logo
Universities quietly negotiating with White House aide to try to avoid Harvard's fate, source says

Universities quietly negotiating with White House aide to try to avoid Harvard's fate, source says

Yahoo31-05-2025
College and university leaders have been privately negotiating with a deputy to top Trump aide Stephen Miller in hopes of avoiding the same aggressive targeting of Harvard University, a person familiar with the matter said, as the administration looks to escalate its attacks on the Ivy League institution and other schools.
The higher education leaders, who have had granular conversations with senior White House policy strategist May Mailman in recent weeks, are asking what signals they need to send to stay out of the administration's crosshairs, the person said. Mailman works closely with Miller – an architect of the administration's strategy to target colleges over concerns they are not sufficiently policing alleged antisemitism on their campuses.
In turn, a White House official said the administration is relaying to the leaders that 'the money simply cannot and will not flow unabated as it has been – and that the universities are incubators of discrimination and the taxpayer cannot support that.'
These conversations come as the administration is investigating dozens of other schools, and as some school leadership comes to Washington.
The White House is looking to strike a deal with a high-profile school, said the first source, who is involved in the higher education response.
'They want a name-brand university to make a deal like the law firms made a deal that covers not just antisemitism and protests, but DEI and intellectual diversity,' this person said.
'They want Trump to be able to stand up and say he made a deal with so-and-so – an Ivy League school, some sort of name-brand school that gives them cover so they can say, 'We don't want to destroy higher education.''
Asked if any of the schools are inclined to make such a deal, the source said, 'Nobody wants to be the first, but the financial pressures are getting real.'
Many schools have already experienced significant federal funding cuts, and there is mounting uncertainty about the future of visas for international students, who are more likely to pay full tuition compared to their American counterparts.
The conversations, the source said, are continuing.
'The President is always willing to make a deal that benefits America, and this has been true for any higher education institution willing to embrace common sense, stop violating the law, and commit to restoring civil rights and order on their campuses,' the White House official said.
They added, 'The administration is only willing to work with entities that operate in good faith and are not merely paying lip service without tangible actions. Many schools want to make a deal, and the President is willing to work with them.'
Officials at some other schools are waiting for the White House to turn its attention away from Harvard. A board member at a major university targeted by the task force, who was granted anonymity to speak freely, described communications as 'irregular,' but said there have been repeated efforts by the task force to get the school's leadership to come to Washington for a meeting.
'There is very little enthusiasm for that,' the board member said. 'We do not have any interest in being their 'model school' or whatever.'
They added, 'At this point, we feel very comfortable with the steps we've taken, and we don't have any need to fight the administration, per se – unless they decide to mess with our core values. When it comes, we will be ready to fight them. But that doesn't mean we need to provoke them.'
Some universities across the country have hired political consultants and experts to respond to some of the administration's demands, while Harvard has launched an aggressive legal strategy and is organizing its alumni networks.
Efforts to target Harvard began even before President Donald Trump returned to office, with Trump allies arguing they're cracking down on antisemitism on campus amid the Israel-Hamas war. But the administration's actions extend to a broader agenda – setting up a major clash over academic freedom, federal funding and campus oversight – and a belief inside the White House that it's a winning political issue for Trump.
The crackdown is led by the Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, an interagency group that meets at least weekly, the White House official said, and is in regular communication about where to train its focus. At the helm is former Fox News personality and civil rights lawyer-turned-senior Justice Department official Leo Terrell. Miller and Mailman are also driving forces behind decision making, sources said.
The administration has been happy with steps taken by some schools, praising some of its initial targets for complying with demands, including efforts to dismantle diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and crack down on campus protests.
And which schools the administration could go after next appears to be a moving target.
But Terrell suggested this week that 'massive lawsuits' are coming and would take aim at the University of California system, among others.
'Expect massive lawsuits against UC system. … On the East Coast, on the West Coast, in the Midwest, expect hate crime charges filed by the federal government. Expect Title VII lawsuits against those individuals who are not being protected simply because they're Jewish,' he told Fox News.
Asked for comment on Terrell's threats, Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, said that the school system is cooperating with the Trump administration.
'The University of California abhors antisemitism and is diligently working to address, counter and eradicate it in all its forms across the system. We have been, and plan to continue, cooperating with the Administration. Antisemitism has no place at UC or anywhere else in society. The University remains entirely focused on strengthening our programs and policies to root out antisemitism and all forms of discrimination,' Zaentz said.
The White House official told CNN last month that the task force was having discussions with Harvard and Columbia, as well as Northwestern University, Cornell University and the University of Michigan.
A February Justice Department news release also identified George Washington University; Johns Hopkins University; New York University; the University of California, Berkeley; the University of Minnesota; and the University of Southern California as 'campuses that have experienced antisemitic incidents since October 2023' that the task force planned to visit.
University leaders have been coming to DC to meet with administration officials, so no campus visits have been necessary, according to a senior administration official.
CNN has reached out to each of the schools named by the Trump administration for comment. Statements from the University of Southern California and the University of Minnesota both denounced antisemitism and said the schools would engage with the task force on efforts to combat it.
Pressed on how the task force is making determinations about funding for Harvard and other schools, the White House official said that their investigations often begin with complaints.
'The relevant agency or department will conduct an investigation into violations to federal law, whether Title IV and Title IX, Title VI, Title XI, Title XII, and, based on those investigations, there can be immediate action to pause funding and wait for a resolution to the investigation, or, in more egregious examples, like Harvard, there could just be a blanket removal of all federal funds because of their lack of cooperation in an investigation or their blatant disregard for their violations to federal law and their unwillingness to change policy,' the official said.
And the senior administration official indicated this week that any school with an open Title VI investigation could be subject to government action. Title VI is part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibiting discrimination based on race, color or national origin in programs or activities receiving federal funding. There are more than 70 colleges and universities currently under active Title VI investigations as of Wednesday, according to a CNN analysis of data provided by the Department of Education. (A vast majority of those investigations were launched during the Biden administration.)
And even as it looks at other schools, the administration hasn't taken its eye off Harvard, with which it's engaged in multiple legal battles.
The administration has also launched an investigation into its foreign funding sources through a provision of the Higher Education Act requiring reporting of foreign gifts and contracts called Section 117. A prior Section 117 investigation into Harvard was recently closed.
'As standard practice, Harvard has filed Section 117 reports for decades as part of its ongoing compliance with the law. As is required, Harvard's reports include information on gifts and contracts from foreign sources exceeding $250K annually. This includes contracts to provide executive education, other training, and academic publications,' Jason Newton, a spokesperson for Harvard University, said in a statement, noting that Harvard's filings reflect 'diverse sources' of support for the school.
And a tax provision in Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill,' which passed the House of Representatives last week but still has to get through the Senate, could have significant impact on Harvard and other institutions with large endowments. In its current form, it would implement a new 'tiered system' of taxes on private colleges and universities' investment income. The endowment tax is currently a flat 1.4% rate but could become as high as 21% for schools like Harvard with large endowments.
The administration believes there's political support for that provision, with Education Secretary Linda McMahon telling Fox News on Wednesday, 'That's something that the American public could wrap its head around.'
Trump administration messengers have offered mixed signals about how the process moves forward.
The source familiar with the higher education response questioned the appetite to proceed at an aggressive pace.
'If you go after Harvard, how hard can you keep going? The universities are being played like a yo-yo for weeks and weeks and weeks. My guess is, at some point, the White House will lose interest in that. Once you've taken down Harvard, where are you going to go – Emory? They're just as conscious of the brands as anybody else,' the source said.
Ultimately, the source added, the market rules: 'What's going to happen to Harvard or Columbia? Record applicants, record yield. I would bet you that if you talked to MAGA voters at Charlotte Country Day School or The Westminster Schools – they may have voted for Trump, but are they turning away from the Ivy League? Hell no. The schools are having record demand.'
Meanwhile, McMahon has suggested there is still hope for negotiations with Harvard, with whom the senior administration official said the administration is not currently in talks.
'We really hope that we will be back at the table, negotiating, talking about the things that are good for Harvard and for the students that are on campus,' McMahon said.
Terrell has struck a different tone.
'We are going to go after them where it hurts them financially, and there's numerous ways – I hope you can read between the lines – there's numerous ways to hurt them financially,' he warned on Fox News.
Asked when it would end, Terrell said, 'We can't speculate. We have to bring these universities to their knees.'
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Lawmakers Press FDA to Target Knockoff Weight-Loss Drugs
Lawmakers Press FDA to Target Knockoff Weight-Loss Drugs

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Lawmakers Press FDA to Target Knockoff Weight-Loss Drugs

(Bloomberg) -- Dozens of lawmakers are urging US health regulators to crack down on the booming market for knockoff weight-loss drugs amid mounting concerns over their potential safety risks. Trump Awards $1.26 Billion Contract to Build Biggest Immigrant Detention Center in US The High Costs of Trump's 'Big Beautiful' New Car Loan Deduction Can This Bridge Ease the Troubled US-Canadian Relationship? Salt Lake City Turns Winter Olympic Bid Into Statewide Bond Boom Trump Administration Sues NYC Over Sanctuary City Policy On Friday, a group of more than 80 bipartisan lawmakers asked the US Food and Drug Administration to stop counterfeit and copycat versions of GLP-1 drugs like Wegovy and Zepbound from flooding the market — a problem that emerged over the last year. 'We are concerned about recent reports revealing a surge in illegal and counterfeit anti-obesity medications,' they wrote in a letter to FDA Commissioner Marty Makary. 'Undoubtedly, illegal counterfeit medications pose an increased risk to patient safety with sometimes fatal consequences.' The group — spearheaded by Representatives Richard Hudson of North Carolina and Herb Conaway of New Jersey — asked the agency to ramp up enforcement over illegally imported weight-loss drugs. They suggested issuing warning letters and better monitoring non-compliant online retailers and so-called compounding pharmacies that sell the medicines. The lawmakers also said the FDA should work in tandem with US Customs and Border Patrol agents to stop Chinese entities from shipping unsafe weight-loss drugs into the US. They requested an update on the FDA's efforts by July 30, given the 'urgency' of the situation. A spokesperson for the FDA said the agency will work with the US Department of Health and Human Services to provide a 'complete and thorough' response to the issues raised in the lawmakers' letter. 'Any effort to undermine America's supply of safe medicines is an issue that FDA takes seriously,' the spokesperson said. 'And we are deeply committed to strengthening the oversight of imported products at US ports of entry.' In recent years, the popularity of GLP-1 drugs has led to an explosion of copycats and counterfeits made by companies seeking to capitalize on the hype. State-licensed pharmacies were temporarily allowed to make copies of the drugs during a supply shortage, but are no longer permitted to do so after Novo Nordisk A/S and Eli Lilly & Co. boosted production. Still, some pharmacies have refused to wind down their operations while others have pivoted to selling the drugs in lower doses in order to avoid regulatory scrutiny. Counterfeit drugs are made by unregistered entities typically using illegally imported ingredients. As recently as April, there continue to be instances when counterfeit Ozempic pens covertly enter the drug supply chain undetected. Some patients are also purchasing ingredients directly from online sellers in an attempt to make the drugs themselves at home. In both cases, the medications don't go through the same rigorous approval process as brand-name drugs made by Novo and Lilly. Experts worry the lack of oversight is putting patients at risk. The FDA has said it's aware of hospitalizations potentially linked to the copycat drugs, but that adverse events are likely being underreported. 'We support the bi-partisan call for the FDA to crack down on counterfeit and illegally sold weight-loss drugs,' said a spokesperson for Hims & Hers Health Inc., one of the telehealth firms that sells compounded GLP-1s. 'We appreciate lawmakers' recognition that legitimate compounded medications dispensed by state-regulated pharmacies are not counterfeit. Patient safety must always come first.' Novo and Lilly have discouraged consumers from using compounded and counterfeit products, including suing telehealth firms that sell the copycat versions and working with border agents to seize illegal shipments. Under the Biden administration, the companies repeatedly urged the FDA to take action, but the agency mostly limited its actions to issuing consumer warnings — even as its top drug official publicly acknowledged safety concerns. Under the Trump administration, the HHS has also focused more heavily on other issues, such as banning food dyes and examining vaccine schedules. Meanwhile, lawmakers are ramping up their calls for action. State attorneys and other lawmakers have sent letters to the FDA and Federal Trade Commission advocating for greater transparency around the treatments and more scrutiny around marketing practices. (Updates with statement from FDA in sixth and seventh paragraphs.) Burning Man Is Burning Through Cash Confessions of a Laptop Farmer: How an American Helped North Korea's Wild Remote Worker Scheme It's Not Just Tokyo and Kyoto: Tourists Descend on Rural Japan Elon Musk's Empire Is Creaking Under the Strain of Elon Musk A Rebel Army Is Building a Rare-Earth Empire on China's Border ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. Sign in to access your portfolio

What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact

Yahoo

time4 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact

'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. What's happened in college sports that brought it to the federal government? The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. What are the key takeaways of the executive order? The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Gives a nod to protecting women's and Olympic sports by setting benchmarks for scholarships and opportunities based on the amount of money an athletic department makes. Bans 'pay-for-play' to athletes by schools, a bedrock principle of the NCAA and college sports that leaders are still clinging to. The order does try to carve out exceptions for endorsement and sponsorship deals with third-party businesses. Calls on the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to clarify the employment status of student-athletes. Under a Republican administration, that likely decreases the chances athletes would have the right to organize. Directs the Attorney General and the Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to find ways to hand rule-making power back to the NCAA, conferences and other college sports governing bodies and away from courts and state legislatures. Who benefits from this? Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. Will this actually change anything? In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' What can the executive order do? It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. What power does the government have in these situations? The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. What is The SCORE Act? The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. What divides Republicans and Democrats? The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. What precedents are there involving federal legislation and higher education in sports? The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. What does this mean for the NCAA? The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. Why is the president getting involved? The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions. This article originally appeared in The Athletic. College Football, Men's College Basketball, Women's College Basketball, College Sports 2025 The Athletic Media Company

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store