
Trump vs Columbia: Ivy league school to pay $200 million in landmark settlement; campus protests curbed
The Ivy League university will also be subjected to federal oversight, with independent monitoring in place to ensure it adheres to merit-based admissions and hiring processes. The agreement follows four months of negotiations and comes amid mounting pressure on elite universities like Harvard, which has taken the administration to court over the loss of $2.6 billion in funding linked to similar issues.
As part of the settlement, Columbia will pay $200 million to the federal government to resolve discrimination claims and a further $20 million to Jewish staff who were reportedly targeted during anti-semitic protests on campus in the wake of the 7 October 2023 Hamas attacks on Israel.
The Trump administration is touting the payout as the largest of its kind in nearly two decades under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
As per a source cited by the New York Post, when the government pulled $400 million from Columbia in March, it put billions more in research and other funding at risk.
The deal mandates that Columbia dismantle any programmes that discriminate based on race, bringing it in line with the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that banned race-based affirmative action.
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
This Could Be the Best Time to Trade Gold in 5 Years
IC Markets
Learn More
Undo
by Taboola
by Taboola
It will also create new faculty positions aimed at boosting intellectual diversity and overhaul its approach to discipline, removing oversight from the faculty senate and placing it under the Provost's Office.
The settlement includes strong security provisions too. Columbia must coordinate with the NYPD to prevent incidents like the 2024 occupation of Hamilton Hall and impose a blanket ban on masked protests.
Disciplinary action has already been taken, with dozens of students suspended, penalised, or expelled over recent anti-Israel demonstrations.
In a further move likely to fuel debate, the university's admissions office will now vet international applicants more closely, requiring them to disclose their reasons for studying in the US, data that will be shared with federal authorities. Columbia will also report disciplinary actions for visa-holding students under the Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVIS) and reduce reliance on international enrolment.
Several academic departments and international centres, including the Center for Palestine Studies and the Middle East Institute, will now come under close scrutiny by a newly created senior vice provost role, aimed at ensuring ideological balance and compliance with federal rules.
The school will also align with Title IX standards by ending policies that allow biological men to compete in women's sports or use women's facilities.
Most of the $400 million in previously frozen federal funding will be restored once Columbia meets all conditions of the agreement. The resolution will remain in effect for three years, with a compliance monitor issuing twice-yearly updates on progress.
'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' said acting president Claire Shipman.
'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track. Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest.'
Leaked details from the talks suggest that Columbia agreed to release internal admissions and hiring data and accept the $200 million fine to avoid further loss of research funding.
In March, the White House issued nine key demands as a prerequisite for federal support, including enforcement of institutional neutrality and academic diversity.
The final deal explicitly bans the use of diversity narratives or racial identity statements in applications, in a move likely to send ripples through higher education.
The conflict has led to dramatic leadership changes at Columbia. President Minouche Shafik stepped down in August 2024 amid escalating protests.
Her interim successor, Katrina Armstrong, was removed just seven months later after publicly supporting the administration's mask ban, while privately assuring faculty she wouldn't enforce it.
She has now been replaced by Shipman, whose past private messages questioning fears of anti-semitism and pushing to remove the only Jewish board member and quick appointment of an 'Arab' member instead,have triggered a congressional investigation.
Republican lawmakers are currently reviewing whether new laws are needed to hold university leadership more accountable, amid growing concerns over campus anti-semitism and ideological bias.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Deccan Herald
26 minutes ago
- Deccan Herald
PM Modi can't say 'Trump is lying' over ceasefire as US President will lay bare truth: Rahul Gandhi
Gandhi said Trump is making the remarks to put pressure on the Indian government for the trade deal.


The Print
26 minutes ago
- The Print
China is enjoying the strain in India-US ties and Trump cosying up to Pakistan
For years, India and the US appeared united in their efforts to counterbalance China. Today, that unity seems more transactional than strategic, according to Chinese analysts . They point to Donald Trump's renewed interest in mediating India-Pakistan tensions, high-level US engagements with Pakistan's military leadership, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio's outreach to Islamabad as signs of a shift . As one Chinese commentator put it, 'Trump's erratic policies have not hurt China; they have hurt India.' Chinese media are rife with headlines such as 'US pursues 'mineral diplomacy' with Pakistan while sidelining India' and 'By backing Pakistan, the US has effectively joined China in cornering India.' Once hailed as a counterbalance to Chinese influence in Asia, the India-US partnership is now showing signs of strain. As the Trump administration renews and deepens its ties with Pakistan, Beijing is pushing the narrative that Washington is gradually sidelining New Delhi. India sidelined, Pakistan revived Chinese commentators underscore Washington's abrupt pivot. Barely a month after imposing tariffs on Pakistan, the US was discussing an $8 trillion mineral venture in Balochistan. For Beijing, this is a clear signal of Pakistan's strategic value being restored, while India's diplomatic space continues to shrink. According to Chinese discourse, India misread US signals and launched a military operation against Pakistan, a move that allegedly backfired. With Pakistan's defence bolstered by Chinese arms, India suffered substantial losses. Meanwhile, delivery of US weapons to India is delayed. From Beijing's vantage point, the US treated India not as an equal partner, but as a regional actor to be mediated. The result, Chinese commentators argue, was military embarrassment, diplomatic isolation, and a weakened regional posture. One Weibo post declared: 'Modi's lies are exposed, and Trump's comments are a slap in the face as he openly sides with Pakistan.' Another user wrote: 'The United States is trying to balance both sides to protect its regional interests.' For Beijing, this underscores a core message that Washington prioritises its own interests over siding firmly with India. The result is a strategic dilemma, where Indian expectations diverge from US strategic calculations. India's diplomatic challenges in Beijing's narrative Chinese analysts consistently characterise India's diplomacy as brittle and ineffective. Despite New Delhi's longstanding labelling of Pakistan as a terrorist state, they argue India has failed to secure unequivocal backing from Washington. Instead, US engagement with and praise for Pakistan have further complicated India's regional standing and credibility. 'The deterioration in US–India relations is two-sided and visible,' read a widely circulated Weibo post. Guancha editor Yang Rong noted that while the Biden administration once promoted India as a regional alternative to China, Trump-era policy has become more cautious, unwilling to fully integrate security and trade interests. Analyst Liu Chenghui warns that any US–China détente would also leave India further exposed. Beijing's narrative casts India as squeezed between assertive Chinese pressure and American ambivalence. Pakistan, by contrast, is depicted as deftly maintaining good relations with both powers. The US tilt towards Pakistan, in this context, signals that India's much-vaunted strategic autonomy is reactive and vulnerable in an evolving world order. Shen Yi, assistant dean at Fudan University's School of International Relations and Public Affairs, argues that the US is not a genuine strategic partner for India. Instead, it is a power willing to undermine New Delhi's standing to maintain regional fluidity, fuelling instability and hastening the collapse of the so-called 'second island chain' strategy. In this telling, India's strategic posture is increasingly precarious. Surrounded by adversarial neighbours and lacking dependable partners, Chinese commentators suggest India must focus on stabilising ties at home and with key regional players, particularly Pakistan and China, before it can project broader influence. China is a clear winner The US offers of mediation, including military and economic aid to Pakistan, sparked outrage in India, where Kashmir remains deeply sensitive. Chinese commentators argue that Washington continues to underestimate South Asian nationalist sentiments. India's rejection of these overtures, in their view, reflects not just diminished trust but growing strategic insecurity. 'The more India caters to Washington, the more it 'cuts its own flesh',' said Liu Zongyi, senior research fellow at the Shanghai Institutes for International Studies, a government think tank. Once touted as a cornerstone of Indo-Pacific strategy, the India-US relationship now appears weakened following Washington's engagement with Pakistan and its perceived failure to support India in times of need. From Beijing's perspective, this indifference by Washington is driving India closer to China. In Chinese discourse, the US is framed as a power driven by expediency, quick to pivot, slow to commit, and increasingly withdrawing support for India. India, in turn, is portrayed as playing both sides, indecisive, and lacking strategic coherence, a 'fence-sitter' unable to secure the confidence of either Washington or Beijing. It further declares India as overestimating its strategic value to Washington while underestimating the risks of aligning too closely with the US and drifting away from China. In contrast, China's self-image is one of strategic constancy, a steady hand in a volatile region, comfortable with long-term positioning. It presents itself as the only consistent beneficiary of the evolving regional realignment. With Pakistan firmly within its orbit and the US rekindling ties with Islamabad, the regional dynamics is, in Beijing's telling, tilting decisively in China's favour while India scrambles to recalibrate. Sana Hashmi is a fellow at the Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation. She tweets @sanahashmi1. Views are personal. (Edited by Prashant)


Mint
26 minutes ago
- Mint
Who is Vinay Prasad? US FDA's top regulator exits agency after controversy over Sarepta gene therapy
Dr. Vinay Prasad, a top regulator at the US Food and Drug Administration, has resigned in less than three months in the job following a controversy over the handling of Sarepta Therapeutics Inc.'s gene therapy. 'Dr. Prasad did not want to be a distraction to the great work of the FDA in the Trump administration and has decided to return to California and spend more time with his family,' a report by CNN quoted a spokesperson for the US Department of Health and Human Services. In May, Prasad, a hematologist and oncologist was appointed head of the FDA's Centre for Biologics Evaluation and Research, granting him authority over vaccines and biological medicines. Subsequently, he was also appointed the FDA's chief medical and scientific officer. Similar to several Trump administration health appointees, Prasad had been a vocal critic of the government's response and vaccine policies during the COVID-19 pandemic. The report, citing people aware of the development, said Prasad resigned amid pressure from the White House. Additionally, Laura Loomer, a right-wing activist known to have close ties with Donald Trump, consistently criticised Prasad. She publicly criticised him for days on her website and social media, calling him a 'progressive leftist saboteur' who was 'undermining President Trump's FDA.' Loomer called out Prasad's previous social media posts and podcast episodes, where she claimed that he supported liberal politicians and expressed 'disdain' for Trump. However, FDA Commissioner Dr. Marty Makary defended Prasad just days ago. In an interview with Politico, Makary said Prasad is an 'impeccable scientist … one of the greatest scientific minds of our generation.' 'We thank him for his service and the many important reforms he was able to achieve in his time at FDA,' the spokesperson for HHS said. Prasad took on his role at the FDA following years of outspoken criticism of certain drug approvals by the agency. Notably, he condemned the approval of Sarepta's Duchenne muscular dystrophy drug, Elevidys, asserting that there was insufficient evidence to demonstrate it effectively slowed or reversed symptoms of this rare and deadly genetic condition. This month, the FDA asked Sarepta to stop shipments of the drug after a reported death of a young patient in Brazil. Just one day before Prasad's departure, the agency unexpectedly reversed its decision and allowed Sarepta to continue shipments for certain patients. Prasad faced criticism from former officials and vaccine experts after May's internal memos showed he overruled FDA scientists on two new Covid-19 vaccine versions. The then-CDER director criticised the broad use of these vaccines; ultimately, the FDA approved them for older and immunocompromised individuals but did not recommend them for younger Americans without underlying health conditions.