Harvard Pushes Back Against Trump's Threats to Academic Freedom

In a recent letter to the Harvard community, interim president Alan M. Garber sounded an alarm over what he described as an unprecedented threat to the independence of American higher education. The federal government, Garber revealed, has issued a sweeping list of demands—tied to ongoing funding relationships—that Harvard views as overreaching, unconstitutional, and fundamentally at odds with the mission of the university.

For more than 75 years, federal partnerships with research institutions like Harvard have fueled major advances in science, medicine, and engineering. These collaborations, Garber noted, have not only improved global health and safety but have also contributed to America’s economic strength. Now, amid heightened scrutiny over accusations of antisemitism on campuses, those partnerships are under threat.

According to Garber, the administration's demands go far beyond addressing antisemitism. They include proposals to audit viewpoints across the campus community and diminish the influence of students and faculty based on their ideological positions. Harvard has rejected the demands, asserting that they violate constitutional protections and Title VI limits, and represent an improper attempt by the federal government to regulate “intellectual conditions” at a private institution.

Garber emphasized that Harvard remains committed to combating antisemitism and fostering an inclusive, open environment for dialogue and learning. He pointed to steps already taken in the past year and reaffirmed the university’s dedication to free speech, due process, and viewpoint diversity.

“This is not just about Harvard,” Garber warned. “It’s about the role of American universities in a free society.” The university insists that teaching, research, and admissions must remain free from political interference, regardless of the party in power.

As pressure mounts, the broader academic community now faces a fundamental question: How much influence should the federal government exert over what is taught and debated in higher education? For Harvard, the answer remains clear: safeguarding academic freedom is essential to fulfilling its mission of truth-seeking—and to preserving the promise of American higher education.

MEDIA ADVISORY UPDATE: 'Hands Off!' March at San Diego Civic Center, April 5 Noon - Protesters to March Demanding Protection of Rights and Services

SAN DIEGO, CA — Community members will gather at the San Diego Civic Center Plaza for a “Hands Off!” march on April 5 to protest DOGE and the Trump administration’s attack on programs and services used by San Diego residents. The local march will coincide with a nationwide day of demonstrations expected to be attended by hundreds of thousands…

Organizers describe the event as a collective response to policies impacting our community. “San Diegans who are veterans, who are postal workers and teachers, who rely on Social Security, Medicaid or Medicare, and who are horrified at the Trump-Musk billionaire takeover of our government are coming together to protest the Trump Administration’s attacks on the rights and services they depend upon, many of them for survival” said Angela Benson, a member of the organizing coalition.

Event Details:

• What: Over 10,000 San Diegans expected to peacefully demand "HANDS OFF!" their rights and services in one of over 1,000 HANDS OFF! events scheduled nationwide on April 5

• Who: Coalition of San Diego Pro-Democracy Groups

• When: Saturday, April 5, noon, 1 mile march to leave approximately 12:15 PM

• Where: March starts at Civic Center Plaza Fountain by 1200 Third St., ends at Hall of Justice at 330 W Broadway

• Transportation: Participants are encouraged to take public transit to the event

Planning group:

• Change Begins With ME

• CBFD Indivisible

• Indivisible49

• Indivisible North San Diego County

• Democratic Club of Carlsbad and Oceanside

• Encinitas and North Coast Democratic Club

• SanDiego350

• Swing Left/Take Action San Diego

• Activist San Diego

• 50501 San Diego

Media Opportunities:

• The following representatives will be available day-of the march for interviews. If interested, please coordinate with Richard (770-653-6138) prior to the event, and plan to arrive at the location marked below by 11:30 AM Pacific

• Representatives

• Sara Jacobs - House of Representatives, CA-51 district

• Scott Peters - House of Representatives, CA-50 district

• Chris Ward - California State Assemblymember, 78 district

• Stephen Whitburn - San Diego Councilmember

• Reverend Madison Shockley II - Pilgrim United Church of Christ

• Yusef Miller - Executive Director of North County Equity & Justice Coalition

• Brigette Browning - Executive Secretary San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council and President, Unite Here!

• Crystal Irving - President, Service Employees International Union (SEIU)

• Andy Kopp - Veteran

• Patrick Saunders - Veteran

• Phil Petrie - SanDiego350, Climate Activist

• Recommended Schedule

• 11:30 AM - 11:40 AM: Representative introductions - Group/cause they’re representing, why they’re marching

• 11:40 AM - 12:05 PM: Representatives break off, available for interview by Press

• 12:05 PM - 12:15 PM: Representatives move to beginning of march

• 12:15 PM: March begins

• 12:15 PM - 2:00 PM: March to Hall of Justice

• 2:00 PM: March ends at Hall of Justice, participants may disperse or continue to federal plaza

Trump’s Education Department is Closing. And Also Starting A Long Rulemaking Process. (David Halperin)

Although President Donald J. Trump last month signed an executive order directing Secretary of Education Linda McMahon “to the maximum extent appropriate and permitted by law, take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department of Education,” and although DOGE efforts and layoffs have cut the Department staff by half, the Department announced today that it will embark on an extensive round of meetings to draft new regulations governing student financial aid.

Unlike most federal agencies, the Department is generally required to engage in an elaborate process called negotiated rulemaking before it can issue or cancel regulations. This has meant — on issues from campus sexual assault to performance standards guarding against predatory college abuses — years of public hearings, formal convenings of rulemaking panels, written public comments and meetings on draft regulations, and more. It also has produced a decades-long ping pong match of final regulations made by one party and overwritten by the other, from the Obama to Trump I to Biden, followed by years of court challenges.

The first Trump administration staffed its higher education jobs with former executives of predatory for-profit colleges, and they eliminated both regulations and enforcement efforts aimed at protecting students and holding predatory schools accountable.

Today’s notice, signed by James P. Bergeron, Acting Under Secretary of Education, says the first round of Trump II negotiated rulemaking will likely include consideration of Public Service Loan Forgiveness and other loan repayment programs “or other topics that would streamline current federal student financial assistance programs.”

Other language in the notice suggests the Department may go deep, perhaps working to cancel the Biden rules creating performance standards for for-profit and career college programs (the gainful employment rule) and providing debt relief for students scammed by their colleges and government recoupment of funds from dishonest schools (the borrower defense rule). The notice opines that current regulations “may be inhibiting innovation and contributing to rising college costs” and that it wants to “streamline” the rules “while maintaining or improving program integrity and institutional quality.” “Innovation,” while a great thing for education when it can really happen, has been a buzzword used by the for-profit college industry to fight against rules aimed at protecting against predatory programs. Gutting the Biden rules would increase the vulnerability of both students and taxpayers to billions in waste, fraud, and abuse from deceptive, poor quality schools — even though the stated purpose of DOGE is to halt government excess.

When pro-student Democratic members of the House of Representatives  held a press conference outside the Department headquarters yesterday after they met with McMahon to discuss such concerns, she followed them. But she quickly fled when Rep. Mark Takano (D-CA) asked her when she would shut down the building.

The Department’s rulemaking process begins with public hearings on April 29 and May 1, the first in-person at Department headquarters and the second online. Advocates for students and taxpayers should register to speak and show up to make their voices heard.

[Editor's note: This article originally appeared on Republic Report.]

 

"We Are Killing the Essence of What the University Is": Dr. Joanne Liu on NYU Canceling Her Talk (Democracy Now!)

 

The former international head of Doctors Without Borders is speaking out after New York University canceled her presentation, saying some of her slides could be viewed as "anti-governmental" and "antisemitic" because they mentioned the Trump administration's cuts to foreign aid and deaths of humanitarian workers in Israel's war on Gaza. Dr. Joanne Liu, a Canadian pediatric emergency medicine physician, was scheduled to speak at NYU, her alma mater, on March 19 and had been invited almost a year ago to discuss the challenges of humanitarian crises. Censoring speech is "killing the essence of what the university is about," says Liu. "I truly and strongly believe that universities are the temple of knowledge."

Trump Dismantles US Institute of Museum and Library Services (YT Daily News)

The Institute of Museum and Library Services (IMLS) has put its entire staff on administrative leave following President Trump's executive order to eliminate seven federal agencies, including IMLS. 

 

Keith E. Sonderling has been appointed as the acting director during this transition. Staff were notified via email about their 90-day paid leave, which included instructions to return government property and had their email accounts disabled. 

 

IMLS is a small federal agency, with about 70 employees, that awards grant funding to museums and libraries across the United States. Last year it granted $266 million to support essential cultural institutions.

A LETTER TO HARVARD LAW SCHOOL STUDENTS (Harvard Law School Faculty)

From the Harvard Crimson:

Roughly 70 percent of Harvard Law School’s professors accused the federal government of exacting retribution on lawyers and law firms for representing clients and causes opposed by President Donald Trump in a Saturday night letter to the school’s student body.

The letter, which was signed by 82 of the school’s 118 active professors as of this article’s publication, described Trump’s threats as a danger to the rule of law. It condemned the government for intimidating individuals based on their past public statements and threatening international students with deportation over “lawful speech and political activism.”

Nine emeritus professors also joined the statement.

March 29, 2025 

To our students: 
We are privileged to teach and learn the law with you. We write to you today—in our 
individual capacities—because we believe that American legal precepts and the institutions 
designed to uphold them are being severely tested, and many of you have expressed to us your 
concerns and fears about the present moment. 

Each of us brings different, sometimes irreconcilable, perspectives to what the law is and should 
be. Diverse viewpoints are a credit to our school. But we share, and take seriously, a 
commitment to the rule of law: for people to be equal before it, and for its administration to 
be impartial. That commitment is foundational to the whole legal profession, and to the special 
role that lawyers play in our society. As the Model Rules of Professional Conduct provide: “A 
lawyer is … an officer of the legal system and a public citizen having special responsibility for 
the quality of justice.” 

The rule of law is imperiled when government leaders: 
• single out lawyers and law firms for retribution based on their lawful and ethical 
representation of clients disfavored by the government, undermining the Sixth 
Amendment; 
• threaten law firms and legal clinics for their lawyers’ pro bono work or prior 
government service; 
• relent on those arbitrary threats based on public acts of submission and outlays of funds 
for favored causes; and 
• punish people for lawfully speaking out on matters of public concern. 

While reasonable people can disagree about the characterization of particular incidents, we are 
all acutely concerned that severe challenges to the rule of law are taking place, and we strongly 
condemn any effort to undermine the basic norms we have described. 

On our own campus and at many other universities, international students have reported fear 
of imprisonment or deportation for lawful speech and political activism. Whatever we might 
each think about particular conduct under particular facts, we share a conviction that our 
Constitution, including its First Amendment, was designed to make dissent and debate 
possible without fear of government punishment. Neither a law school nor a society can 
properly function amidst such fear. 

We reaffirm our commitment to the rule of law and to our roles in teaching and upholding 
the precepts of a fair and impartial legal system. 

Columbia University’s Interim President Resigns Amid Trump Administration’s Pressure Over Campus Activism

Columbia University’s interim president, Dr. Katrina A. Armstrong, resigned on Friday, just days after the university made significant concessions to the Trump administration in exchange for the restoration of $400 million in federal research funding. Armstrong's resignation follows a tumultuous period for the institution, already reeling from the departure of her predecessor, Minouche Shafik, in August 2024.

Armstrong, who had stepped into the role of interim president during a time of political and social unrest, faced mounting pressure over the university’s handling of pro-Palestinian student activism, which sparked national controversy and calls for accountability from political leaders, including former President Donald Trump and his administration. Armstrong’s resignation marks the latest chapter in a series of leadership shifts at Columbia as it navigates the increasingly polarized political environment surrounding campus protests.

 

Effective immediately, Claire Shipman, co-chair of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, has been appointed acting president. David J. Greenwald, chair of the Board of Trustees, praised Armstrong for her dedication to the university, acknowledging her hard work during a time of “great uncertainty.” Greenwald’s statement highlighted Armstrong’s contributions to the university, saying, “Katrina has always given her heart and soul to Columbia. We appreciate her service and look forward to her continued contributions to the University.” Armstrong, who will return to lead the Irving Medical Center, had taken on the interim presidency in a period marked by increasing tensions on campus over political activism and its fallout.

Political Pressure and Concessions to the Trump Administration

The resignation comes amid significant political pressure, as the Trump administration imposed a set of demands on Columbia in exchange for the release of crucial federal funding. Earlier this month, the administration presented the university with nine conditions to restore the $400 million in research grants that had been frozen over accusations of antisemitism linked to campus protests.

In an effort to regain the funding, Columbia conceded to these demands, which included a ban on students wearing masks to conceal their identities during protests, except for religious or health reasons. Additionally, Columbia agreed to hire 36 new campus security officers with the authority to arrest students involved in protests. The university also committed to increasing institutional oversight by appointing a new senior vice provost to monitor the university's Department of Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies.

Perhaps most notably, Columbia pledged to adopt a stance of “greater institutional neutrality,” a policy that the university said would be implemented after working with a faculty committee. The decision was seen as an attempt to quell political tensions while navigating the contentious issues surrounding student activism.

A Leadership Crisis at Columbia University

Armstrong’s resignation follows the departure of Minouche Shafik, who faced widespread criticism for her handling of campus protests against the war in Gaza. Under Shafik’s leadership, Columbia became a focal point of national debates about free speech, activism, and the role of universities in responding to global conflicts. Shafik ultimately resigned after facing intense scrutiny for her handling of the protests and the occupation of an academic building by students, an incident that ended with NYPD officers forcibly removing the students.

In Armstrong’s case, her tenure was similarly marred by controversies surrounding the university’s response to the growing political activism on campus. The university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests, particularly those related to the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, led to calls for stronger action from political figures, especially within the Republican Party. Armstrong’s decision to oversee negotiations with the Trump administration over the university’s federal funding placed her at the center of a storm of political and social unrest, further intensifying the pressure on her leadership.

Columbia's Future Amidst Political Turmoil

The resignation of Armstrong is a significant moment for Columbia, as the institution grapples with the broader implications of political activism within academia and the increasing role of government in shaping university policies. As the university enters another phase of leadership instability, the question remains: how will the next president balance the competing demands of activism, free speech, and political pressures from outside forces?

Columbia’s decision to adopt a policy of institutional neutrality and increase security measures reflects the complex and polarized environment that universities are navigating in today’s political climate. The growing influence of political figures like Trump and the scrutiny placed on universities over their responses to student protests signal a new era for higher education, one where the lines between campus activism and political power are increasingly blurred.

As the search for a permanent president continues, Columbia University will need to chart a course that both addresses the concerns of its diverse student body and faculty while navigating the external pressures that have shaped the university’s recent trajectory. The role of universities in fostering open dialogue, supporting activism, and protecting the rights of students will likely continue to be a central issue in higher education for years to come.

Conclusion

The resignation of Katrina Armstrong adds to a growing list of university presidents who have faced intense political pressure and scrutiny over campus activism, particularly surrounding Middle Eastern and global conflicts. Columbia’s next steps will be crucial not only for the future of the institution but also as a bellwether for how universities across the country navigate the increasingly complex landscape of political activism, academic freedom, and government intervention. The institution’s response to these challenges will undoubtedly have long-term implications for the role of higher education in a polarized society.

Yale Professor Jason Stanley Leaves for Canada in Protest of U.S. Political Climate

Yale University philosophy professor Jason Stanley, a leading academic in social and political philosophy, has made the bold decision to leave his esteemed position at the Ivy League institution and relocate to Toronto, Canada. His move comes amidst growing concerns about the state of higher education in the U.S. under the Trump administration, a time marked by increased political tension and the administration’s aggressive stance against academic institutions.

In a mid-interview conversation with CNN while walking across the Yale campus, Stanley addressed a group of concerned students who had gathered around him. When asked if he was really leaving, Stanley reassured them, saying, “I love Yale. But Marci, Tim, and I, we’re gonna go defend democracy somewhere else.”

Stanley, who has taught at Yale for 12 years, was clearly frustrated with the direction the United States is heading under the current administration. Known for his scholarly work, including his books How Fascism Works: The Politics of Us and Them and Erasing History: How Fascists Rewrite the Past to Control the Future, Stanley has built a career focusing on the dangers of fascism, epistemology, and social philosophy. His decision to leave the U.S. reflects the increasing anxiety within the academic community regarding the restrictions placed on freedom of expression, especially for those not holding U.S. citizenship.

“Suddenly if you’re not a citizen of the United States, you can’t comment on politics if you’re a professor? That’s crazy,” Stanley told CNN. “That’s not a free society.”

Stanley’s departure has struck a nerve within the academic world, especially after recent events that have heightened concerns about the Trump administration’s policies toward higher education. His decision follows the controversial stance taken by Columbia University, which found itself in the midst of a funding crisis after President Trump threatened to withdraw federal support over allegations that the institution failed to adequately address antisemitic behavior on campus during the Israel-Hamas conflict.

The ongoing threats from the Trump administration against university funding and academic freedom, such as the executive order targeting antisemitism and the recent suspension of federal funds at multiple universities, have exacerbated tensions. Columbia responded by implementing policy changes, including restrictions on face coverings during protests and reviewing its curriculum in response to the administration’s demands.

The situation has also raised alarm about the broader implications for academic institutions. Yale’s academic freedom has not yet been directly challenged by the Trump administration, but the unfolding struggles at other prestigious universities have highlighted the precariousness of academia in the current political climate. The potential for funding cuts and the fear of administrative capitulation are pressing issues for educators, particularly in the humanities and social sciences.

Alongside Stanley, Yale history professors Marci Shore and Timothy Snyder are also moving to the University of Toronto. Both Shore, a specialist in modern European intellectual history, and Snyder, an expert in history and global affairs, have voiced similar concerns about the erosion of academic independence under the current U.S. administration. Snyder remarked that their decision was solidified after the 2024 presidential election, citing a growing fear that university administrations would increasingly bow to political pressure in order to secure federal funding.

“It’s not that I think everyone has put their head down and gotten in line,” Shore explained. “But I think a lot of people have, and I fear that university administrations will, because institutions naturally have an incentive to act in the interest of self-preservation.”

Keith Whittington, a Yale professor and cofounder of the Academic Freedom Alliance, expressed concern over the broader ramifications of these departures. “If you lose your best people who decide to go to other countries, that’s going to have long-term consequences,” Whittington warned, emphasizing the risks to U.S. leadership in scientific research and higher education.

Despite the challenges, Stanley remains resolute in his decision, insisting that it is not a matter of fear but of standing up for democratic values. “I’ll be in a much better position to fight bullies,” Stanley said, signaling his commitment to advocating for democracy and academic freedom from abroad.

In response to Stanley’s departure, Yale University issued a statement acknowledging that while the institution respects the decisions of its faculty members, it remains committed to supporting its academic community. “Yale is proud of its global faculty community,” the university said, “which includes faculty who may no longer work at the institution, or whose contributions to academia may continue at a different home institution.”

For Stanley and his colleagues, the move to Toronto represents not just a change of location, but a deep commitment to continuing the fight for democracy and academic freedom outside the increasingly polarized and politically charged atmosphere of the United States.

U.S. Government Targets Student Activism: Over 300 Visas Revoked Amid Escalating Deportations

In a controversial move, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio announced on Thursday that the State Department had revoked the visas of more than 300 students, a number that is expected to rise. This action is part of the White House’s growing crackdown on foreign-born students, many of whom have been involved in political activism, particularly related to pro-Palestinian protests that have been sweeping college campuses.

Rubio made it clear that the government’s focus is on what he referred to as “these lunatics” – individuals who, according to him, are using their student visas not for education but for activism. His statements, made during a visit to Guyana, came amid reports of increasing detentions and deportations of students from countries like Iran, Turkey, and Palestine.

"It might be more than 300 at this point. We do it every day. Every time I find one of these lunatics, I take away their visas," Rubio said, underscoring the administration’s intent to target those engaging in political activism. Some of these arrests have taken place in dramatic fashion, with students detained by masked immigration agents and sent to detention centers, often far from their homes, with limited explanation.

Among the high-profile cases is that of Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish national studying in the U.S. on a student visa. Ozturk was arrested earlier this week in Somerville, Massachusetts, and is currently being held in a Louisiana detention facility. Her arrest follows her involvement in a Tufts University student newspaper article that called on the institution to divest from companies with ties to Israel and to acknowledge what she referred to as the Palestinian genocide. Importantly, Ozturk’s essay did not mention Hamas, yet her arrest has raised concerns over the broader political targeting of students engaged in activism.

Many of the students caught up in this crackdown are believed to have been involved in the pro-Palestinian protests that gained momentum on campuses last year. While the administration has not provided specific reasons for targeting these students, far-right pro-Israel groups have compiled lists of individuals they accuse of promoting anti-U.S. or anti-Israel sentiments. These lists have reportedly been shared with U.S. immigration authorities, further intensifying the political climate surrounding these detentions.

The move is part of a larger agenda by the Trump administration to clamp down on the activities of legal permanent residents and student visa holders. Immigration experts warn that such actions undermine the fundamental American right to free speech and assembly, particularly in academic settings.

Ben Wizner, director of the ACLU's Speech, Privacy, and Technology Project, described the current situation as "uniquely disturbing," stating that it sends a message to the brightest minds around the world who traditionally chose to study in the U.S. for its openness and intellectual freedom. The message, he argues, is now one of rejection.

The administration's actions are said to be guided by an immigration provision dating back to the Cold War, which allows the revocation of visas if a student's activities are seen as posing "potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences." Some of the students targeted, including Ozturk, have had their visas revoked under this justification, despite no clear evidence of criminal activity.

Other notable individuals caught in the crosshairs include Alireza Doroudi, a doctoral student from Iran at the University of Alabama, and Badar Khan Suri, an Indian graduate student at Georgetown University. Both have been detained without clear charges, sparking concerns over whether their arrests are retaliatory measures for their political views. Suri, for instance, was allegedly detained for spreading Hamas propaganda, although he has denied such claims.

This wave of detentions and visa revocations also extends to other students like Yunseo Chung, a 21-year-old Columbia University student who participated in protests. Despite being a legal permanent resident, Chung now faces deportation. Similarly, Leqaa Kordia, a Palestinian student at Columbia, was detained by ICE after allegedly overstaying her student visa.

The increasing number of student arrests and deportations is drawing the attention of human rights advocates, who argue that these actions are a direct attack on free speech. Samah Sisay, one of the attorneys representing detained students, expressed concern that the government's actions are not only targeting specific political views but are also intended to intimidate future student activists.

This crackdown is also raising questions about the role of U.S. universities in protecting their students. In one high-profile case, Columbia University agreed to implement significant changes after President Trump threatened to withdraw $400 million in federal research funding over accusations that the university was not doing enough to address harassment of Jewish students.

As these events unfold, the future of student activism in the U.S. appears increasingly uncertain. If these trends continue, more students may face the loss of their visas, deportation, or even criminal charges related to their political beliefs and actions on campus. The implications for free speech, academic freedom, and international student exchange are profound, and advocates are calling for a reassessment of policies that allow such widespread and seemingly arbitrary actions against students.

In the face of this growing repression, one thing is clear: the United States is now sending a strong message to the world about what it will and will not tolerate in its universities. Whether that message will stifle the tradition of academic activism remains to be seen.

FACULTY UNIONS SUE TRUMP ADMIN: NO HALTING SCIENCE RESEARCH TO SUPPRESS SPEECH (American Federation of Teachers)

The faculty and national labor unions allege that the Trump administration improperly canceled Columbia University’s federal funding to compel speech restrictions on campus, damaging both vital scientific research and academic discourse

NEW YORK– The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) and the AFT today sued the Trump administration on behalf of their members for unlawfully cutting off $400 million in federal funding for crucial public health research to force Columbia University to surrender its academic independence. While the Trump administration has been slashing funding since its first days in office, this move represents a stunning new tactic: using cuts as a cudgel to coerce a private institution to adopt restrictive speech codes and allow government control over teaching and learning.

The plaintiffs, who represent members of Columbia University faculty in both the humanities and sciences, allege that this coercive tactic not only undermines academic independence, but stops vital scientific research that contributes to the health and prosperity of all Americans. The terminated grants supported research on urgent issues, including Alzheimer’s disease prevention, fetal health in pregnant women, and cancer research.

The Trump administration’s unprecedented demands, and threats of similar actions against 60 universities, have created instability and a deep chilling effect on college campuses across the country.  Although the administration claims to be acting to combat antisemitism under its authority to prevent discrimination, it has completely disregarded the requirements of Title VI, the statute that provides it with that authority–requirements that exist to prevent the government from exercising too much unfettered control over funding recipients. According to the complaint, the cancellation of federal funds also violates the First Amendment, the separation of powers, and other constitutional provisions.

“The Trump administration’s threats and coercion at Columbia are part of a clear authoritarian playbook meant to crush academic freedom and critical research in American higher education. Faculty, students, and the American public will not stand for it. The repercussions extend far beyond the walls of the academy. Our constitutional rights, and the opportunity for our children and grandchildren to live in a democracy are on the line,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the AAUP.

“President Trump has taken a hatchet to American ingenuity, imagination and invention at Columbia to attack academic freedom and force compliance with his political views,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten. “Let’s be clear: the administration should tackle legitimate issues of discrimination. But this modern-day McCarthyism is not just an illegal attack on our nation’s deeply held free speech and due process rights, it creates a chilling effect that hinders the pursuit of knowledge—the core purpose of our colleges and universities. Today, we reject this bullying and resolve to challenge the administration’s edicts until they are rescinded.”

“We’re seeing university leadership across the country failing to take any action to counter the Trump administration’s unlawful assault on academic freedom,” said Reinhold Martin, president of Columbia-AAUP and professor of architecture. “As faculty, we don’t have the luxury of inaction. The integrity of civic discourse and the freedoms that form the basis of a democratic society are under attack. We have to stand up.”

The complaint alleges that the Trump administration’s broad punitive tactics are indicative of an attempt to consolidate power over higher education broadly. According to the complaint, the administration is simultaneously threatening other universities with similar punishment in order to chill dissent on specific topics and speech with which the administration disagrees. Trump administration officials have spoken publicly about their plans to “bankrupt these universities” if they don’t “play ball.”

Universities have historically been engines of innovation in critical fields like technology, national security, and medical treatments. Cuts to that research will ultimately harm the health, prosperity and security of all Americans.

“Columbia is the testing ground for the Trump administration’s tactic to force universities to yield to its control,” said Orion Danjuma, counsel at Protect Democracy. “We are bringing this lawsuit to protect higher education from unlawful government censorship and political repression.”

The lawsuit was filed in the Southern District of New York and names as defendants the government agencies that cut Columbia’s funding on March 7 and signed the March 13 letter to Columbia laying out the government's demands required to restore the funding, including the Department of Justice, Department of Education, Health and Human Services and General Services Administration. The plaintiffs are represented by Protect Democracy and Altshuler Berzon LLP.

The full complaint can be read here.

Donald Trump's 9-Year War Against US Education

Since his emergence on the national political stage, Donald Trump has been a polarizing figure, bringing his brand of combative rhetoric and controversial policies to every corner of American society. One of the key arenas where his influence has been felt the most is in the realm of education. From 2016 to 2025, Trump’s war on education has manifested through a series of legislative actions, executive orders, and cultural provocations that aimed to reshape the American education system. These efforts have targeted everything from public schools to higher education institutions, and even the very curriculum taught to students.

The Deconstruction of Public Education

At the heart of Trump’s vision for education was the dismantling of traditional public schooling. During his first term as president, Trump and his allies sought to undermine the very foundation of public education by promoting privatization and school choice initiatives. His administration pushed for expanded funding for charter schools and private school vouchers, which would allow families to use public funds to pay for private education.

This movement gained momentum in 2017 when Betsy DeVos, a staunch advocate for school privatization, was appointed as Secretary of Education. Under her leadership, the Department of Education rolled back Obama-era regulations designed to protect students and promote equitable access to education. Critics argued that DeVos’s policies favored wealthy families and private institutions while leaving public schools underfunded and underserved, particularly in marginalized communities.

The Attack on College Campuses

Trump’s war on education wasn’t confined to K-12 schooling. Higher education was also a major battleground during his presidency and beyond. In his first few years in office, Trump took aim at what he saw as the liberal indoctrination of students on college campuses. His rhetoric about “political correctness” and “safe spaces” served as a rallying cry for conservative students and faculty, but also sparked fierce resistance from progressives and academics who felt that free speech and intellectual diversity were under threat.

Trump’s administration took several steps to curb what he described as “left-wing bias” in higher education. In 2019, he signed an executive order that threatened to withhold federal funding from universities that did not protect free speech, a move that critics viewed as a political stunt to rally his base. The Trump administration also rolled back protections for marginalized groups, including Title IX protections for transgender students, and shifted the Department of Education’s focus away from investigating discrimination and harassment cases in favor of addressing “free speech” concerns.

Curricular Controversies and Cultural Wars

The Trump era also saw an escalation of the culture wars, particularly with regard to the curriculum being taught in schools. Trump and his allies began to target lessons related to race, gender, and American history, framing them as divisive or unpatriotic. In 2020, following the Black Lives Matter protests, Trump launched the 1776 Commission, a response to what he viewed as a growing movement to “rewrite” American history. The commission’s purpose was to promote a more “patriotic” curriculum that would emphasize the positive aspects of American history, while downplaying the country’s legacy of slavery and racial inequality.

In the following years, many states, particularly those led by Republican governors, passed laws banning the teaching of critical race theory (CRT) in public schools. These laws prohibited the teaching of concepts that might make students “uncomfortable” about America’s history of racism, and further entrenched the ideological divide over how history and social issues should be taught in the classroom. Trump’s rhetoric and policies had a direct impact on how schools and teachers navigated the increasingly charged political atmosphere.

The COVID-19 Pandemic and Its Impact on Education

Perhaps the most dramatic intersection of Trump’s policies and education came during the COVID-19 pandemic. Trump consistently downplayed the severity of the virus and pushed for schools to reopen quickly, even as the pandemic raged across the nation. His administration provided little federal guidance or support for school districts struggling with the challenges of online learning and public health concerns. Trump’s insistence that schools should be open for in-person instruction became a point of contention, with many educators and parents concerned about the safety of students and staff.

While some states followed Trump’s call to reopen schools, others, especially in blue states, opted to remain virtual or implement hybrid models. This divide further exacerbated the political polarization over education, with Trump framing the debate as a fight between “freedom” and “control,” while critics argued that his policies endangered public health and undermined the long-term well-being of students.

Legacy of Division and Reshaping Education

As Trump’s presidency drew to a close, it became clear that his approach to education had left a lasting impact on the country. His administration’s policies had deepened the divisions between public and private schooling, amplified cultural and political debates about what students should learn, and exacerbated existing inequalities in the education system.

In 2024, as Trump continued to remain a significant force in American politics, the ideological battle over education remained unresolved. His push for school choice and privatization, along with his ongoing influence on local education policy, suggested that the “war on education” was far from over. States across the country continued to grapple with issues such as curriculum control, free speech on college campuses, and the role of government in funding education.

Dismantling the U.S. Department of Education

As Trump’s influence stretched into the second half of the decade, the war on education reached a dramatic new phase. In 2025, following his return to office, Trump signed an executive order that effectively began the process of dismantling the U.S. Department of Education. This move came as part of a larger effort to reduce the role of the federal government in everyday life, echoing Trump’s long-standing rhetoric of decentralization and states’ rights.

The department’s responsibilities were reassigned to various state agencies, with a strong emphasis on allowing individual states to shape their own educational policies without federal interference. This was seen by Trump as a victory for conservatives who had long criticized federal education policies for being too one-size-fits-all. Critics, however, argued that this dismantling of the department could lead to a patchwork of educational standards across the country, further entrenching inequalities in access to quality education.

Furthermore, the reduction in federal oversight had significant implications for funding, student protections, and the enforcement of civil rights in education. Many feared that without the Department of Education’s regulatory power, vulnerable students, including those from low-income backgrounds and marginalized communities, would suffer from a lack of protections and resources.

Cuts to Science and Research Funding

Trump’s policies also have had a significant impact on scientific research at major universities, with institutions like Johns Hopkins University and the University of Pennsylvania (Penn) facing severe cuts to critical research funding. Johns Hopkins University, one of the largest recipients of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants, announced plans to eliminate over 2,000 positions in response to federal cuts, potentially losing over $100 million in research funding. This reduction in federal support, especially for scientific research, had major consequences for ongoing studies, from medical advancements to climate change research, affecting the broader academic community.

Meanwhile, the University of Pennsylvania also experienced significant financial strain due to cuts in federal contracts, which impacted their research funding and innovation. The Trump administration's cuts to science funding across the board resulted in a stifling of some of the nation’s top research institutions, creating ripple effects throughout the entire academic and scientific community. The loss of funding for groundbreaking research projects at these prestigious institutions further strained the ability of scientists to pursue critical work in fields such as public health, climate change, and cancer research.

Victory Against Columbia University

One of the most high-profile actions taken in the final phase of Trump’s war on education was his administration's attack on elite institutions, particularly Columbia University. As one of the most prestigious Ivy League schools in the U.S., Columbia had become a target for Trump’s criticisms of what he perceived as liberal bias on college campuses.

In 2025, Trump and his allies escalated their campaign against universities, particularly those with strong liberal reputations. Columbia was singled out due to its left-leaning faculty and student body, as well as its vocal support for progressive policies related to climate change, racial justice, and gender equality. The Trump administration levied significant threats of withdrawing federal funding from the university unless it adhered to a more conservative curriculum. Additionally, Trump’s education policy advisers launched investigations into the institution’s handling of free speech issues, particularly in relation to controversial speakers and protests on campus.

By March 2025, Columbia faced a stark financial crisis after losing $400 million in federal funding for its failure to address antisemitism on campus. The administration warned 60 other institutions about similar consequences unless they ensured the safety of Jewish students. In its eventual capitulation to the Trump Administration, Columbia allowed student activist Mahmoud Khalil to be arrested and sent to a detention facility in Louisiana. The decision further fueled national debates about the balance between free speech and university autonomy.

Education as the Frontline in America’s Cultural Battle

Looking back at Trump’s influence on education between 2016 and 2025, it’s clear that the battle over how America educates its children and young adults became a focal point for larger cultural, political, and ideological conflicts. Trump’s legacy in education is defined by attempts to reshape the system in his image—whether through pushing for privatization, engaging in culture wars over curriculum, or sowing division over the future of public education. The ultimate impact of his policies will continue to reverberate for years to come, shaping not just the educational landscape, but the future of American society itself.

Watch DOGE layoffs in real-time with Layoffs.fyi

Layoffs.fyi is keeping track of US federal government layoffs. The website was originally created to track tech layoffs and has been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg, and NY Times. 

US Department of Education accuses 60 universities of antisemitism. Here's the list of those publicly threatened.

U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights Sends Letters to 60 Universities Under Investigation for Antisemitic Discrimination and Harassment

Letters warn of potential enforcement actions if institutions do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus.

March 10, 2025 

WASHINGTON – Today, the U.S. Department of Education’s Office for Civil Rights (OCR) sent letters to 60 institutions of higher education warning them of potential enforcement actions if they do not fulfill their obligations under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act to protect Jewish students on campus, including uninterrupted access to campus facilities and educational opportunities. The letters are addressed to all U.S. universities that are presently under investigation for Title VI violations relating to antisemitic harassment and discrimination. 

“The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year. University leaders must do better,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon. “U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws.”  

The schools that received letters from the Office for Civil Rights include:  

1. American University 
2. Arizona State University 
3. Boston University 
4. Brown University 
5. California State University, Sacramento 
6. Chapman University 
7. Columbia University 
8. Cornell University 
9. Drexel University 
10. Eastern Washington University 
11. Emerson College 
12. George Mason University 
13. Harvard University 
14. Illinois Wesleyan University 
15. Indiana University, Bloomington 
16. Johns Hopkins University 
17. Lafayette College 
18. Lehigh University 
19. Middlebury College 
20. Muhlenberg College 
21. Northwestern University 
22. Ohio State University 
23. Pacific Lutheran University     
24. Pomona College 
25. Portland State University 
26. Princeton University 
27. Rutgers University 
28. Rutgers University-Newark
29. Santa Monica College 
30. Sarah Lawrence College 
31. Stanford University 
32. State University of New York Binghamton 
33. State University of New York Rockland 
34. State University of New York, Purchase 
35. Swarthmore College 
36. Temple University 
37. The New School 
38. Tufts University 
39. Tulane University 
40. Union College 
41. University of California Davis 
42. University of California San Diego 
43. University of California Santa Barbara 
44. University of California, Berkeley
45. University of Cincinnati 
46. University of Hawaii at Manoa 
47. University of Massachusetts Amherst 
48. University of Michigan 
49. University of Minnesota, Twin Cities 
50. University of North Carolina 
51. University of South Florida 
52. University of Southern California 
53. University of Tampa 
54. University of Tennessee 
55. University of Virginia 
56. University of Washington-Seattle 
57. University of Wisconsin, Madison 
58. Wellesley College 
59. Whitman College 
60. Yale University 

Background: 

The Department’s OCR sent these letters under its authority to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (1964), which prohibits any institution that receives federal funds from discriminating on the basis of race, color, and national origin. National origin includes shared (Jewish) ancestry. 

Pursuant to Title VI and in furtherance of President Trump’s Executive Order “Additional Measures to Combat Antisemitism,” the Department launched directed investigations into five universities where widespread antisemitic harassment has been reported. The 55 additional universities are under investigation or monitoring in response to complaints filed with OCR. Last week, the Department, alongside fellow members of the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism including the Department of Justice, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the U.S. General Services Administration, announced the immediate cancelation of $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University due to the school’s continued inaction to protect Jewish students from discrimination. Last Friday, OCR directed its enforcement staff to make resolving the backlog of complaints alleging antisemitic violence and harassment, many which were allowed to languish unresolved under the previous administration, an immediate priority.

Contact

Press Office

press@ed.gov

(202) 401-1576

Office of Communications and Outreach (OCO)

Rep. Al Green (D-TX) Speaks After Being Censured (C-Span)

Trump Invites Wealthy Foreigners to Become US Citizens

In his State of the Union message last night, President Trump reaffirmed his interest in encouraging rich people from around the world to become US citizens.  The price of US Gold Cards, and a path to citizenship, will be $5M per person. Trump added that these Gold Card members would not have to pay taxes to their native countries.  

Trump and DOGE Decimate Department of Education Office of Inspector General

According to our sources at the US Department of Education, the number of personnel in its Office of Inspector General (OIG) is down approximately 14 percent from January 1, 2025.  The number of workers there could be further reduced as President Trump issues his austerity budget. The current loses at ED-OIG include retirements, those who have chosen to be part of the deferred resignation program, and those who left the organization for positions elsewhere. While this cutting may reduce personnel costs, what will happen with less OIG workers to oversee the proper use of federal funds?  Will this embolden bad actors, including predatory schools and debt servicers?  We're guessing it does.      

The Future of Federal Student Loans

The U.S. student loan system, now exceeding $1.7 trillion in debt and affecting over 40 million borrowers, is facing significant challenges. As political pressures rise, the management of student loans could be significantly altered. A combination of potential privatization, the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education (ED), and a new role for the Department of the Treasury raises critical questions about the future of the system.

U.S. Department of Education: Strained Resources and Outsourcing

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is responsible for managing federal student loan servicing, loan forgiveness programs, and borrower defense to repayment (BDR) claims. However, ED has faced ongoing issues with understaffing and inefficiency, particularly as many functions have been outsourced to contractors. Companies like Maximus (including subsidiaries like AidVantage) manage much of the administrative burden for loan servicing. This has raised concerns about accountability and the impact on borrowers, especially those seeking loan relief.

In recent years, ED has also experienced staff reductions and funding cuts, making it difficult to process claims or maintain high-quality service. The potential for further cuts or even the elimination of the department could exacerbate these problems. If ED’s role is diminished, other entities, such as the Department of the Treasury, could assume responsibility for managing the student loan portfolio, though this would present its own set of challenges.

Potential for Privatization of the Student Loan Portfolio

One of the most discussed options for addressing the student loan crisis is the privatization of the federal student loan portfolio. Under previous administration discussions, including those during President Trump’s tenure, there were talks about selling off parts of the student loan portfolio to private companies. This would be done with the aim of reducing the federal deficit.

In 2019, McKinsey & Company was hired by the Trump administration to analyze the value of the student loan portfolio, considering factors such as default rates and economic conditions. While the report's findings were never made public, the idea of transferring the loans to private companies—such as banks or investment firms—remains a possibility.

The consequences of privatizing federal student loans could be significant. Private companies would likely focus on profitability, which could result in stricter repayment terms or less flexibility for borrowers seeking loan forgiveness or other relief options. This shift may reduce borrower protections, making it harder for students to challenge repayment terms or pursue loan discharges.

The Department of the Treasury and its Potential Role

If the U.S. Department of Education is restructured or eliminated, there is a possibility that the Department of the Treasury could step in to manage some aspects of the student loan portfolio. The Treasury is responsible for the country’s financial systems and debt management, so it could, in theory, handle the federal student loan portfolio from a financial oversight perspective.

However, while the Treasury has experience in financial management, it lacks the specialized knowledge of student loans and borrower protections that the Department of Education currently provides. For example, the Treasury would need to find ways to process complex Borrower Defense to Repayment claims, a responsibility ED currently manages. In 2023, over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were pending, with thousands of claims related to predatory practices at for-profit colleges such as University of Phoenix, ITT Tech, and Kaplan University (now known as Purdue Global). Additionally, some of these for-profit schools were able to reorganize and continue operating under different names, further complicating the situation.

The Treasury could also contract out loan servicing, but this could increase reliance on profit-driven companies, possibly compromising the interests of borrowers in favor of financial performance.

Borrower Defense Claims and the Impact of For-Profit Schools

A large portion of the Borrower Defense to Repayment claims comes from students who attended for-profit colleges with a history of deceptive practices. These institutions, often referred to as subprime colleges, misled students about job prospects, program outcomes, and accreditation, leaving many with significant student debt but poor employment outcomes.

Data from 2023 revealed that over 750,000 Borrower Defense claims were filed with the Department of Education, many of them against for-profit institutions. The Sweet v. Cardona case showed that more than 200,000 borrowers were expected to receive debt relief after years of waiting. However, the process was slow, with an estimated 16,000 new claims being filed each month, and only 35 ED workers handling these claims. These delays, combined with the uncertainty around the future of ED, leave borrowers vulnerable to prolonged financial hardship. 

Lack of Transparency and Accountability in the System

While the U.S. Department of Education tracks Borrower Defense claims, it does not publish institutional-level data, making it difficult to identify which schools are responsible for the most fraudulent activity. 

In response to this, FOIA requests have been filed by organizations like the National Student Legal Defense Network and the Higher Education Inquirer to obtain detailed information about which institutions are disproportionately affecting borrowers. 

In one such request, the Higher Education Inquirer asked for information regarding claims filed against the University of Phoenix, a school with a significant number of Borrower Defense claims.

The lack of transparency in the system makes it harder for borrowers to make informed decisions about which institutions to attend and limits accountability for schools that have harmed students. If the Treasury or private companies take over management of the loan portfolio, these transparency issues could worsen, as private entities are less likely to prioritize public accountability.

Conclusion

The future of the U.S. student loan system is uncertain, particularly as the Department of Education faces the potential of funding cuts, staff reductions, or even complete dissolution. If ED’s role diminishes or disappears, the Department of the Treasury could take over some functions, but this would raise questions about the fairness and transparency of the system.

The possibility of privatizing the student loan portfolio also looms large, which could shift the focus away from borrower protections and toward financial gain for private companies. For-profit schools, many of which have a history of predatory practices, are responsible for a disproportionate number of Borrower Defense claims, and any move to privatize the loan portfolio could exacerbate the challenges faced by borrowers seeking relief from these institutions.

Ultimately, there is a need for greater transparency and accountability in how the student loan system operates. Whether managed by the Department of Education, the Treasury, or private companies, protecting borrowers and ensuring fairness should remain central to any future reforms. If these issues are not addressed, millions of borrowers will continue to face significant financial hardship.