The Latest: Harvard heads to court in $2.6B lawsuit against Trump administration
If U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs decides in the university's favor, the ruling would reverse a series of funding freezes that later became outright cuts as the administration escalated its fight with the nation's oldest and wealthiest university. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard's sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects.
Harvard's lawsuit accuses the administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal antisemitism task force.
Here's the latest:
Harvard has moved to self-fund some of its research
However, even with the nation's largest endowment at $53 billion, the university has warned it can't absorb the full cost of the federal cuts.
Federal agencies say grants can be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies
In court filings, Harvard has said the government 'fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism.'
The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.
Hearing begins in Harvard's lawsuit over funding cuts
A lawyer for Harvard opened the hearing by saying the Trump administration violated the university's First Amendment rights by cutting more than $2.6 billion in federal funding.
Steven Lehotsky said the government conditioned research grants on Harvard, 'ceding control' to the government over what is appropriate for students and faculty to say.
US envoy doubles down on support for Syria's government and criticizes Israel's intervention
A U.S. envoy doubled down on Washington's support for Syria's new government, saying Monday there is 'no Plan B' to working with it to unite the country still reeling from years of civil war and wracked by new sectarian violence.
In an exclusive interview with The Associated Press, Tom Barrack also criticized Israel's recent intervention in Syria, calling it poorly timed and saying it complicated efforts to stabilize the region.
Barrack is ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria, with a short-term mandate in Lebanon. He spoke in Beirut following more than a week of clashes in Syria's southern province of Sweida between militias of the Druze religious minority and Sunni Muslim Bedouin tribes.
Tom Barrack, who is ambassador to Turkey and special envoy to Syria and also has a short-term mandate in Lebanon, told The Associated Press that Israel's intervention in the latest round of conflict in Syria had further complicated matters. (AP Video shot by Fadi Tawil; Production by Abby Sewell)
Syrian government forces intervened, ostensibly to restore order, but ended up siding with the Bedouins before withdrawing under a ceasefire agreement with Druze factions. Hundreds have been killed in the fighting, and some government fighters allegedly shot dead Druze civilians and burned and looted homes.
Neighboring Israel intervened last week on behalf of the Druze, who are seen as a loyal minority within Israel and often serve in its military. Israel launched dozens of strikes on convoys of government forces in Sweida and struck the Ministry of Defense headquarters in central Damascus.
Over the weekend, Barrack announced a ceasefire between Syria and Israel. Syrian government forces have redeployed in Sweida to halt renewed clashes between the Druze and Bedouins, and civilians from both sides were set to be evacuated Monday.
Trump threatens to hold up stadium deal if Washington Commanders don't switch back to Redskins
Trump is threatening to hold up a new stadium deal for Washington's NFL team if it does not restore its old name of the Redskins, which was considered offensive to Native Americans.
Trump also said Sunday that he wants Cleveland's baseball team to revert to its former name, the Indians, saying there was a 'big clamoring for this' as well.
The Washington Commanders and Cleveland Guardians have had their current names since the 2022 seasons, and both have said they have no plans to change them back. Trump said the Washington football team would be 'much more valuable' if it restored its old name. His latest interest in changing the name reflects his broader effort to roll back changes that followed a national debate on cultural sensitivity and racial justice.
The Commanders and the District of Columbia government announced a deal earlier this year to build a new home for the football team at the site of the old RFK Stadium, the place the franchise called home for more than three decades.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
29 minutes ago
- CTV News
Could Trump legally fire U.S. Federal Reserve chief Powell?
U.S. President Donald Trump shakes hands with Federal Reserve board member Jerome Powell in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, on Nov. 2, 2017. (Alex Brandon / AP) U.S. President Donald Trump has repeatedly mused about firing U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell and, ahead of a visit to the U.S. central bank's headquarters on Thursday, called him a 'numbskull' for not cutting U.S. interest rates. If Trump fires Powell, he will be wading into uncharted legal territory by testing the Fed's historical independence. Can Fed board members be fired? The Federal Reserve Act of 1913, which created the central bank, says that members of Board of Governors, including the Fed chief, can be 'removed for cause by the president.' But the law does not define 'cause' or lay out any standard or procedures for removal. No president has ever removed a Fed board member, and the law has never been tested in court. So 'cause' could mean anything? Several federal laws shielding members of other agencies from being removed by the president without cause say that 'cause' can include neglect of duty, malfeasance, and inefficiency. If Powell is fired and sues, those laws could be a guide for courts to determine if Trump had cause to remove him. In enacting those protections, Congress meant to distance the agencies from the White House. They also are intended to insulate their members from politics when they issue rulings in individual cases and craft policies with far-reaching impacts, such as the monetary policy set by the Fed. And if Trump lacks cause, Powell wins? Maybe not. In several cases challenging Trump's firing of agency officials, his administration has argued that giving them any protections from removal violates his broad constitutional powers to control the executive branch. The administration could similarly claim that requiring cause to remove a Fed board member is unconstitutional, allowing Trump to fire Powell for any reason or none at all. And if Powell sued and won, the Trump administration could argue that courts lack the power to reinstate him. Government lawyers have said in some pending cases that fired officials would at most be entitled to back pay and a declaration from the court that their removal was unlawful. What has happened in recent cases? Several federal judges have ruled that Trump's firings of members of independent agencies were illegal and ordered officials to be reinstated. Appeals courts or the U.S. Supreme Court have paused those rulings pending appeals, including one involving a consumer product safety board that the Supreme Court paused on Wednesday. A Washington, D.C.-based appeals court is expected to rule soon on whether Trump had the power to remove Democratic members from two labor boards, likely teeing up a Supreme Court review. The fired officials in some of those cases have said that allowing them to be removed would open the door to Trump having virtually unfettered power over the entire executive branch and would threaten the Fed's independence. Has the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on these issues? In a 1935 ruling involving the Federal Trade Commission, the Supreme Court said the president cannot fire top officials at multi-member agencies that act like courts or legislative bodies without cause. But the court's conservative majority in recent years has viewed that ruling as an exception to the general rule that the president gets to choose who executes federal laws. The court, however, recently signaled that the Fed may fit into that narrow exception, and that the court's rulings involving other boards and commissions may not apply. In an unsigned order in May allowing Trump to remove members of the labor boards, the court said the Fed 'is a uniquely structured, quasi-private entity' with a singular historical tradition, distinguishing it from other agencies. (Reporting by Daniel Wiessner in Albany, New York; Editing by Alexia Garamfalvi and Paul Simao)
CTV News
29 minutes ago
- CTV News
Canada still working toward Aug. 1 trade deal deadline, LeBlanc says, as U.S. senator casts doubt
President of the King's Privy Council for Canada Dominic LeBlanc speaks at a press conference while Prime Minister Mark Carney listens, on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Thursday, June 19, 2025. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Patrick Doyle WASHINGTON — Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc said Thursday he's feeling "encouraged" after meeting with Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and American lawmakers in Washington, D.C., ahead of next week's tariff deadline. LeBlanc, however, indicated a new economic and security arrangement may not materialize by U.S. President Donald Trump's latest deadline. "Canadians expect us to take the time necessary to get the best deal we can in the interest of Canadian workers," LeBlanc said outside the Dirksen Senate Office Building. "So we are only going to be in a position to accept a deal when the prime minister decides that it is the best deal we can get in the interest of Canadian workers and the Canadian economy." U.S. President Donald Trump has sent letters to multiple nations, including Canada, saying that if no deal is made by Aug. 1, he will impose high tariffs on imports to the United States. Trump's letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney threatened Canada with 35 per cent tariffs but the White House has said the levies will not be applied to imports compliant with the Canada-U.S-Mexico Agreement on trade. Canada is also being hit with Trump's tariffs on steel, aluminum and automobiles, and will be impacted by copper duties that are also expected to kick in on Aug. 1. Only a handful of frameworks of trade deals have been announced since Trump first threatened his so-called "Liberation Day" tariffs in April. The president this week said his administration made deals with Japan and the Philippines, adding to previous agreements with Indonesia, Vietnam and the United Kingdom. Many details within the agreements remain vague but all include some level of a tariff, and it's unclear whether the deals would shield countries from Trump's plan to implement further sectoral duties on things like semiconductors and lumber. LeBlanc said "complex negotiations" are continuing between Canada and the United States and he will be returning to Washington next week. LeBlanc described his meeting with Lutnick as productive and cordial. The minister, who was joined by Canadian Ambassador to the U.S. Kirsten Hillman, also had meetings with Republican senators Kevin Cramer, Roger Marshall, Shelley Moore Capito, Todd Young and Tim Scott. LeBlanc said they discussed border security and defence issues and the American lawmakers shared a "desire to see more stability and predictability in the relationship with the United States." "My conversations have focused on how we share so many priorities of President Trump's administration that we should be able to figure out together a deal that's in the best interest of Canadian workers, and obviously they are going to do their side of the table in terms of the American economy and American workers," LeBlanc said. Federal officials have remained tightlipped about what Trump's team has said it wants from Canada. After this week's trade deals were announced, Trump boasted on social media, saying he will only consider lowering tariff rates if countries open their markets to the United States. The president also said Japan would invest $550 billion in the U.S. 'at my direction." When Trump first browbeat Canada over tariffs, saying it was linked to the flow of deadly fentanyl, Ottawa responded with a boosted border plan and named a "Fentanyl Czar." Last month, Ottawa walked back its digital services tax after Trump threatened to halt all trade talks. Carney last week announced measures to stop Chinese steel dumping in Canada. Hillman said those efforts help Canada in its ongoing negotiations. "In our discussion with the American senators this week, the American administration, the measures that Canada has taken on steel in particular... are some of the strongest in the world," she said. "And that has been recognized and very much appreciated. So we are making some positive progress." Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski joined a bipartisan group of American lawmakers in Ottawa last week. The Republican said on Thursday that "we would all like to get to a better place with our trade relationship with Canada" but remained skeptical it would happen ahead of Aug. 1. Canada cannot be treated "as yet one more country that we need to reconcile tariffs on" because of shared economic and national security issues, she said. "I wish that I could say, 'It feels good,' that this is all going to be taken care of before the first of August, but I'm not sensing that," she said. This report by The Canadian Press was first published July 24, 2025. Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press
Winnipeg Free Press
29 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Trump's order to block ‘woke' AI in government encourages tech giants to censor their chatbots
Tech companies looking to sell their artificial intelligence technology to the federal government must now contend with a new regulatory hurdle: prove their chatbots aren't 'woke.' President Donald Trump's sweeping new plan to counter China in achieving 'global dominance' in AI promises to cut regulations and cement American values into the AI tools increasingly used at work and home. But one of Trump's three AI executive orders signed Wednesday — the one 'preventing woke AI in the federal government' — also mimics China's state-driven approach to mold the behavior of AI systems to fit its ruling party's core values. Several leading providers of the AI language models targeted by the order — products like Google's Gemini, Microsoft's Copilot — have so far been silent on Trump's anti-woke directive, which still faces a study period before it gets into official procurement rules. While the tech industry has largely welcomed Trump's broader AI plans, the anti-woke order forces the industry to leap into a culture war battle — or try their best to quietly avoid it. 'It will have massive influence in the industry right now,' especially as tech companies 'are already capitulating' to other Trump administration directives, said civil rights advocate Alejandra Montoya-Boyer, senior director of The Leadership Conference's Center for Civil Rights and Technology. The move also pushes the tech industry to abandon years of work to combat the pervasive forms of racial and gender bias that studies and real-world examples have shown to be baked into AI systems. 'First off, there's no such thing as woke AI,' she said. 'There's AI technology that discriminates and then there's AI technology that actually works for all people.' Molding the behaviors of AI large language models is challenging because of the way they're built. They've been trained on most of what's on the internet, reflecting the biases of all the people who've posted commentary, edited a Wikipedia entry or shared images online. 'This will be extremely difficult for tech companies to comply with,' said former Biden official Jim Secreto, who was deputy chief of staff to U.S. Secretary of Commerce Gina Raimondo, an architect of many of Biden's AI industry initiatives. 'Large language models reflect the data they're trained on, including all the contradictions and biases in human language.' Tech workers also have a say in how they're designed, from the global workforce of annotators who check their responses to the Silicon Valley engineers who craft the instructions for how they interact with people. Trump's order targets those 'top-down' efforts at tech companies to incorporate what it calls the 'destructive' ideology of diversity, equity and inclusion into AI models, including 'concepts like critical race theory, transgenderism, unconscious bias, intersectionality, and systemic racism.' For Secreto, the order resembles China's playbook in 'using the power of the state to stamp out what it sees as disfavored viewpoints.' The method is different, with China relying on direct regulation through its Cyberspace Administration, which audits AI models, approves them before they are deployed and requires them to filter out banned content such as the bloody Tiananmen Square crackdown on pro-democracy protests in 1989. Trump's order doesn't call for any such filters, relying on tech companies to instead show that their technology is ideologically neutral by disclosing some of the internal policies that guide the chatbots. 'The Trump administration is taking a softer but still coercive route by using federal contracts as leverage,' Secreto said. 'That creates strong pressure for companies to self-censor in order to stay in the government's good graces and keep the money flowing.' The order's call for 'truth-seeking' AI echoes the language of the president's one-time ally and adviser Elon Musk, who frequently uses that phrase as the mission for the Grok chatbot made by his company xAI. But whether Grok or its rivals will be favored under the new policy remains to be seen. Despite a 'rhetorically pointed' introduction laying out the Trump administration's problems with DEI, the actual language of the order's directives shouldn't be hard for tech companies to comply with, said Neil Chilson, a Republican former chief technologist for the Federal Trade Commission. 'It doesn't even prohibit an ideological agenda,' just that any intentional methods to guide the model be disclosed, said Chilson, who is now head of AI policy at the nonprofit Abundance Institute. 'Which is pretty light touch, frankly.' Chilson disputes comparisons to China's cruder modes of AI censorship. 'There is nothing in this order that says that companies have to produce or cannot produce certain types of output,' he said. 'It says developers shall not intentionally encode partisan or ideological judgments. That's the exact opposite of the Chinese requirement.' So far, tech companies that have praised Trump's broader AI plans haven't said much about the order. OpenAI on Thursday said it is awaiting more detailed guidance but believes its work to make ChatGPT objective already makes the technology consistent with what the order requires. Microsoft, a major supplier of email, cloud computing and other online services to the federal government, declined to comment Thursday. Musk's xAI, through spokesperson Katie Miller, a former Trump official, pointed to a company comment praising Trump's AI announcements as a 'positive step' but didn't respond to a follow-up question about how Grok would be affected. Anthropic, Google, Meta, and Palantir didn't immediately respond to emailed requests for comment Thursday. AI tools are already widely used in the federal government, according to an inventory created at the end of Biden's term. In just one agency, U.S. Health and Human Services, the inventory found more than 270 use cases, including the use of commercial generative AI platforms such as ChatGPT and Google Gemini for internal agency support to summarize the key points of a lengthy report. The ideas behind the order have bubbled up for more than a year on the podcasts and social media feeds of Sacks and other influential Silicon Valley venture capitalists, many of whom endorsed Trump's presidential campaign last year. Much of their ire centered on Google's February 2024 release of an AI image-generating tool that produced historically inaccurate images before the tech giant took down and fixed the product. Google later explained that the errors — including one user's request for American Founding Fathers that generated portraits of Black, Asian and Native American men — was the result of an overcompensation for technology that, left to its own devices, was prone to favoring lighter-skinned people because of pervasive bias in the systems. Wednesdays What's next in arts, life and pop culture. Trump allies alleged that Google engineers were hard-coding their own social agenda into the product, and made it a priority to do something about it. 'It's 100% intentional,' said prominent venture capitalist and Trump adviser Marc Andreessen on a podcast in December. 'That's how you get Black George Washington at Google. There's override in the system that basically says, literally, 'Everybody has to be Black.' Boom. There's squads, large sets of people, at these companies who determine these policies and write them down and encode them into these systems.' Sacks credited a conservative strategist for helping to draft the order. 'When they asked me how to define 'woke,' I said there's only one person to call: Chris Rufo. And now it's law: the federal government will not be buying WokeAI,' Sacks wrote on X. Rufo responded that, in addition to helping define the phrase, he also helped 'identify DEI ideologies within the operating constitutions of these systems.'
