Trump plans to cut last $100 million worth of contracts with Harvard and remove all government funding
The Trump administration is directing agencies to consider ending or transitioning about $100 million worth of contracts with Harvard University, effectively severing the remainder of the federal government's financial relationship with the university after months of threatening funding cuts worth billions.
In a letter on Tuesday, the administration's General Services Administration recommended that agencies review existing contracts and avoid making new deals with Harvard.
The message, obtained by The Independent, accuses the university of a 'deeply troubling pattern' of potential discriminatory hiring, tolerating antisemitism, and continuing to use race-based affirmative action in admissions, despite the Supreme Court striking the practice down in a 2023 ruling.
As evidence, the letter points to the addition of a remedial math class for incoming freshmen, claiming the course is among the 'direct results of employment discriminatory factors, instead of merit, in admissions decisions.'
(After the 2023 ruling, Black enrollment at Harvard declined from 18 to 14 percent.)
The contract review applies to about 30 deals, and critical contracts might not immediately be terminated but rather transitioned elsewhere at an appropriate time, a government official familiar with the letter told The Independent.
The Independent has contacted Harvard for comment.
The funding review comes after months of tension between the university and the administration, with the White House accusing the Ivy League school of violating civil rights law over its handling of campus antisemitism and pro-Palestine protests, and Harvard arguing the administration is trying to undermine its academic independence.
On Monday, President Trump complained that the university had not provided the government information on foreign students the president said were 'radicalized lunatics' and 'troublemakers' who 'should not be let back into our Country.' In a separate post, Trump said he was 'considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard' and giving it to trade schools.
Last week, the administration attempted to block Harvard's ability to enroll international students, prompting the university to sue. A judge temporarily reinstated the school's ability to enroll such students, and a hearing is scheduled in the case on Thursday.
The administration has also threatened to end Harvard's tax-exempt status and has frozen billions in federal funds to the university.
Last month, the university sued to restore its funding, rather than agree to a series of sweeping demands from the administration to make changes like cooperating with federal immigration officials, overhauling its admissions policies, and agreeing to a viewpoint diversity audit.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Guardian
28 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US supreme court ruling sets stage for more politicized science under RFK Jr
A US supreme court decision affirming the constitutionality of Obamacare sets the stage for more politicized science in the future, health law experts said about the court's decision. The court's majority opinion in Kennedy v Braidwood Management found that an expert panel – the preventive services taskforce – convened under the Affordable Care Act is under the direct oversight of the health secretary. 'This is your classic good news, bad news,' said Lawrence Gostin, a professor of global health law at Georgetown Law. 'In a sane world, with a secretary of health that believes in science and doesn't bring in conspiracy theories and agendas, you would applaud this decision.' With health policy now in the hands of the Trump administration, 'it gives Secretary [Robert F Kennedy Jr] complete power about what to recommend and what not to recommend,' Gostin said. The court issued the opinion only hours after an expert vaccine advisory panel (ACIP) handpicked by Kennedy subverted the scientific consensus by recommending against vaccines containing thimerosal, a preservative overwhelmingly considered safe. Thimerosal has been a subject of misinformation and anti-vaccine advocacy for decades. Much like the expert panel in question in the Braidwood case, the recommendations of the vaccine advisory committee are a key link in the treatment distribution pipeline. Recommendations from both panels are typically affirmed by the leadership of the health department, and then become the basis on which insurers base coverage decisions. In the case of the ACIP, those recommendations typically concern vaccines. In the preventive taskforce context, they include a wide range of treatments – from statins to cancer screenings to HIV prevention. It was widely recognized that Kennedy had the authority to hire and fire people for the vaccine panel – but legal controversy existed about whether health secretaries have the same power over the preventive services taskforce. 'The president and the Senate are accountable 'for both the making of a bad appointment and the rejection of a good one',' wrote Justice Brett Kavanaugh for the six-vote majority. In other words, the court said, if you don't like it, go to the ballot box. MaryBeth Musumeci, an associate professor of health law management at the George Washington University Milken Institute of Public Health, told the Guardian: 'We have that structure in place – and that is a really great structure if the folks in charge are actually deferring to the experts and the science and what the evidence says.' She added: 'To the extent that we are going to make decisions based on bad science – that has really serious public health implications.' The panel at the center of the vaccine decision is the ACIP vaccine panel. Until June, the advisory panel was made up of 17 experts vetted by CDC career scientists. Their recommendations, while not binding, were almost always approved by CDC leadership. Kennedy fired all 17 members unilaterally in June and stocked the panel with eight ideological allies – including vaccine skeptics and medical professionals with little experience in vaccines. One panelist withdrew after a government financial review, and after it was widely publicized that the secretary's claims about the panelist's affiliation with two universities was false. Wayne Turner, a senior attorney for the National Health Law Program, which advocates for the medically underserved, said that he and others were 'certainly breathing a sigh of relief with the court's decision today' because a key provision of Obamacare was found to be constitutional. 'But that sigh of relief is really short-lived,' Turner said. 'We have long anticipated with the appointment of RFK Jr, and certainly with his actions with the ACIP, that we can fully expect the preventive services taskforce to be the next battleground in the ideological war this administration seems to be waging. And the war is against science.' The subject of the Braidwood case provides a salient example. Plaintiffs were suing the government to claim that the taskforce was wrongly appointed. Although their legal argument was thorny, one treatment they specifically cited as wrong was insurance coverage of pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP), an HIV prevention drug. Although the plaintiffs' claim that the taskforce was unconstitutional was swatted down, it provides activists with a roadmap to get what they want – if they can convince Kennedy to appoint more ideological allies to the taskforce. The preventive services taskforce may have one protective mechanism: a requirement that they be guided by evidence written into Obamacare, the legislation that impaneled them. Gearing up for another fight, Turner said: 'That's going to be an important thing for us to point to in the weeks and months ahead, and years, quite frankly.'
Daily Mirror
31 minutes ago
- Daily Mirror
Donald Trump's plot to abolish major right as Supreme Court gives him more power
The US President wants to abolish a right enshrined in the US Constitution for 157 years - and now there's almost nobody who can stop him Donald Trump wants to abolish a major right people born in America have enjoyed for 157 years - and is enshrined in the US Constitution. He's taking his fight against 'birthright citizenship' all the way to the Supreme Court - and won a major victory last night. In a decision that hands him almost unlimited power to change American laws with a wave of his hand, Supreme Court justices ruled that individual federal judges would no longer be allowed to halt or block his executive orders - even if they're unconstitutional. It leaves just the Supremes themselves between him and whatever he wants to do. And the next thing on his list is birthright citizenship - an issue likely to come before the highest court in October. Here's what's at stake for Americans if that happens. What is birthright citizenship? Birthright citizenship is the rule that if you're born in the United States, you're a US citizen, regardless of your parents' immigration status. The practice goes back to soon after the Civil War, when Congress ratified the Constitution's 14th Amendment, in part to ensure that Black people, including former slaves, had citizenship. "All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States," the amendment states. Thirty years later, Wong Kim Ark, a man born in the US to Chinese parents, was refused re-entry into the U.S. after traveling overseas. His suit led to the Supreme Court explicitly ruling that the amendment gives citizenship to anyone born in the US, no matter their parents' legal status. It has been seen since then as an intrinsic part of US law, with only a handful of exceptions, such as for children born in the US to foreign diplomats. Because it's enshrined in the 14th amendment to the Constitution, it should require a congressional supermajority to change the rule - at least that's the theory. Why does Trump want to get rid of it? Republicans have long argued this leads to undocumented immigrants having "anchor babies" - a truly unpleasant term suggesting some people have children to make them harder to deport. And Trump himself has argued, baselessly, that the amendment was only ever intended to cover freed slaves, which ignores decades of caselaw and precedent. How is Trump trying to scrap it? Trump claims he can set it aside with an executive order - and he signed such an order almost immediately upon returning to the White House in January. Trump's executive order would deny citizenship to those born after February 19 whose parents are in the country illegally. It's part of the hardline immigration agenda of the president, who has called birthright citizenship a "magnet for illegal immigration." Trump and his supporters focus on one phrase in the amendment - "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" - saying it means the US can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally. What's the pushback been like? Some 22 states have brought lawsuits challenging the order, with one brought by Washington state, Arizona, Oregon and Illinois heard first in Seattle. "I've been on the bench for over four decades. I can't remember another case where the question presented was as clear as this one is," U.S. District Judge John Coughenour told a Justice Department attorney. "This is a blatantly unconstitutional order." In Greenbelt, Maryland, a Washington suburb, U.S. District Judge Deborah Boardman wrote that "the Supreme Court has resoundingly rejected and no court in the country has ever endorsed" Trump's interpretation of birthright citizenship. So is it still blocked? Briefly. The Supreme Court did not address the merits of Trump's bid to enforce his birthright citizenship executive order - yet. Instead, they were asked to rule on the principle of state and district judges blocking orders for the whole country - which the Supremes decided wasn't on, despite being a right enjoyed by judges for decades. "The Trump administration made a strategic decision, which I think quite clearly paid off, that they were going to challenge not the judges' decisions on the merits, but on the scope of relief," said Jessica Levinson, a Loyola Law School professor. Attorney General Pam Bondi told reporters at the White House that the administration is "very confident" that the high court will ultimately side with the administration on the merits of the case. What happens next? The justices kicked the cases challenging the birthright citizenship policy back down to the lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the new ruling. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days, giving lower courts and the parties time to sort out the next steps. The Supreme Court's ruling leaves open the possibility that groups challenging the policy could still get nationwide relief through class-action lawsuits and seek certification as a nationwide class. Within hours after the ruling, two class-action suits had been filed in Maryland and New Hampshire seeking to block Trump's order. But obtaining nationwide relief through a class action is difficult as courts have put up hurdles to doing so over the years, said Suzette Malveaux, a Washington and Lee University law school professor. Get Donald Trump updates straight to your WhatsApp! As tension between the White House and Iran grows, the Mirror has launched its very own US Politics WhatsApp community where you'll get all the latest news from across the pond. We'll send you the latest breaking updates and exclusives all directly to your phone. Users must download or already have WhatsApp on their phones to join in. All you have to do to join is click on this link, select 'Join Chat' and you're in! We may also send you stories from other titles across the Reach group. We will also treat our community members to special offers, promotions, and adverts from us and our partners. If you don't like our community, you can check out any time you like. To leave our community click on the name at the top of your screen and choose Exit group. If you're curious, you can read our Privacy Notice. 'It's not the case that a class action is a sort of easy, breezy way of getting around this problem of not having nationwide relief,' said Malveaux, who had urged the high court not to eliminate the nationwide injunctions. Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who penned the court's dissenting opinion, urged the lower courts to 'act swiftly on such requests for relief and to adjudicate the cases as quickly as they can so as to enable this Court's prompt review" in cases 'challenging policies as blatantly unlawful and harmful as the Citizenship Order.' Opponents of Trump's order warned there would be a patchwork of polices across the states, leading to chaos and confusion without nationwide relief. 'Birthright citizenship has been settled constitutional law for more than a century," said Krish O'Mara Vignarajah, president and CEO of Global Refuge, a nonprofit that supports refugees and migrants. 'By denying lower courts the ability to enforce that right uniformly, the Court has invited chaos, inequality, and fear.'
The Guardian
34 minutes ago
- The Guardian
US Senate votes down resolution to restrict Trump from escalating Iran war
Senate Democrats failed on Friday to get a war-powers resolution passed to limit Donald Trump's ability to single-handedly escalate the war with Iran. The resolution, 'to direct the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities against the Islamic Republic of Iran', was voted down 53-47. The vote on the resolution, introduced by the Democratic senator Tim Kaine of Virginia, split along mainly partisan lines. One Republican, Rand Paul of Kentucky, voted for it; one Democrat, John Fetterman of Pennsylvania, voted against it. 'Congress declares war,' Kaine said in a speech on the Senate floor. He stressed that the framers of the US constitution in 1787 were so wary of giving the power to start wars to one person that they did not even entrust it to George Washington, the first commander-in-chief. 'They decided that war was too big a decision for one person,' Kaine said. 'And so they wrote a constitution that said the United States should not be at war without a vote of Congress.' The measure would have compelled Trump to seek authorization from Congress before taking any further military action. Trump ordered airstrikes on Iran's nuclear facilities on 22 June. This directly followed Israel launching attacks on Iran, and Iran retaliating. Trump said that the US bombardment 'totally obliterated' key nuclear enrichment facilities and deemed the mission a success, although some initial reports said the damage was minimal. Iran condemned the attacks. Trump claimed on Friday that Iran had halted its nuclear ambitions after the bombings. But, he said, he would 'absolutely' continue to attack the country's nuclear sites if he believed it was once again enriching uranium. 'Time will tell,' Trump said at the White House. 'But I don't believe that they're going to go back into nuclear anytime soon.' Later on Friday, Iran's foreign minister, Abbas Araghchi, rebuked Trump on social media. 'If President Trump is genuine about wanting a deal, he should put aside the disrespectful and unacceptable tone towards Iran's Supreme Leader, Grand Ayatollah Khamenei, and stop hurting his millions of heartfelt followers', Araghchi wrote on X. 'The Great and Powerful Iranian People, who showed the world that the Israeli regime had NO CHOICE but to RUN to 'Daddy' to avoid being flattened by our Missiles, do not take kindly to Threats and Insults', Iran's top diplomat added, in something approximating Trump's own social media style. 'If Illusions lead to worse mistakes, Iran will not hesitate to unveil its Real Capabilities, which will certainly END any Delusion about the Power of Iran.'
