The phrase quietly reshaping Trump-era policy battles
By Michael Jones
Harvard University has spent centuries guarding its place at the pinnacle of American academia. But this spring, it found itself defending something even more fundamental: its right to think freely.
In a sharp escalation of its war on perceived liberal bastions, the Trump administration threatened to strip Harvard of nearly $9 billion in federal funding unless it restructured its hiring practices to foster greater “viewpoint diversity”—a term officials framed as a call for balance. Critics, however, warned it masked an attempt to force conservative ideology into university governance.
The funding threat came amid a broader battle over universities’ autonomy, fueled by mounting tensions on campuses following student protests against the Gaza war. Harvard wasn’t alone: Columbia University faced similar pressure from the administration earlier this year.
Harvard’s leadership pushed back, arguing that the government’s demands amounted to an unconstitutional overreach. In retaliation, the Department of Education froze $2.3 billion in federal funds earmarked for Harvard, while the Department of Homeland Security threatened to revoke the university’s ability to host international students. Harvard quickly fired back, filing a lawsuit against the Trump administration in the District Court of Massachusetts and challenging the funding freeze as a violation of constitutional protections.
But the battle over Harvard’s future is about more than one university, though it’s worth noting that Harvard has used federal funding in recent years to drive breakthroughs in fields like mRNA vaccine development, climate change research, and cutting-edge artificial intelligence and biotechnology to advance innovations with global impact.
It offers a vivid case study of how the right is deploying “viewpoint diversity”—much like it weaponized “woke,” “critical race theory,” and “DEI”—to manipulate language in service of a broader political agenda.
Beneath the rhetoric of balance and free inquiry lies a strategic effort to reframe government intervention as a defense of free speech rather than a restriction of it, thereby reshaping American institutions while sidestepping the constitutional and political challenges that might have otherwise derailed earlier culture war battles.
“I regard that as an authoritarian tactic—to use broad language to slur entire groups of people and entire ways of thought,” Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, said. “It’s about flattening the meaning of words for political gain.”
The Trump administration’s use of “viewpoint diversity” serves as a veneer for policies that effectively suppress progressive viewpoints and dismantle DEI initiatives. By co-opting the language of inclusivity, these actions aim to reshape institutional cultures to align with conservative ideologies, often at the expense of marginalized groups.
Trump allies in the conservative movement have been remarkably successful at creating, co-opting, and popularizing phrases like viewpoint diversity, woke, critical race theory, and DEI on their terms because they understand the power of language as a political weapon.
Conservatives often define the terms of debate before their opponents even enter the conversation. By deploying simple, emotionally resonant language (e.g., “woke indoctrination,” “radical DEI agenda”), they establish a framework in the public mind that makes nuanced counterarguments more difficult to articulate. This tactic is rooted in the Frank Luntz school of political messaging: Naming is framing, and framing shapes outcomes.
That’s not all: Instead of engaging with the substantive origins of concepts like DEI or CRT, Trump allies simplify them into ideological proxies—symbols of elite overreach, leftist authoritarianism, or racial grievance politics. This makes it easier to mobilize outrage, drive clicks and donations, and justify sweeping policy changes despite branding themselves as crusaders for limited government.
The potency of the right-wing media ecosystem is well-documented. And Trump-aligned content farms—which exist everywhere ranging from Fox News to Substack to school board Facebook groups—relentlessly repeat these terms with consistent framing across platforms.
Meanwhile, the left tends to debate the terminology itself or splinter into factions over how best to respond, which dilutes the message. The right’s communications ecosystem rewards message cohesion and emotional intensity, creating a powerful incentive to unearth the next big buzzword—and reap the political benefits that come with shaping public debate.
And once these phrases gain traction, they’re not just rhetorical—they become legal and administrative tools. Case in point: “Viewpoint diversity” becomes justification for gutting DEI offices or reshaping grant criteria, and “woke” becomes a catchall for banning books, censoring teachers, or defunding universities. The language becomes sticky and consequential, not just symbolic.
But this didn’t happen overnight. The right’s success with terms like “viewpoint diversity” and “school choice” reflects decades of slow, deliberate ideological work from the Federalist Society, the Heritage Foundation, and others. Democrats often prioritize short-term wins and rapid response, rather than slow cultural persuasion. They fight to win an election. Meanwhile, the right fights the era.
There has been a concerted effort to push back against the Trump administration’s use of “viewpoint diversity” as a rationale for policies that critics argue suppress progressive perspectives and dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives. These countermeasures reflect a growing resistance to the administration’s agenda and underscore the stakes of protecting academic freedom and the integrity of American institutions.
All of the above helps explain why Democratic voters are placing a premium on candidates and elected officials who are more natural communicators, in an effort to combat the right’s success—and it’s one of the clearest throughlines between the messaging gap and Democratic voter behavior in the Trump 2.0 era.
Many Democratic voters I speak with and observe are deeply aware that their values are losing the framing war. In response, they’re gravitating toward candidates who can meet the moment not just with policy chops, but with rhetorical clarity and punch.
After years of watching Republicans dominate with emotionally charged storytelling, Democratic voters have come to understand that winning the narrative is a form of power, one that shapes public perception and influences policy viability. That’s why they’re drawn to figures who can articulate both what they believe and why it matters, often through personal storytelling or sharp cultural critique.
And the stakes have intensified voters’ urgency. Whether it’s reproductive freedom, LGBTQ+ rights, or the right to learn honest history, they’re watching the rhetorical groundwork for policy rollbacks happen in real time. The desire for powerful communicators stems from an understanding that every legislative battle now begins with a language battle.
However, if Democrats overcorrect and focus exclusively on narrative combat—without sustaining serious policy development—they risk becoming what the GOP has largely become: a party defined by grievance, organized around winning elections and court battles, but offering little in the way of governing solutions once in power. Over time, this atrophies the policymaking muscles needed for complex governance—whether it’s climate resilience, healthcare reform, or economic justice.
Besides, Democrats tell me they aren’t facing a normal policy-versus-policy contest anymore. Instead, they’re facing a Republican Party that has weaponized narrative dominance to undermine democratic institutions themselves. In that context, losing the messaging war risks losing democracy itself.
Raskin acknowledged that some early diversity efforts were marred by clumsy or overly rigid language, but he warned that the backlash has veered into something far more dangerous.
“We have to keep our sense of humor about it. Sure, there was some infantile political correctness coming out of the New England liberal arts colleges. But the campaign against diversity has gotten absolutely absurd,” he said. “America has thrived on democratic pluralism—on waves of new immigrants and our effort to become the world’s greatest multiracial, multiethnic, multireligious constitutional democracy. That’s what makes us great.”
Raskin added that the backlash to diversity isn’t just misguided—it distorts the very idea of American exceptionalism.
“We’re not exceptional because we’re somehow immune to fascism or racism,” he said. “We’re exceptional because we’ve been able to bring people here from all over the world and make pluralist democracy work. We have to keep that in mind.”
Michael Jones is an independent Capitol Hill correspondent and contributor for COURIER. He is the author of Once Upon a Hill, a newsletter about Congressional politics.
