Blacklisting
Blacklisting is the formal or informal exclusion of individuals or organizations from government participation — employment, contracting, advisory roles, security clearances — based on their speech, associations, or political beliefs. Concrete forms include lists distributed within agencies marking certain figures as ineligible, refusals to hire individuals whose names appear on partisan donor lists, and the directed exclusion of specific scholars or experts from advisory bodies because of their published views. The publication tracks documented patterns of exclusion; routine vetting of public statements against fitness for specific positions is a separate matter.
Documented entries (20)
2026
Democratic AGs' deputies turned away from Vance's White House anti-fraud roundtable
On May 26, 2026, Vice President JD Vance — who leads the Trump administration's anti-fraud effort — convened a White House roundtable on government-program fraud attended by Republican state attorneys general. Two dozen Democratic attorneys general had declined the invitation, citing less than one business day's notice and no agenda, and instead sent senior deputies; officials representing New York, California, New Jersey, and (per AG Letitia James) Minnesota, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Nevada said they were turned away at the door. Vance stated on camera that representatives from Connecticut and Oregon were present and that fighting fraud "should not be a partisan effort," even as the excluded Democratic offices held a press conference calling the event a political stunt.
Pentagon brands Anthropic a 'supply chain risk' in retaliation for refusing unrestricted military use of its AI models
On March 5, 2026, the U.S. Department of Defense formally notified Anthropic that the company and its products were designated a "supply chain risk," effective immediately — a label normally reserved for firms tied to foreign adversaries and reportedly the first publicly applied to an American company. The designation, which bars defense contractors from using Anthropic's technology, followed the breakdown of contract talks: the Pentagon demanded access to Anthropic's Claude models "for all lawful purposes," while the company's acceptable-use policy barred their use for fully autonomous weapons and mass domestic surveillance of Americans. After Anthropic refused to drop those limits, President Trump on February 27 ordered agencies and contractors to halt business with the company and called its stance a "disastrous mistake," and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth tied the designation directly to the firm's refusal to comply — even as the military continued using Claude to support intelligence and targeting work.
Pentagon formally designated Anthropic a 'supply chain risk' after AI-guardrails dispute
On March 5, 2026, the Department of Defense formally notified Anthropic that the company and its products were designated a "supply chain risk," a label normally reserved for foreign adversaries, after Anthropic refused to drop acceptable-use limits barring its Claude models from mass domestic surveillance and fully autonomous weapons. The Pentagon, which gave the military up to six months to phase out the technology, framed the move as ensuring it could use the tools "for all lawful purposes"; Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei called the action "retaliatory and punitive" and said the company would challenge it in court. The designation came even as the U.S. military was reportedly using Claude to support its operations in the Iran campaign.
Trump orders federal agencies and contractors to cut off Anthropic over its AI-use limits
On February 27, 2026, President Trump ordered federal agencies and military contractors to halt business with the AI company Anthropic, giving the government roughly six months to phase out its products. The order followed the breakdown of Pentagon contract talks: the department sought access to Anthropic's Claude models "for all lawful purposes," while the company's acceptable-use policy barred their use for fully autonomous weapons and the mass domestic surveillance of Americans. Announcing the move on Truth Social, Trump called the company's refusal a "disastrous mistake," opening a retaliation campaign that culminated in the March 5 "supply chain risk" designation.
Hegseth cancels 93 military fellowships at elite universities, bars officers from attending
In a memo signed February 27, 2026 — "Aligning Senior Service College Opportunities With American Values" — Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ordered the cancellation of about 93 Pentagon-funded Senior Service College fellowships at roughly 22 civilian universities, including Princeton, Yale, Columbia, Brown, MIT, and Georgetown, effective the 2026–27 academic year. He barred the military from sending active-duty officers to graduate programs at the named schools, declaring in a same-day video that elite institutions had become "factories of anti-American resentment and military disdain." Officers already enrolled were permitted to finish their coursework.
Pentagon cuts ties with Harvard, ending military training and fellowships
On February 6, 2026, the Department of War (Pentagon) announced it would sever academic ties with Harvard University, ending Pentagon-funded graduate-level professional military education, fellowships, and certificate programs connected to the school beginning in the 2026–27 academic year. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said Harvard "no longer meets the needs of the War Department," faulting officers who returned "looking too much like Harvard — heads full of globalist and radical ideologies," and a Pentagon account posted on X that "Harvard is woke; The War Department is not." The Pentagon described the cut as the first in a broader review of elite universities, with officers already enrolled allowed to finish their coursework.
2025
Rubio opened State Department investigation into Harvard's J-1 visa program with no stated misconduct
Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent a letter to Harvard President Alan Garber on July 23, 2025, opening a formal State Department investigation into Harvard's participation in the Exchange Visitor Program, which sponsors J-1 visas for international researchers, instructors, and students. The letter alleged no specific misconduct, stating only that programs must not run "contrary to our nation's interests," and gave Harvard one week to produce a broad set of records. Harvard called the probe retaliatory and a violation of its First Amendment rights.
Trump signed Proclamation 10948 banning new Harvard international student visas, directing State to revoke existing ones
On June 4, 2025, President Trump signed Proclamation 10948, suspending entry of all new Harvard-bound international students on F, M, and J visas and directing the Secretary of State to consider revoking existing visas for current Harvard students on a case-by-case basis. The proclamation, issued under INA § 212(f), accused Harvard of jeopardizing the student visa system's integrity by refusing to surrender student records demanded by DHS and defying April 2025 demands to alter curriculum, admissions, and diversity programs. At the time of signing, Harvard enrolled approximately 6,800 international students.
State Department cable halted new student and exchange visitor visa interviews pending expanded social media and political-views screening
On May 27, 2025, the State Department issued a cable ordering U.S. embassies and consulates worldwide to immediately stop scheduling new visa interview appointments for all foreign nationals applying for F-1 academic student, J-1 exchange visitor, and M-1 vocational student visas, pending expanded social media vetting guidance. A follow-on cable on May 30 directed consular officers to apply "extra vigilance" in screening applicants for hostility toward the U.S. government and values — including ties to political activism and associations with disfavored groups — making political views an operative criterion for visa denial. The pause affected new interview scheduling for more than 1.5 million F/M visa holders and nearly 300,000 J-1 exchange visitors, a category that includes Fulbright scholars, professors, au pairs, and Summer Work Travel workers.
GSA directed all federal agencies to cancel ~$100M in Harvard operating contracts, escalating political retaliation campaign
On May 27, 2025, the General Services Administration sent a letter to all federal agencies directing them to identify and cancel remaining contracts with Harvard University — approximately 30 contracts worth an estimated $100 million — and to seek alternative vendors for future services. The directive escalated the administration's retaliatory campaign against Harvard, which had publicly refused White House demands to alter its hiring, admissions, and governance practices. The contract-cancellation mechanism targeted operating agreements distinct from the $2.6 billion in research grants already frozen or cancelled since April 2025.
DHS Secretary Noem revoked Harvard's SEVP certification, threatening enrollment of ~6,000 international students
On May 22, 2025, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem summarily revoked Harvard University's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, the administrative authorization that allows universities to enroll international students on F-1, J-1, and M-1 visas. Citing alleged 'pro-terrorist conduct' and cooperation with the Chinese Communist Party — with no independent factual finding or adjudicatory process — the action threatened immediate displacement of more than 6,000 international students and scholars. Harvard filed for a Temporary Restraining Order the following day; District Judge Allison Burroughs granted the TRO, and a preliminary injunction issued June 20 extended the block pending full litigation.
Interagency task force terminated additional ~$450M in Harvard research grants after president publicly defied administration demands
On May 13, 2025, the interagency Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced the termination of approximately $450 million in additional federal research grants to Harvard University — on top of the $2.2 billion already frozen since April 14, 2025. The escalation came one week after Harvard President Alan Garber publicly stated the university would not comply with the administration's demands to alter governance, admissions, hiring, and student conduct policies. The task force declared Harvard had "forfeited the school's claim to taxpayer support." A federal court later ruled the entire Harvard funding campaign constituted unlawful retaliation for First Amendment-protected speech.
Education Secretary McMahon barred Harvard from new federal grants, demanding governance overhaul and DEI compliance
On May 5, 2025, Education Secretary Linda McMahon sent Harvard President Alan Garber a letter formally announcing that the university would receive no new federal grants until it demonstrated "responsible management" and met the Trump administration's demands for governance restructuring, admissions changes, and anti-DEI compliance. The action was a prospective escalation beyond the earlier April 14 freeze of existing Harvard grants, imposing a forward-looking embargo on all new grant funding. Harvard characterized the move as retaliation for its lawsuit challenging the April freeze and called the demands an attempt to impose "unprecedented and improper control."
Interagency task force froze $2.2 billion in Harvard grants after university publicly refused White House demands
On April 14, 2025, the interagency Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced the freeze of approximately $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts to Harvard University — announced the same day Harvard President Alan Garber publicly refused to comply with a package of White House demands delivered April 11. The demands called for governance reforms, merit-based admissions and hiring, closure of DEI programs, a mask ban targeting pro-Palestinian protesters, and cooperation with immigration authorities. A federal court later ruled that the Harvard funding campaign constituted unlawful retaliation for First Amendment-protected activity.
Trump signs EO 14263 targeting Susman Godfrey, suspending clearances and barring building access
On April 9, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14263, directing the suspension of security clearances for Susman Godfrey LLP employees, termination of all federal contracts with the firm, and restriction of firm employees from accessing federal buildings. The order cited the firm's diversity fellowship and its representation of clients in election-related and civil rights cases as justification, framing Susman's legal work as a national-security threat. Susman Godfrey, which had represented Dominion Voting Systems in its defamation lawsuit against Fox News over 2020 election coverage, filed suit to block the order within two days.
Trump signs EO 14250 suspending WilmerHale employees' security clearances, directing federal contractors to sever ties with firm
President Trump signed Executive Order 14250 on March 27, 2025, directing federal agencies to suspend the security clearances of all WilmerHale employees and instructing federal contractors to terminate their relationships with the firm. The order cited WilmerHale's prior association with Special Counsel Robert Mueller — a former WilmerHale partner — and the firm's DEI policies as justification. It was the third in a series of retaliatory executive orders targeting law firms whose attorneys had represented parties adverse to the president or participated in legal investigations of him.
Trump signed EO 14246 suspending Jenner & Block security clearances, pressuring contractors to cut ties with firm
On March 25, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14246, "Addressing Risks From Jenner & Block," directing the immediate suspension of security clearances for all firm employees and requiring federal contractors to certify no business relationships with the firm under threat of contract termination. The order cited the firm's prior employment of Andrew Weissmann—who participated in the Mueller investigation—and its representation of transgender and immigrant clients as justification. A federal court permanently enjoined the order in May 2025, finding it violated the First Amendment through viewpoint discrimination.
Trump signed EO 14237 suspending security clearances and barring federal contracts for Paul Weiss law firm
On March 14, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14237, "Addressing Risks From Paul Weiss," targeting the Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison law firm. The order suspended security clearances for Paul Weiss employees, directed agencies to terminate existing federal contracts with the firm, and barred its lawyers from accessing federal buildings. The administration cited the firm's past employment of lawyers who had participated in prosecutions of Trump's allies and its representation of clients in litigation adverse to Trump.
Trump signed EO 14230 suspending security clearances and barring federal contracts for Perkins Coie over its 2016 Clinton campaign work
On March 6, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14230, "Addressing Risks from Perkins Coie LLP," suspending security clearances for all firm employees, directing agencies to bar its attorneys from federal buildings, and ordering termination of all federal contracts with the firm or entities doing business with it. The order explicitly cited Perkins Coie's 2016 representation of Hillary Clinton's campaign and its hiring of Fusion GPS as justification. On May 2, 2025, U.S. District Judge Beryl Howell permanently struck down the order, calling it an "unprecedented attack" on the legal system.
Trump directed suspension of Covington & Burling security clearances and contract terminations over Jack Smith representation
President Trump issued a presidential memorandum on February 25, 2025, directing the Attorney General and all agency heads to immediately suspend security clearances held by partners, members, and employees of Covington & Burling LLP who had assisted former Special Counsel Jack Smith, and to terminate all federal agency contracts with the firm. The memorandum cited the firm's representation of Smith as "involvement in government weaponization." It was the first in a sequence of retaliatory executive actions targeting major law firms whose attorneys had represented parties adverse to Trump or participated in investigations of him.