The pro-Palestinian college protests, the encampments they produced, the crackdowns that followed, and the legal fallout still unfolding trace back to a single fall: October 2023. Within six months, tent camps had appeared on dozens of American campuses. Within a year, roughly 3,000 students had been arrested, several university presidents had resigned, and the federal government had begun using research funding and immigration law to pressure schools over how they handled dissent. By 2026, most of the visible protest activity had faded, but the court cases, settlements, and policy changes it triggered were still working their way through the system.
How the Encampments Spread
Campus activism began within hours of the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. On October 8, more than 30 Harvard student organizations released a statement holding Israel responsible for the violence, drawing intense backlash.1ABC News. How Pro-Palestinian Protests Unfolded on College Campuses By November, the U.S. Department of Education had opened investigations into Cornell, NYU, Columbia, Penn, and Harvard over allegations of antisemitism and Islamophobia.
The defining phase began on April 17, 2024. That morning, Columbia President Nemat “Minouche” Shafik testified before Congress and pledged to crack down on unauthorized protests. Hours later, a student coalition set up a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” on Columbia’s South Lawn, demanding the university disclose its investments and divest from companies tied to Israel’s military.2CNN. NYPD Disperses Pro-Palestinian Protest at Columbia University The next day, Shafik authorized the NYPD to clear the camp. Officers in riot gear arrested more than 108 people, most on trespassing charges.3The New York Times. Columbia University Protests
The Columbia arrests set off a chain reaction. Encampments went up at NYU, Yale, USC, the University of Texas at Austin, Emerson, Harvard, Princeton, Northwestern, Brown, and dozens more schools. Arrest numbers climbed: 150-plus at NYU, 45 at Yale, 93 at USC, 55 at UT Austin, 108 at Emerson.1ABC News. How Pro-Palestinian Protests Unfolded on College Campuses
At Columbia, the situation escalated further. On the night of April 29, protesters occupied Hamilton Hall, barricading doors with furniture in a deliberate echo of the university’s 1968 student revolt. The next evening, the NYPD used a tactical vehicle to push a bridge through a window and retake the building. About 300 people were arrested that night across Columbia and City College of New York.4NPR. Columbia University Protests Those who had entered Hamilton Hall faced charges including burglary, criminal mischief, and trespassing. By early May, roughly 3,000 students had been arrested nationwide.5Human Rights Watch. US: End Campaign of Draconian Campus Arrests
UCLA produced the most violent episode. Pro-Palestinian students had established an encampment at Royce Quad on April 25. On the night of April 30, masked counterprotesters attacked the camp in an assault that lasted nearly five hours, using sticks, chemical sprays, and fireworks. Fifteen people were injured, according to a letter from the University of California system president to the Board of Regents.6The New York Times. UCLA Protests Encampment Violence Police did not intervene for hours. California Highway Patrol officers arrived around 1:45 a.m. but stayed roughly 300 feet from the fighting for about an hour. One witness reported calling 911 eleven times before police responded.7The Washington Post. UCLA Protests Police Inaction No counterprotesters were arrested that night. Two days later, law enforcement cleared the encampment itself, arresting more than 200 pro-Palestinian demonstrators.8The Guardian. UCLA Gaza Protests
In March 2025, more than 30 plaintiffs sued the UC Regents, UCLA administrators, the LAPD, the CHP, and 20 named counterprotesters in Los Angeles County Superior Court. The suit alleges civil rights violations, wrongful arrests, excessive force, and systemic anti-Palestinian bias, and reports ongoing injuries including PTSD, broken bones, rubber bullet wounds, and vision problems.9NBC News. Pro-Palestinian Activists Sue UCLA Alleging Civil Rights Violations The case remains pending.
What Protesters Demanded and How Universities Answered
Demands were nearly identical from campus to campus: disclose endowment holdings, divest from weapons manufacturers and companies profiting from the war in Gaza, and grant amnesty to disciplined students.10Inside Higher Ed. Universities Weigh Protesters’ Divestment Demands Several universities struck deals to end encampments. Brown agreed to put divestment to a vote of its governing corporation. Northwestern reestablished an investment-responsibility committee. Rutgers and the University of Minnesota agreed to hear divestment proposals. The University of Vermont agreed to disclose its investments.
When the votes came, universities said no. In October 2024, Brown’s Corporation formally rejected divestment, noting the university had no direct investments in the ten targeted companies and that indirect exposure came to roughly one percent of the endowment.11Brown Alumni Magazine. An End to the Divestment Question The University of Michigan’s Board of Regents similarly refused, citing fiduciary obligations and noting that less than one-tenth of one percent of its endowment was indirectly invested in Israeli companies.12University of Michigan. Divestment Johns Hopkins’s investment advisory committee voted 15-to-1 against divestment in January 2025.13Johns Hopkins University. PIIAC Final Report
Discipline and Criminal Charges Against Students
Universities pursued a wide range of disciplinary measures. Columbia suspended Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace in November 2023, issued interim suspensions during the first encampment, and hired private investigators to look into a campus event called “Resistance 101.”14Columbia University Senate. The Sundial Report In March 2025, it sanctioned more than 20 students for the Hamilton Hall occupation. In July 2025, its reconstituted judicial board issued expulsions, suspensions of up to three years, and degree revocations to more than 70 students connected to a May 2025 library demonstration. Roughly 80 percent received sanctions that separated them from the university.15Columbia Spectator. UJB Issues Expulsions, Suspensions and Degree Revocations to Over 70 Students Suspended students were reportedly required to submit apologies to return to campus.16First Amendment Watch. Columbia University Suspends and Expels Students Who Participated in Protests
Criminal charges largely did not hold. The Manhattan District Attorney’s office dismissed trespassing charges against 31 of the 46 people arrested during the Hamilton Hall occupation, citing a lack of evidence: surveillance cameras had been covered, and many defendants wore masks.17NBC News. Manhattan DA Drops Charges Against Columbia University Protesters Fourteen others were offered conditional dismissals and refused. At Stanford, five current and former students were charged with felony vandalism and felony conspiracy to trespass for a June 2024 occupation of the university president’s office. Their trial ended in a mistrial in February 2026 after the jury deadlocked, 9-to-3 on the vandalism charge and 8-to-4 on conspiracy. The Santa Clara County DA announced plans to retry the case.18U.S. News. Jury Deadlocked in the Trial of Stanford Students
Other rulings cut in different directions. A federal judge issued an August 2024 injunction prohibiting UCLA from allowing protesters to block Jewish students from accessing campus areas.19First Amendment Watch. Classes Are Over but the Campus Free Speech Debate Still Rages A lawsuit accusing MIT of tolerating antisemitism was dismissed in July 2024 after a judge found the university had taken proactive steps.
Congressional Hearings and Presidents Who Lost Their Jobs
Three congressional hearings on campus antisemitism between December 2023 and May 2024 brought seven university presidents before lawmakers. The December 2023 testimony of the presidents of Harvard, Penn, and MIT was widely criticized as evasive.10Inside Higher Ed. Universities Weigh Protesters’ Divestment Demands Penn President Liz Magill resigned days later, on December 9, and Penn’s board chair stepped down as well. Harvard President Claudine Gay followed on January 2, 2024, amid plagiarism accusations that compounded the fallout.20Inside Higher Ed. What’s Become of the Presidents Who Testified Before Congress
The exits continued. Columbia’s Shafik resigned in August 2024. UCLA Chancellor Gene Block concluded his tenure at the end of July 2024. Rutgers President Jonathan Holloway announced in September 2024 that he would step down, citing safety concerns and campus strife. Of the seven presidents who testified before Congress, only MIT’s Sally Kornbluth and Northwestern’s Michael Schill remained in their posts.
The Trump Administration’s Crackdown
The federal response shifted sharply in January 2025. On January 29, President Trump signed an executive order titled “Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism,” which encouraged the Attorney General to use a federal conspiracy-against-rights statute against protesters and instructed agencies to monitor and report foreign students and staff for possible removal.21AAUP. Assault on Campus Protests A companion order directed schools to identify and report “Hamas sympathizers” among their international students.22NPR. Trump Executive Order on Pro-Palestinian Foreign Students Trump said publicly: “To all the resident aliens who joined in the pro-jihadist protests, we put you on notice. We will find you, and we will deport you.”
In March 2025, the State Department revoked visas for over 300 foreign-born students who had participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.23U.S. News. Trump’s Higher Education Crackdown ICE agents began arresting student protesters on streets and in their homes, holding detainees in remote migrant facilities.24Inside Higher Ed. Chronicling Trump’s Evolving International Student Crackdown In May 2025, the State Department halted new visa interviews to implement a social media vetting process.
The Mahmoud Khalil Case
The most prominent enforcement action involved Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia graduate student and lawful permanent resident active in campus protests. On March 8, 2025, plainclothes ICE agents detained him. The government initially cited a statute allowing removal of noncitizens deemed a threat to foreign policy interests and later added a charge alleging he had misrepresented information on his green card application.25CNN. Mahmoud Khalil Appeals Court Reversal Officials accused Khalil of leading activities “aligned to Hamas” but filed no criminal charges and presented no supporting evidence.
A federal judge in New Jersey ordered Khalil’s release in June 2025, finding his detention likely unconstitutional. In January 2026, a three-judge panel of the Third Circuit reversed that decision 2-to-1, holding that federal district courts lacked jurisdiction over his immigration challenge. In May 2026, the full Third Circuit declined to rehear the case in a 6-to-5 vote. Dissenting judges warned that the majority’s ruling “ignores canons,” “strains precedent,” and “imperils the civil liberties” of similarly situated noncitizens.26The Guardian. Mahmoud Khalil Supreme Court Appeal Khalil’s legal team, led by the ACLU and the Center for Constitutional Rights, plans to appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.27Columbia Spectator. Mahmoud Khalil to Escalate Deportation Case to Supreme Court
The Rümeysa Öztürk Case
In March 2025, masked federal agents detained Rümeysa Öztürk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts on an F-1 visa, near her off-campus apartment. The government alleged she had “engaged in activities in support of Hamas,” a claim based on an opinion piece she had co-authored in the student newspaper criticizing Tufts’s response to the Gaza war.28Tufts University. University Declaration for Rümeysa Öztürk Tufts said it had “no information to support the allegations” and that the piece did not violate university policy.
Öztürk was held for over six weeks in a Louisiana detention center before a federal judge ordered her release in May 2025, stating that continued detention “chills the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens.”29CNN. Rumeysa Ozturk Immigration Detention Terminated An immigration judge later terminated removal proceedings, ruling the government failed to meet its burden of proof. She reached a settlement in which the administration dropped its appeal and stipulated she had been in lawful status at all times. Öztürk completed her Ph.D. in February 2026 and returned to Turkey.30Politico. Rumeysa Ozturk Deportation Case A federal judge in Massachusetts described her case and related actions as part of “a grave and unconstitutional conspiracy” by Trump administration officials to target pro-Palestinian students in order to chill free speech.
Federal Funding as Leverage
The administration’s most consequential tool was money. In March 2025, a joint federal task force froze $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia, conditioning restoration of the school’s roughly $5 billion federal funding relationship on sweeping demands.31The Conference Board. Higher Education in Focus: Recent Federal Scrutiny Explained Those demands reached well beyond protest management: a mask ban, abolition of the University Judicial Board, and placing the Middle East studies department under academic receivership. The Department of Education sent warning letters to 60 universities about potential Title VI investigations for antisemitic harassment.32Nixon Peabody. Federal Investigations Take Aim at Higher Education Funding
Freezes cascaded through the Ivy League and beyond in April 2025: $175 million at Penn, $210 million at Princeton, $510 million at Brown, more than $1 billion at Cornell, and $790 million at Northwestern. Harvard’s freeze reached $2.2 billion, with an additional $450 million cut in May.33Steptoe. Universities Face Full Funding Freezes Amid Trump Administration Demands The administration also attempted to revoke Harvard’s ability to enroll international students, which a federal judge blocked.
Columbia’s Settlement
Columbia was the first major university to settle. On July 23, 2025, it agreed to pay $200 million in penalties over three years, plus $21 million to compensate employees who had experienced antisemitism since October 2023.34Columbia Spectator. Columbia Will Pay $220 Million in Deal With Trump Administration The agreement required Columbia to appoint new faculty affiliated with the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, keep a ban on protests inside academic buildings, require masked demonstrators to show identification, employ public safety officers with arrest powers, and hire an administrator to serve as a liaison for students experiencing antisemitism. Columbia also agreed to reveal admissions data to the government and to ensure “merit-based” hiring and admissions.35The New York Times. Columbia Trump Settlement: What to Know An independent monitor was appointed to oversee compliance. Acting President Claire Shipman said the deal “safeguards our independence.” Education Secretary Linda McMahon called it a “roadmap for elite universities.”
Harvard’s Resistance
Harvard took a different path. After the university rejected the administration’s conditions, which included shuttering DEI programs, hiring faculty to ensure “viewpoint diversity,” and submitting to government audits, the administration froze its funding. Harvard sued. In September 2025, U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs ruled that the administration had broken the law by freezing billions in research funding, finding the terminations “arbitrary and procedurally infirm” and a violation of Harvard’s First Amendment and due process rights.36The New York Times. Harvard Trump Funding Ruling The administration vowed to appeal. In March 2026, the Justice Department filed a separate suit against Harvard, alleging Title VI violations for failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students. A parallel suit was filed against UCLA. Both cases remain active.23U.S. News. Trump’s Higher Education Crackdown
New Rules for Campus Protests
Universities across the country overhauled their protest rules. The University of California and California State University systems banned encampments and masks that conceal identity. Penn, Vanderbilt, the University of Connecticut, and Syracuse adopted similar overnight-demonstration or encampment bans. Indiana University barred protests within 25 feet of university buildings. The University of South Florida prohibited protests after 5 p.m. and during the final two weeks of each semester. Case Western Reserve began requiring advance committee approval for demonstrations.37The Forward. Universities Ban Encampments, Add Antisemitism Training as Students Return to Campus
Northwestern banned overnight protests and restricted demonstrations at “the Rock” before 3 p.m. on weekdays. Students must remove face coverings for identification when asked by an authorized university official.38Northwestern University. A Reminder of University Policies Multiple universities suspended or banned chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine and other pro-Palestinian groups, including Rutgers, George Washington, Columbia, and NYU. NYU and Barnard updated their conduct codes to note that derogatory use of “Zionist” or “Zionism” could violate non-discrimination policies. The AAUP condemned the wave of new rules in August 2024, arguing they exceeded reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions and were often imposed without faculty input.39AAUP. AAUP Condemns Wave of Administrative Policies Intended to Crack Down on Peaceful Campus Protest
What the Law Actually Says
The protests tested lines that are well established but often misunderstood. At public universities, the First Amendment protects peaceful protests, symbolic expression, and demonstrations, but institutions can impose content-neutral “time, place, and manner” restrictions on when protests occur, where they happen, and how loud they can be. Those rules must be narrowly tailored to a significant government interest and must leave open alternative channels of communication.40NYCLU. Know Your Rights: Students in Higher Education and the First Amendment Speech that incites imminent lawless action, constitutes a true threat, or rises to discriminatory harassment under Title VI falls outside First Amendment protection. “Hate speech” is not a recognized category of unprotected speech under American law.
Private universities operate differently. They are generally not bound by the First Amendment because they are not government actors, though they must substantially comply with their own stated policies and codes of conduct.41NACUA. Talking About Free Speech on Campus: Legal Standards and Beyond A handful of states carve out exceptions. California’s Leonard Law, for example, extends public-university-level speech protections to students at secular private colleges.
Where Things Stand in 2026
By early 2026, campus protests had largely subsided. Fall 2024 saw only one-third the number of demonstrations compared to the spring, and even volatile national events, including a U.S.-led military action against Iran, failed to produce anything approaching the scale of the 2024 encampments.42The Atlantic. Campus Protests Trump Iran Small protests at NYU drew about 20 attendees. Students report being deterred by fear of discipline, potential loss of immigration status, the threat of federal intervention, and the bureaucratic hurdles now required to obtain protest permission.
Activism that persists has shifted focus, particularly toward immigration enforcement, with protests targeting ICE’s presence at campus job fairs at schools like the University of Georgia and Utah Valley University.43Inside Higher Ed. War on Student Speech In January 2026, U.S. District Judge William Young ruled that the federal government’s policy of targeting international students and faculty for their free speech constituted an “unconstitutional conspiracy,” though enforcement actions continue. Universities are increasingly adopting formal institutional-neutrality policies, modeled on the University of Chicago’s 1967 Kalven Report, as a framework for staying out of political controversies while defending institutional autonomy against federal pressure.
Whether the current quiet holds may depend on cases still working through the courts: Khalil’s potential Supreme Court appeal, Harvard’s ongoing fight over funding, the UCLA civil rights lawsuit, and the broader question of whether the federal government can condition billions in research dollars on how universities manage political expression on their campuses.