Columbia University's $220m Trump settlement exposes the Left's basic hypocrisy
Of the settlement, $200 million will go to the federal government and the remaining $20 million to settle employment discrimination claims. Separately, the university has suspended or expelled students who seized the university library in the name of anti-Zionism.
The headlines imply that Columbia's settlement is unique, but it may not remain that way for long. Harvard's former president, Larry Summers, a former Secretary of the Treasury, has said the deal should set a template for Harvard to settle its own deepening clash with the Trump administration. The issues at the two universities are similar.
Left-wing academics are already furious about the Columbia deal, saying it is pure extortion and an unprecedented intrusion into academic affairs. The 'extortion' charge focuses on the Trump administration's efforts to cut Columbia's huge flow of federal money for research and limit its permission for foreign students to enrol. The issues regarding foreign students involve virtually all universities, and are still being argued in federal court.
But the Left-wing attacks are largely wrong. They are right in saying that the Trump administration's initial demands went too far in seeking to supervise teaching, appointments, and scholarly work. Those would be wholly inappropriate intrusions into areas where university faculty and administrators should have sole control, as long as they comply with federal law. For any university to approve that kind of intrusion would stifle free speech and set a terrible precedent. Fortunately, those excesses are not part of the Columbia agreement.
Where the Leftist criticism is wrong is to call financial threats against universities 'unprecedented' and to say that the Trump administration is using the fight against anti-Semitism as a mask for other punitive policies.
For years, under Democratic administrations, the federal government has threatened severe financial sanctions against universities that did not comply with bureaucratic regulations. Those threats went unnoticed, beyond a narrow circle who were directly involved.
Why didn't you hear about those threats? For two reasons. First, universities caved in very quickly because they were desperate for federal money. Second, most university faculty and administrators actually agreed with the then-government's politicised, progressive agenda. The mainstream media agreed with it, too, so they rarely if ever reported on this bureaucratic overreach.
I saw this supine agreement first hand when federal bureaucrats audited the hiring practices of a major university. The university's DEI administrator told a small, supervisory committee of faculty that the university had completed a federal audit and was in full compliance with all laws and regulations. Then the administrator announced that the federal bureaucrats were demanding 'only a few changes' – demands that went beyond any legal requirements but advanced the bureaucrats' ideological goals.
Faced with those demands, every scientist involved in the decision-making favoured immediate compliance with the government's extra-legal demands. Why? Because their research depended on federal money and they couldn't risk a drawn-out conflict, which could hold up their funding.
The same hidden fist lay behind the government's effort to require the inclusion of biological men in women's collegiate sports. The threat is that the government will cut off money for other grants if you don't buckle to those demands. You never heard about those threats because universities assented to them so quickly.
As for anti-Semitism on campus, it is wilful blindness not to see its pervasive, malign force today. It has been particularly visible and pernicious at Ivy League universities, except for Dartmouth, and at flagship state research universities, except for those in the South.
As anti-Semitism has spread across university campuses, administrators and faculty have done little to stop it. Neither did the Biden administration.
Many university administrators effectively tolerated the harassment of Jewish students and did almost nothing to punish the malefactors, at least until this week at Columbia. In some cases, faculty – especially in the Humanities, some Social Sciences, and some graduate programmes (notably, schools of divinity and social work) – actively supported the disruptions. The rationale is that social justice demands anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionism quickly turns into full-scale anti-Semitism.
If the settlement at Columbia and that university's belated decision to punish students who took over the library sets a precedent for other universities, that's good news and a victory for the basic Western values of religious toleration and civil discourse.
The impact is likely to be felt well beyond Columbia University. Now that the Trump administration has scored a major win in this culture war, expect them to keep pressing other universities.
Two final points about the Trump administration's willingness to confront Columbia and Harvard. First, taking on elite institutions is smart politics for a president who is reshaping his party around populist goals.
Second, Trump is characteristically going head to head with the strongest adversaries he can find, not the weakest. He is not going after some small teaching college, which would undoubtedly cave quickly because it needs the money. He is going after Harvard, which has the deepest pockets of any university and a campus population that generally loathes him. Confronting them is a high risk strategy for Trump, but a high reward one, too. When the top Ivy League schools begin to settle with Trump, as Columbia just has, who else can resist?
That question must be echoing through the ivied halls in Cambridge, New Haven, and Princeton. The answer, they will conclude, is increasingly obvious. It's time to strike a deal.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
20 minutes ago
- Reuters
China's rebound has a distinct cool factor: Taosha Wang
HONG KONG, July 28 (Reuters) - The first seven months of 2025 have delivered a whirlwind of news on Chinese technology and business, oscillating between anxiety and euphoria, but what has cut through the noise has been the emergence of a "cool factor". In January, TikTok suspended its U.S. services for one day, when the outgoing administration shut down the app due to its ties to China, before the decision was swiftly reversed by the incoming Trump administration. Days later, Chinese artificial intelligence company DeepSeek shocked the world with its cost-effective, high-performance R-1 reasoning model, triggering an intense debate about who will lead the 'AI race'. And then in early May, U.S.-China tensions reached unprecedented heights, as tariffs jumped above 100%, effectively halting bilateral trade, before de-escalation. By summer, however, China was once again exporting critical rare earth to the U.S. and Nvidia had re-started the sales of its AI chips to China, suggesting a burgeoning trade detente between the world's two largest economies. Amid this volatility, China's capital markets have responded favorably. The MSCI China Index has surged around 25% year-to-date through July 25, outpacing the MSCI All-Country World index's 12% gain and the S&P 500 index's 9% rise. Notably, this strong performance has been driven not just by typical business-cycle fluctuations, but also an appeal rooted in innovation, collaboration and youth culture, suggesting China's next growth cycle could look very different from those in the past. China's evolution from low-cost imitator to global innovator is epitomized by its electric vehicle dominance. Chinese EV leader BYD, which began as a battery maker and currently has a market cap of $150 billion, was once dismissed by Elon Musk for its unattractive products and weak technology. However, a decade of development, supported by state-backed infrastructure including China's 10-million-strong charging network, has propelled BYD past Musk's Tesla in global sales. In 2024, one of every five EVs sold globally was from BYD, whose market share is now double that of Tesla's. Moreover, BYD's vehicles, like many other Chinese EVs, now boast the type of sleek designs and novel amenities associated with its U.S. rival. Beyond product innovations, some Chinese companies are also experimenting with new business models and sales strategies. For example, livestream social shopping, which was pioneered by Alibaba, has been adopted by Amazon, Instagram, YouTube and even Walmart (in collaboration with TikTok) in the U.S. to target Gen-Z and millennial shoppers. New players like Chinese toymaker Pop Mart are also experimenting with fresh business models. Its designer toys are sold in mystery boxes, where sealed packages conceal randomized plush "Labubu" figures, which adorn the luxury handbags of many influencers. This strategy seeks to tap into the thrill of uncertainty, creating viral demand beyond the Chinese domestic market. And this appears to be working. Pop Mart's sales from outside mainland China contributed to nearly 40% of its total revenue in 2024, and its profit in the first half of 2025 is expected to soar by at least 350% year-over-year. Historically, tensions surrounding intellectual property have dogged China's global trade relationships. Today, however, its embrace of open-source collaboration appears to signal a profound shift. China is now the fastest-growing and second-largest contributor of open-source code on GitHub, the world's leading platform for software collaboration. Moreover, Chinese tech giants like Huawei and Tencent rank among the top corporate sponsors of Apache and Linux foundations, major nonprofit organizations that shape foundational technologies like artificial intelligence and cloud computing. DeepSeek's R-1 model exemplifies this strategy. Released under the permissive MIT license, it grants large-scale commercial reuse rights (unlike Google's Apache 2.0 or Meta's Llama licenses) and has fueled countless derivative models globally. Such openness has the potential to build developer loyalty, influence AI standards, and circumvent geopolitical friction. This shift has been underpinned by a focus on developing scientific prowess. In 2024, China led the world in high-quality research publications, according to Nature, holding the top spot for the second consecutive year. Its advantage in publications extends even to semiconductor design and fabrication, a field where U.S. technological superiority is often assumed, with Chinese scholars authoring over half of the most-cited papers in this field in 2024. However, the outlook for the country's businesses is not all rosy. Industrial profits are still shrinking, falling 1.1% year-to-date, despite various government stimulus measures, including a recently expanded consumer subsidy scheme and a central bank-backed initiative for state-owned enterprises to buy unsold homes. And price wars in sectors such as EVs and food delivery have gotten so brutal that the authorities have stepped in to mediate 'irrational' competition. Another structural issue is the country's stubbornly high youth unemployment rate (16-24-year olds excluding students), which remained at 14.5% - well above the 5% rate for the labor force as a whole. If China's future growth is to be driven more by a 'cool' factor, then the career prospects of its youth need to be strong enough to support their distinct consumption preferences as well as their entrepreneurial endeavors. Regardless of these challenges, innovation and open collaboration still have the potential to reshape China's global identity. Importantly, economic growth driven by these factors may be more evenly distributed and idiosyncratic, and therefore less cyclical, compared to China's old economic engines of real estate, infrastructure and production capacity investments. No longer just the world's factory, China is becoming a source of culturally resonant innovation. And as America's track record over the past decades suggests, no one should underestimate the value of cool. (The views expressed here are those of Taosha Wang, a portfolio manager and creator of the 'Thematically Thinking' newsletter at Fidelity International). Enjoying this column? Check out Reuters Open Interest (ROI),, opens new tab your essential new source for global financial commentary. ROI delivers thought-provoking, data-driven analysis of everything from swap rates to soybeans. Markets are moving faster than ever. ROI,, opens new tab can help you keep up. Follow ROI on LinkedIn,, opens new tab and X., opens new tab
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
US and China to talk in Stockholm on trade with eye on Trump-Xi summit later this year
When top U.S. and Chinese officials meet in Stockholm, they are almost certain to agree to at least leaving tariffs at the current levels while working toward a meeting between their presidents later this year for a more lasting trade deal between the world's two largest economies, analysts say. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng are set to hold talks for the third time this year — this round in the Swedish capital, nearly four months after President Donald Trump upset global trade with his sweeping tariff proposal, including an import tax that shot up to 145% on Chinese goods. 'We have the confines of a deal with China,' Trump said Friday before leaving for Scotland. Bessent told MSNBC on Wednesday that the two countries after talks in Geneva and London have reached a 'status quo,' with the U.S. taxing imported goods from China at 30% and China responding with a 10% tariff, on top of tariffs prior to the start of Trump's second term. 'Now we can move on to discussing other matters in terms of bringing the economic relationship into balance,' Bessent said. He was referring to the U.S. running a $295.5 billion trade deficit last year. The U.S. seeks an agreement that would enable it to export more to China and shift the Chinese economy more toward domestic consumer spending. The Chinese embassy in Washington said Beijing hopes 'there will be more consensus and cooperation and less misperception' coming out of the talks. With an eye on a possible leaders' summit, Stockholm could provide some answers as to the timeline and viability of that particular goal ahead of a possible meeting between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. 'The meeting will be important in starting to set the stage for a fall meeting between Trump and Xi,' said Wendy Cutler, a former U.S. trade negotiator and now vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute. 'Beijing will likely insist on detailed preparations before they agree to a leaders' meeting.' In Stockholm, the two sides are likely to focus on commercial announcements to be made at a leaders' summit as well as agreements to address 'major irritants,' such as China's industrial overcapacity and its lack of control over chemicals used to make fentanyl, also to be announced when Xi and Trump should meet, Cutler said. Sean Stein, president of the U.S.-China Business Council, said Stockholm could be the first real opportunity for the two governments to address structural reform issues including market access in China for U.S. companies. What businesses will be seeking coming out of Stockholm would largely be 'the atmosphere' — how the two sides characterize the discussions. They will also look for clues about a possible leaders' summit because any real deal will hinge on the two presidents meeting each other, he said. Fentanyl-related tariffs are likely a focus for China In Stockholm, Beijing will likely demand the removal of the 20% fentanyl-related tariff that Trump imposed earlier this year, said Sun Yun, director of the China program at the Washington-based Stimson Center. This round of the U.S.-China trade dispute began with fentanyl, when Trump in February imposed a 10% tariff on Chinese goods, citing that China failed to curb the outflow of the chemicals used to make the drug. The following month, Trump added another 10% tax for the same reason. Beijing retaliated with extra duties on some U.S. goods, including coal, liquefied natural gas, and farm products such as beef, chicken, pork and soy. In Geneva, both sides climbed down from three-digit tariffs rolled out following Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariffs in April, but the U.S. kept the 20% 'fentanyl' tariffs, in addition to the 10% baseline rate — to which China responded by keeping the same 10% rate on U.S. products. These across-the-board duties were unchanged when the two sides met in London a month later to negotiate over non-tariff measures such as export controls on critical products. The Chinese government has long protested that American politicians blame China for the fentanyl crisis in the U.S. but argued the root problem lies with the U.S. itself. Washington says Beijing is not doing enough to regulate precursor chemicals that flow out of China into the hands of drug dealers. In July, China placed two fentanyl ingredients under enhanced control, a move seen as in response to U.S. pressure and signaling goodwill. Gabriel Wildau, managing director at the consultancy Teneo, said he doesn't expect any tariff to go away in Stockholm but that tariff relief could be part of a final trade deal. 'It's possible that Trump would cancel the 20% tariff that he has explicitly linked with fentanyl, but I would expect the final tariff level on China to be at least as high as the 15-20% rate contained in the recent deals with Japan, Indonesia, Vietnam,' Wildau said. US wants China to dump less, buy less oil from Russia and Iran China's industrial overcapacity is as much a headache for the United States as it is for the European Union. Even Beijing has acknowledged the problem but suggested it might be difficult to address. America's trade imbalance with China has decreased from a peak of $418 billion in 2018, according to the Census Bureau. But China has found new markets for its goods and as the world's dominant manufacturer ran a global trade surplus approaching $1 trillion last year — somewhat larger than the size of the U.S. overall trade deficit in 2024. And China's emergence as a manufacturer of electric vehicles and other emerging technologies has suddenly made it more of a financial and geopolitical threat for those same industries based in the U.S., Europe, Japan and South Korea. 'Some enterprises, especially manufacturing enterprises, feel more deeply that China's manufacturing capabilities are too strong, and Chinese people are too hardworking. Factories run 24 hours a day,' Chinese Premier Li Qiang said on Thursday when hosting European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in Beijing. 'Some people think this will cause some new problems in the balance of supply and demand in world production.' 'We see this problem too,' Li said. Bessent also said the Stockholm talks could address Chinese purchases of Russian and Iranian oil. However, Wildau of Teneo said China could demand some U.S. security concessions in exchange, such as a reduced U.S. military presence in East Asia and scaled-back diplomatic support for Taiwan and the Philippines. This would likely face political pushback in Washington. The Stockholm talks will be 'geared towards building a trade agreement based around Chinese purchase commitments and pledges of investment in the U.S. in exchange for partial relief from U.S. tariffs and export controls,' Wildau said. He doubts there will be a grand deal. Instead, he predicts 'a more limited agreement based around fentanyl.' 'That,' he said, 'is probably the preferred outcome for China hawks in the Trump administration, who worry that an overeager Trump might offer too much to Xi.' ___
Telegraph
2 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer to recall cabinet for emergency meeting on Gaza
Sir Keir Starmer is set to recall cabinet ministers from their summer breaks for an emergency meeting on Gaza, according to reports. The Government is under intense pressure from Labour MPs over its stance on the Israel-Gaza war as the humanitarian situation in the strip worsens. Images of starvation have led to growing condemnation of Israel and calls for a ceasefire have intensified. Sources told The Guardian of the Cabinet recall as they insisted the Prime Minister is 'horrified' by images of starving civilians. They also told the newspaper that formally recognising a Palestinian state was a matter of 'when not if', days after French president Emmanuel Macron said he would use a speech in September to recognise Palestine. Sir Keir is expected to push Donald Trump to take a tougher stance against Israel when they meet at the president's Turnberry golf course in Scotland later on Monday. David Lammy, the Foreign Secretary, will also attend a conference on the two-state solution in New York this week where the pathway to a Palestinian state is expected to be discussed. Talks on a Gaza ceasefire have come to a standstill in recent days after the US accused Hamas of acting in bad faith. Steve Witkoff, Mr Trump's Middle East envoy, announced on Thursday that the US was bringing home its negotiators, saying Hamas 'clearly shows a lack of desire to reach a ceasefire'. He added the US would now 'consider alternative options to bring the hostages home', without clarifying what they would be. A ramping up of aid supplies and the return of more Israeli hostages were expected to form part of any truce. Angela Rayner is leading attempts in cabinet to persuade Sir Keir to formally recognise Palestine and a third of backbench Labour MPs have also pressed the Prime Minister to back the move. He has previously disappointed them by insisting any recognition would have to come at a time when it would be most beneficial to any peace process. He said on Thursday that Palestinians have an 'inalienable right' to a state of their own. Pressure on Sir Keir is likely to intensify after Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana launched a new hard-Left party to challenge Sir Keir. The pair have accused the Government of enabling genocide and are expected to link up with several independent pro-Gaza MPs. Last week, a committee of MPs said Sir Keir should 'immediately' recognise a Palestinian state 'while there is still a state to recognise'. The recommendation was made by Parliament's foreign affairs committee, led by Dame Emily Thornberry, the veteran Labour MP, in a new report on the Gaza conflict. She told The Guardian of the talks: 'Netanyahu only listens to Trump, and even then only sometimes. But somebody has to talk to the Israelis and nothing is going to move in this awful situation without him. 'Trump needs to hear that he has the strength of 10 presidents, that only he can get a ceasefire. 'But it's high risk for Keir as it could anger him and it's not even clear whether it would work. But he has to try, this is the moment it has to be done. 'Trump also needs to hear that allies, including the UK, French and Saudis, are prepared to work together to put together peace proposals but they will only work if they result in two states: Israel and Palestine.' Conservative MP Kit Malthouse, a former cabinet minister and critic of Israel, told the newspaper: 'Every moment of inaction is a deliberate choice. These two leaders hold the power to end the starvation and killings in Gaza, to halt the violence in the West Bank, and to bring the hostages home with a permanent ceasefire. 'If they fail to act, history will not only remember the atrocities, it will remember that they had the means to stop them and chose not to.' Critics of immediate recognition have said that it should not happen until Hamas is removed from any leadership role in Gaza and all Israeli hostages are released. Israel's government has characterised any recognition by the UK and France as a 'reward' for Hamas's Oct 7 2023 atrocities.
