1) Federal “jawboning” of social media companies
Washington got so cozy with platform moderation that, in March 2026, the Justice Department entered a consent decree restricting the Surgeon General’s office, CDC, and CISA from threatening or coercing platforms to suppress protected speech.
When the government leans on private companies to bury lawful opinions, that is the modern version of saying, “those views don’t get oxygen.”
2) State attempts to force platforms to carry speech
Texas and Florida are still the headline act in the you-must-carry-this-speech circus. Their laws targeted platform moderation and required explanations, complaint systems, and appeal mechanisms tied to moderation decisions; the Supreme Court sent the cases back in 2024, but the fight over whether the government can force a private platform to host speech it does not want is very much alive.
3) Ohio teacher pronoun mandate fight
In Geraghty v. Jackson Local School District, an Ohio federal judge held that requiring a teacher to use students’ preferred names and pronouns amounted to compelled speech, and the case later ended in a $450,000 settlement in late 2024.
Whether you agree with the policy or not, the legal point is clear: the state does not get to draft your mouth as its delivery system without a constitutional fight.
4) Ohio student speech rules in the Olentangy case
The Olentangy litigation is the student-side version of the same mess. The district’s policies barred certain “discriminatory language,” restricted device use even outside school in some circumstances, and the dispute centered in part on whether students could be forced to affirm one view on gender identity by policing intentional misgendering; the case went en banc in the Sixth Circuit and remains a live marker in the speech war.
5) Mandatory equity training with required ideological participation
In Henderson v. Springfield R-12 School District, public-school employees challenged a mandatory equity training where participants were told to “acknowledge YOUR privileges,” “speak YOUR truth,” and complete an “anti-racist solo write.”
The Eighth Circuit en banc ruling in late 2025 kept the compelled-speech theory alive, which is another way of saying the courts are still sorting out when training stops being training and starts being ideological roll call.
6) The federal government itself now warns against forced DEI confessions
In March 2025, the EEOC and DOJ issued guidance saying DEI programs can become unlawful when they cross into discrimination. Legal analysis following that guidance flagged specific danger zones, including mandatory confessions of bias, compelled self-disclosure, and stereotyping statements—which is bureaucratic language for “don’t force employees to recite the approved catechism.”
7) Public universities still use DEI-style ideological screens
The DEI statement fight is not dead; it just changed clothes. A 2025 review of more than 10,000 faculty postings found that 22.3% requested DEI-related materials, and it noted that some public institutions in states with bans shifted those requests into cover letters or teaching statements; at the same time, the University of California system directed campuses in March 2025 to stop requiring diversity statements in newly initiated hiring.
Translation: the ideological filter is still in circulation, but it now wears camouflage.
8) State contractor certifications tied to Israel boycotts
As of early 2026, 38 states had adopted laws, executive orders, or resolutions targeting boycotts of Israel. In plain English, many states condition public contracting on a written certification that the contractor is not participating in a disfavored boycott, which is why critics argue these laws turn public contracts into political loyalty checkpoints.
9) Alaska’s current anti-boycott contracting rule
Alaska took that same playbook and made it current policy. Under Administrative Order 352, the executive branch may not contract with a company engaged in a boycott of Israel for covered contracts of at least $100,000 involving companies with 10 or more employees.
That is not a subtle message; it is the government saying, “Bring your political certifications with your paperwork.”
10) Alabama’s expanded anti-boycott Law
Alabama went broader than Israel and built a full-size ideological checkpoint. SB 261 bars certain public contracts with companies that boycott businesses tied to fossil fuels, timber, mining, agriculture, or firearms, or that penalize companies over failures to meet certain environmental, workplace-governance, abortion, or gender-care related criteria; the Law also says no company in Alabama should be required or penalized for refusing to engage in actions that further social, political, or ideological interests.
That is not the government getting out of the ideology business. That is the government choosing which ideologies get a state escort.