In the early lines of Nineteen Eighty-Four, Winston, the novel’s free-thinking protagonist, writes, “Freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two make four.” After Winston had been captured, tortured, and rendered completely submissive to state authority, the line is re-stated, albeit with a different conclusion. As he sat quietly in a café, Winston traced “2 + 2 = 5” in the accumulated dust on his table. The gesture symbolized his acceptance of the state-sanctioned versions of truth and reality.

            While the novel itself is a work of George Orwell’s creative talents, its dystopian themes have, in recent months, come to seem more and more real. Just as critical thought, independence, and political debate were silenced in the novel’s fictionalized society, we also seem to be living in a time when such values are actively being undermined. Alarmingly, this form of persecution has targeted both ‘the university’ and ‘the judiciary’, two institutions that have long enjoyed both the independence and freedom necessary to say that ‘two plus two make four.’

            Since his return to the White House in early 2025, American President Donald Trump has sought to silence a growing chorus of judges whose voices seek to (at least temporarily) halt the enforcement of controversial policies relating to a number of different issues, including immigration, citizenship, employment, and the rights of transgendered peoples. In March 2025, for example, the Trump administration deported nearly 300 Venezuelan immigrants from the United States to an El Salvadorian prison under the authority of an antiquated 18^th century piece of legislation known as the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, claiming that the individuals had ties to a terrorist group, the Tren de Aragua. U.S. District Judge James E. Boasberg issued an order temporarily halting the pre-planned deportation of the individuals in custody for 14 days to allow the court time to review the constitutionality of the Act’s deployment. According to the Trump administration, however, the ruling was issued too late and the flights to El Salvador had already departed.

            Commenting on Judge Boasberg’s conduct, Trump told reporters, “Many people have called for [Boasberg’s] impeachment…he’s radical left…he actually said that we shouldn’t be able to take criminals, killers, murderers, horrible, the worst people, gang members, gang leaders, that we shouldn’t be allowed to take them out of our country.” Trump’s suggestion that a judge issuing orders contrary to the political (and legally dubious) objectives of his administration warranted their impeachment spurred the ire of others on the bench, including the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. In a public statement, Chief Justice John Roberts stated: “For more than two centuries, it has been established that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose.”

            Picking fights with the judiciary, however, is not where the Trump administration stopped. The Trump administration has also targeted the academy in its efforts to push forward its political agenda. In early March 2025, it announced its intention to cut $400 million in federal funding to Columbia University as a result of the institution’s alleged failure to address forms of political activism on its campus and amongst its students/faculty. Several weeks later, Columbia’s administration released a statement announcing that it would comply with the demands of the Trump administration. Columbia not only agreed to ban non-medical facemasks on its campus and empower its security officers to remove or arrest individuals but has also seized control of the department offering courses focused on the Middle East, usurping the power of its faculty members.

            These governmental attacks on research and university operations have created a chilling effect in the academy. Prominent researchers and academics across the United States have vocalized their disapproval, noting that there is no precedent for the government blatantly using money to bully and micromanage a university. Indeed, the concern over academic freedom under the Trump administration has led to a number of prominent American Ivy League facultytransferring to Canadian universities in response.

            I understand that as Canadians there may be a temptation to rest comfortably with the knowledge that these attacks of free and critical thought are uniquely American problems. After all, the Canadian Supreme Court has held on multiple occasions that universities are legally autonomous entities and sites for socio-political debate and knowledge production (see Mckinney v University of Guelph, for example). Our Supreme Court, too, has vigorously defended the concept of judicial independence, characterizing it as an integral component of the operation of constitutional law in Canada (see Valente v The Queen and Reference re Remuneration of Judges of the Provincial Court, for example).

            These protections, however, are not enough. The Canadian judiciary and our universities also face similar threats emerging from (right-leaning) segments of the Canadian political establishment. The Canadian Association of University Teachers, a national organization representing more than 70,000 academic and administrative staff at universities and colleges across the country, has vocalized numerous concerns over academic freedom on Canadian campuses. Most recently, they have openly criticized Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre’s campaign promise to “end the imposition of woke ideology in the federal civil service and the allocation of federal funds for university research.”

            And while Canadian judges have (thankfully) yet to experience the sort of public attacks now ongoing in the United States, we have recently seen an increased willingness amongst Canadian politicians to use and consider s. 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The section, commonly known as the “notwithstanding clause”, permits legislators to proceed with the implementation of legislation that violates the Charter by prohibiting the court’s ability to strike it down. Put simply, it is an override mechanism through which the government can circumvent the Charter and the judicial oversight that protects it. Indeed, Ontario Premier Doug Ford used the clause in 2022 to push through back-to-work legislation forcing 55,000 unionized educational assistants, childhood educators, custodians and administrative staff into a labour agreement, prohibiting their right to strike; Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe invoked the notwithstanding clause in 2023 to implement a policy requiring students under the age of 16 to obtain parental approval before changing their names or pronouns; Quebec Premier Francois Legault pre-emptively used the clause in 2021 to justify a controversial ban on the wearing of religious symbols by workers in the public services; in 2024, former New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs considered using the clause to allow for the forced detention and treatment of individuals combating addiction; and Alberta Premier Danielle Smith discussed using s. 33 in 2023 in the context of trans youths’ access to gender affirming healthcare.

            Thus, the battles currently being fought in the United States are not uniquely American problems. They exist here as well. As such, we –the free-thinking protagonists in the story of our country’s future – must remain vigilant. We must continue working to protect the spaces long designated as sites of freedom, independence, and political debate, namely our universities and our courts, to ensure that our judges and academics can continue saying that ‘two plus two make four.’