Identity of Speakers
-
Turning Point USA at The University of Maryland
Student
OtherTurning Point USA at the University of Maryland is the campus chapter of a national conservative nonprofit, founded by Charlie Kirk, that promotes free-market principles, limited government, and conservative activism on college campuses.
Additional Information
-
Incident Nature:
Recognized student group event
-
Incident Political Orientation:
Right wing -
Incident Responses:
Other
-
Incident Status:
No litigation
- Was Speech Code incident
Summary
In early October 2025, the University of Maryland faced backlash after a student chapter of Turning Point USA announced a campus event featuring conservative commentator Cabot Phillips titled “Fighting Like Charlie.” The chapter said the university required them to pay an additional security fee and hire a private security company for bag checks and metal-detector screening. The chapter reported that university police had initially offered to staff the event at no cost. Turning Point USA characterized the fee as financially burdensome and tied to the event’s political viewpoint.
The university maintained that the security requirement and associated costs were standard for “guest speaking events” and were applied irrespective of the viewpoint or content of the event. University officials stated that hiring external security was part of common security practice, particularly given a rise in threats at campus events. Turning Point USA noted that in prior instances, including other events hosted by the same chapter, UMD had not imposed extra fees, and the group argued that the selective imposition in this case raised constitutional concerns regarding free speech.
The issue drew national attention in mid-October as advocates for free expression intervened, calling on the university to rescind the fee, which they described as a financially punitive barrier to student speech. Turning Point USA also emphasized that the fee placed an unusual burden on student organizers, who are often responsible for covering costs for campus events, and argued that it could discourage future speakers with controversial viewpoints from appearing on campus.
By late October 2025, the dispute remained unresolved, with the student chapter and legal advocates pressing for the fee’s removal while the university continued to defend it as a content-neutral safety measure.
