logo
Sen. Mark Warner warns that if Trump administration can pressure University of Virginia president to resign, "they can do it anywhere"

Sen. Mark Warner warns that if Trump administration can pressure University of Virginia president to resign, "they can do it anywhere"

CBS News20 hours ago

Sen. Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, on Sunday condemned what he described as an "outrageous" pressure campaign by the Trump administration amid a federal investigation into the University of Virginia, which led to the resignation of its president, Jim Ryan.
"This is the most outrageous action, I think, this crowd has taken on education," Warner told "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." "We have great public universities in Virginia. We have a very strong governance system, where we have an independent board of visitors appointed by the Governor. Jim Ryan had done a very good job; just completed a major capital campaign."
Ryan announced Friday that he would step down at the end of the next academic year. Sources familiar with the matter told CBS News that his resignation was submitted to resolve Trump administration demands related to a federal investigation into the school's efforts to promote diversity, equity and inclusions.
"For him to be threatened, and literally, there was indication that they received the letter that if he didn't resign on a day last week, by five o'clock, all these cuts would take place," Warner said Sunday.
When asked if the threat was explicit, Warner said, "It was that explicit."
Warner described the pressure as personal rather than policy-driven.
"You're shocked it's coming- personal attacks are coming out of this administration?" he asked. "This federal D.O.E. and Department of Justice should get their nose out of University of Virginia. They are doing damage to our flagship university. And if they can do it here, they'll do it elsewhere."
In his resignation letter, Ryan warned of the potential risks of resisting the administration's demands. "Hundreds of employees would lose jobs, researchers would lose funding, and hundreds of students could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld," Ryan wrote.
His resignation came amid an investigation that targeted DEI efforts across multiple universities, with UVA's president coming under intense scrutiny from the Department of Education and Department of Justice, according to CBS News reporting.
Warner acknowledged the difficult choice Ryan faced.
"At the end of the day, I understand that, with so many things at stake, that the idea, and I think Jim Ryan laid it out, that he was going to make his personal job more important than these cuts. But, boy, that shouldn't have been the choice."
Warner also warned that other public universities could face similar scrutiny.
The DOJ is also probing the University of California system's hiring practices, investigating whether efforts to boost faculty diversity violate federal anti-discrimination laws.
"They want to take on public universities the way they have now taken on the Ivies," Warner said. "This is going to hurt our universities. Chase away world-class talent. And frankly, if we don't have some level of academic freedom, then what kind of country are we?"
Most prominent among the Ivy League schools targeted by the Trump administration has been Harvard University. IIn June, the Trump administration moved to block new international students from enrolling at Harvard, accusing the university of failing to report disciplinary records and calling it "no longer a trustworthy steward" of international programs. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order and later extended it, describing the administration's actions as unconstitutional retaliation.
The administration also revoked Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program (SEVP) certification, froze research funding, and pressed the university on DEI policies and campus protests. Harvard has sued, calling the actions politically motivated and a threat to academic freedom.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Congress Won't Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn't Make Them Legal.
Congress Won't Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn't Make Them Legal.

Yahoo

time33 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Congress Won't Act on the Iran Strikes. That Doesn't Make Them Legal.

President Donald Trump has insisted that the sites in Iran targeted by American airstrikes last week have been 'obliterated,' decimating its nuclear program—a claim that has been backed up by key administration officials despite an initial intelligence report finding that the damage was more moderate. But alongside the question of whether significant damage has been done to Iran's nuclear ambitions, there is another thorny issue that lawmakers must now address: the legality of Trump's decision to authorize the strikes in the first place. 'It's not just a matter of statutory interpretation, it's a matter of [the] Constitution requiring that Congress be the one to play a critical role in making a decision and using force,' said Oona Hathaway, professor of international law at Yale Law School. 'For the president to make that decision unilaterally, without going to the Security Council, without going to Congress, and putting U.S. troops and allies at risk is really extraordinary and clearly unlawful.' The president's power to use military force is constrained by the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Charter, and the War Powers Resolution of 1973. According to Article 1 of the Constitution, only Congress has the authority to declare war, although it has not done so since World War II. The War Powers Resolution was enacted in response to the Vietnam War as an attempt to counter presidents' approval of military action without the consent of Congress. It was pushed through over President Richard Nixon's veto. The law requires that a president consult with Congress before engaging military forces, and report within 48 hours why the action was taken, under what authority, and 'the estimated scope and duration of the hostilities or involvement.' It also says a president must terminate the use of military force within 60 days if he has not sought approval from Congress. Despite its intention to ensure a conflict such as the Vietnam War never occurred without congressional consent again, the War Powers Resolution has often been ignored by the White House. For decades, presidents have pushed the limits of their power to engage in conflicts, while Congress has continued to take the back seat in enforcing its constitutional authority to declare war. Several presidents have taken military action without following the letter of the War Powers Resolution, including President Bill Clinton ordering airstrikes in Kosovo and President Barack Obama authorizing intervention in Libya. But Michael Glennon, professor of constitutional and international law at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University, argued Trump's actions were unique in that 'the risks entailed in this particular action are orders of magnitude greater than any of the supposed recent precedents.' He cited the threat of retaliation to the tens of thousands of U.S. troops posted around the Middle East, as well as 'stoking long-term regional animosities' and 'degrading the American reputation in diplomatic dealings with other countries.' 'In none of these recent cases was the context the same—the context being the exposure of the United States to a level of risk and cost that has not occurred before,' Glennon said. Trump's actions do follow a pattern of presidential engagement in conflict being followed by congressional dithering. Over several decades, presidents have learned that there will be little consequence for ignoring the War Powers Resolution. Hathaway said that cases challenging a president's actions do not typically go to court due to lack of legal standing. 'I don't think that that should lead us to think that there is no relevant law here, that this is a law-free zone where the president can do whatever he wants because he knows no one can actually enforce the rules,' said Hathaway. 'If the fact that there may not be consequences means that there's no law, then we've really got a problem on our hands.' Any pushback to unilateral presidential action may come from public disapproval of extended conflict rather than direct congressional action. A new Quinnipiac poll shows that the public is largely reacting to Trump's strikes in Iran with disapproval, although Republicans remain on board with the president's actions. 'Ultimately, Congress has not, in a significant way, constrained presidents from acting in these cases,' said Jordan Tama, professor in the Department of Foreign Policy and Global Security at American University's School of International Service. 'The members of Congress who have been most concerned about violations of the War Powers Resolution, or presidential actions that are not authorized by Congress … have not been able to muster the majority you need in Congress to pass new binding legislation that explicitly prohibits the president from pursuing military action.' Trump's actions in Iran have been met with some pushback from lawmakers, particularly after a scheduled briefing by administration officials for lawmakers was postponed this week. Axios further reported that the White House is limiting the sharing of classified information with Congress. Democratic Senator Tim Kaine is leading a resolution that would require Trump to seek congressional approval before engaging in further military hostilities in Iran, with an added amendment intended to alleviate concerns that it might hamper American support for Israel's activities in the region. Although the Senate is set to vote on the measure on Friday evening, it's unclear whether it would garner any Republican support in the upper chamber. Moreover, GOP Representative Thomas Massie, the Republican co-sponsor of a parallel measure in the House, said that a vote on his bipartisan resolution might be made moot if the ceasefire between Iran and Israel holds. Even if either of these measures makes it to the floor, however, it's unclear how much bipartisan support they would receive. Indeed, there is little political will to repudiate the president, and even if there was, lawmakers would need to marshal a veto-proof majority to take concrete action. Overturning a presidential veto would require support from two-thirds of members, which is unlikely in a Republican-majority Congress. In 2019, Congress approved a measure that would have pulled American support for Saudi Arabia's conflict in Yemen, but that resolution was vetoed by Trump. This puts Congress in a 'terrible fix,' said Hathaway: Rather than the president going to Congress to authorize military action, Congress must take the initiative to repudiate it. 'We end up with this learned helplessness in the sense that Congress chooses to stop trying, because what's the point?' said Hathaway. 'The president has learned that [he] can use military force without seeking authorities from Congress without consequence.' Aside from a seeming unwillingness to counter smaller-scale military engagements by presidents, Congress has similarly struggled to repeal or update authorizations for the use of military force in Iraq and Afghanistan approved ahead of the Gulf War and after the 9/11 terrorist attacks. The 2001 authorization, which applied to perpetrators of the 9/11 attacks, has been treated by presidents as an umbrella approval to strike at other organizations affiliated with Al Qaeda. Efforts to overturn or narrow these authorizations have floundered in recent years, even decades after they were approved. Countering the president invites risk for members of Congress. For Republicans, resistance to the president's aims will only court Trump's retaliation. More generally, however, lawmakers take the view that authorizing the commencement of military engagements—or ordering them to cease—comes with unintended political consequences. Voting in favor of the 2003 authorization of military force in Iraq became a major political albatross for Democratic primary candidates in the 2008 presidential election. That said, repealing such an authorization invites blowback, as well, if, for example, the move to do away with such a law was followed by a terrorist attack on American soil, or U.S. interests getting threatened abroad. The status quo has a latent appeal to lawmakers, who get to offset the political risk of military intervention while maintaining the ability to criticize it—or take credit. 'Casting a dangerous vote on an issue of war and peace is a perilous political act, and they would prefer to avoid that, because they would prefer their careers be extended and not hindered,' said Glennon.

Trump Rages at Democratic Senator Who Exposed Reality of His Iran Plan
Trump Rages at Democratic Senator Who Exposed Reality of His Iran Plan

Yahoo

time36 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Trump Rages at Democratic Senator Who Exposed Reality of His Iran Plan

Early Monday morning, President Donald Trump lashed out against Democratic Senator Chris Coons for mentioning reports that the Trump administration is looking to negotiate a nuclear deal with Iran eerily similar to the Obama-era agreement Trump discarded during his first term. On Thursday, CNN, citing four sources familiar with the matter, reported that 'the Trump administration has discussed possibly helping Iran access as much as $30 billion to build a civilian-energy-producing nuclear program, easing sanctions, and freeing up billions of dollars in restricted Iranian funds.' Trump at the time called such reports a 'HOAX' propagated by a 'SleazeBag' within the 'Fake News Media.' Coons cited the reports in a Sunday appearance on Fox News, telling host Shannon Bream, 'I'll just note that President Trump, by press accounts, is now moving towards negotiation and offering Iran a deal that looks somewhat similar to the Iran deal that was offered by Obama: tens of billions of dollars of incentives and reduced sanctions in exchange for abandoning their nuclear program.' A piqued Trump took to Truth Social just before 3 a.m., posting, 'Tell phony Democrat Senator Chris Coons that I am not offering Iran ANYTHING, unlike Obama, who paid them $Billions under the stupid road to a Nuclear Weapon JCPOA (which would now be expired!), nor am I even talking to them since we totally OBLITERATED their Nuclear Facilities.' Trump set off the chain of events leading to his June 21 bombing of Iran by withdrawing from President Obama's Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action in 2018—a decision which prompted Iran to 'accelerate its nuclear program,' per Axios, which in turn led Trump, upon resuming office, to consider a renewed deal that geopolitics expert Jeffrey Lewis called 'a dollar-store' JCPOA. 'He's trying to put Humpty Dumpty back together again,' Lewis said earlier this month. This, of course, went up in smoke as the self-proclaimed dealmaker President Trump resorted to unlawful military action.

US to restart trade negotiations with Canada immediately, White House says
US to restart trade negotiations with Canada immediately, White House says

Yahoo

time38 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

US to restart trade negotiations with Canada immediately, White House says

WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States will restart trade negotiations with Canada immediately after Canada scrapped its digital services tax targeting U.S. technology firms, White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett said on Monday. "Absolutely," Hassett said on Fox News when asked about the talks restarting. President Donald Trump asked the Canadians to take the tax off at the G7 meeting in Canada, he said. "It's something that they've studied, now they've agreed to, and for sure, that means that we can get back to the negotiations." Sign in to access your portfolio

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