
Weaponizing technology and cultural pressure
Beyond arrests and lawsuits, the authors emphasize the role of technology and institutional pressure. They say researchers are "stripping grant applications of words that might attract federal scrutiny, or abandoning the topics entirely," while publishers are "stepping back" from LGBTQ+ books and other progressive subjects. They also describe the "weaponization of technology," including "ramping up surveillance to target critics and protestors," as an enabling element of the broader strategy.
Targeting cultural institutions and Project 2025
Penney and Schneier place recent actions against universities and cultural institutions such as the Kennedy Center for the Arts and the Smithsonian in a wider policy frame. They link these moves to Project 2025, which they describe as "the sweeping policy blueprint for Trump’s second term authored by a coalition of conservative groups," and quote its call to target "the institutions of American civil society" and "wield federal power" to "reverse" decades of progressive cultural advancements. In the authors' reading, attacks on cultural institutions are consistent with a strategy intended to produce greater conformity in speech and culture.
What this means for students, professors, and the media
- Students: The immediate impact, the authors argue, is reduced protest and campaign engagement on campuses as students self-censor to avoid punitive measures described in federal actions.
- Professors and researchers: Faculty are "censoring themselves in lectures and rewriting syllabuses," and researchers are altering or abandoning grant applications because of fear that certain words or topics might attract scrutiny.
- The media: Outlets are modifying coverage to reduce legal exposure, and journalists have faced arrests and indictments connected to protest reporting, increasing incentives to avoid subjects seen as risky.
Remedies the authors propose and a pointed final question
Penney and Schneier are explicit that this trajectory is not inevitable. They propose a range of institutional and legal counters: new legislation to "ensure justice for lawless government actors and constrain surveillance"; courts to "block abuses of federal power, including illegal arrests, detentions and mass citizen databases"; and mobilization by the media, lawyers and civil society to hold government accountable. They also urge students, teachers, universities and cultural institutions to resist self-censorship, noting the Minnesota mobilization and the "No Kings" rallies as examples where resistance has occurred.
Their closing observation is threefold and pointed: the mechanisms producing chilling effects are identifiable (surveillance, uncertainty, personal threats, abuse of power), they are being used in ways that extend beyond isolated incidents, and reversing the resulting conformity will require persistent legal, legislative and civic action rather than episodic protest. If the pattern they describe holds, the question becomes not whether people are afraid today, but whether institutions will act to remove the conditions that make that fear an instrument of governance.
Original essay by Jon Penney and Bruce Schneier, The Conversation (via schneier.com)
