Judge dismisses faculty unions' lawsuit over Columbia university funding cuts
Listen to article
A federal judge dismissed a lawsuit against the Trump administration by two labor unions for Columbia University faculty that challenged funding cuts and demands to overhaul student discipline and boost oversight for a Middle Eastern studies department.
US District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil in Manhattan said the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers lacked legal standing to sue, with Columbia itself "conspicuously absent" from the case.
"Our democracy cannot very well function if individual judges issue extraordinary relief to every plaintiff who clamors to object to executive action," Vyskocil wrote.
"If any funds have been wrongfully withheld, such funds may be recovered at the end of a successful lawsuit by the appropriate plaintiff in an appropriate forum," she added.
"It is not the role of a district court judge to direct the policies of the Executive Branch first and ask questions later."
Both plaintiffs plan to appeal.
"The Trump administration's threats and coercion at Columbia University are part of an authoritarian agenda that extends far beyond Columbia," Todd Wolfson, president of the professors' union, said in a statement. "We will continue to fight back."
Vyskocil, a Trump appointee, ruled 12 days after the Department of Education threatened to revoke Columbia's accreditation over the university's alleged failure to protect Jewish students, including from pro-Palestinian protests.
Columbia was the first major US university targeted in President Donald Trump's effort to conform higher education to his policies.
Judge dismisses lawsuit seeking to restore $400M in grant funding to Columbia Universityhttps://t.co/wdnniuHoXn pic.twitter.com/b6atr2MUl5 — The Washington Times (@WashTimes) June 17, 2025
It has acceded to some White House demands, including by boosting security and announcing a review of its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department.
Other schools, including Harvard University, have fought Trump in court.
The labor unions' lawsuit originally targeted $400 million of Columbia funding cuts, and later sought an injunction to prevent the Trump administration from interfering with more than $5 billion of grants and contracts.
Vyskocil said that to the extent the unions "feel chilled" by recent changes at Columbia, they have not shown that the changes were "merely the 'predictable' response" to White House demands.
The case is American Association of University Professors et al v. US Department of Justice et al, US District Court, Southern District of New York, No. 25-02429.
Previously, the lawsuit, filed by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) and the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), argues the cuts are retaliatory, stemming from pro-Palestinian protests at Columbia University earlier this year.
University of Columbia President notice to students on March 13 over federal warrants, search and arrest, and DHS engagement on campus Photo: X
President Donald Trump and senior officials have criticised the university for allowing student-led demonstrations against Israel's military assault in Gaza.
The protests, which included campus occupations, sparked similar movements across the country.
In response, the administration demanded the university adopt stricter policies, including tougher penalties for protesters, a review of admissions, and a ban on masks at demonstrations. Columbia officials have since agreed to most of these demands, laid out in a March 13 letter.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Live from Glastonbury: the resistance will be televised
Glastonbury 2025 was always going to be charged, but few expected the seismic waves sent rippling through the global cultural sphere when Bob Vylan, mid-performance on the Left Field stage, roared out the chant "Death, death to the IDF" to a crowd erupting in cheers. The moment, aired uncut by the BBC, was joined hours later by Belfast rap group Kneecap voicing support for Palestine from the West Holts stage. Mo Chara, one of the trio's frontmen, wore a Palestinian keffiyeh as he led chants of 'Free Palestine' and 'F*ck Keir Starmer', calling out the UK prime minister for his support of Israel and demanding the release of Mo Chara from pending terrorism charges over a previous protest. The group's set also projected slogans declaring Israel guilty of genocide, and encouraged solidarity with Palestine Action. The crowd responded with a sea of Palestinian flags, and their performance quickly went viral on TikTok, where unofficial streams racked up over 1.8 million views. Within days, Glastonbury organisers quietly cancelled Kneecap's planned encore appearances, citing security and 'operational risk' after complaints flooded in. The move only inflamed supporters, who accused the festival of bowing to political pressure. In the hours after both performances, social media combusted. Outrage and solidarity, condemnation and defence flooded in equal measure. The BBC found itself in the crosshairs for platforming, however accidentally, what many called 'incendiary' messages, while others framed them as essential acts of resistance. This was an unwelcome addition to the BBC's already fraying relationship with audiences over coverage of the Palestine-Israel war. The broadcaster has been criticised repeatedly for a toothless coverage of the genocide in Gaza, under the pretext of maintaining a policy of both-sides reporting. The media corporation has failed to contextualise Israel's onslaught in Gaza as a humanitarian disaster. Only weeks ago, it quietly pulled from its schedule a harrowing documentary about Israel carrying out target killings of doctors in Gaza, prompting fierce accusations of self-censorship. That film is now being independently released, a damning testament to how far even a public broadcaster has retreated from its stated mission to inform without fear or partiality. Glastonbury, Britain's most hallowed musical gathering, has long occupied a space where counterculture and establishment jostle for attention. From Banksy installations to the rants of politically-minded performers, Glasto has provided a literal stage for dissent. This year, as the war in Gaza stretched into its most horrifying months, the festival became a universal platform for moral urgency. Bob Vylan's blunt invocation of 'Death to the IDF' — the Israel Defence Forces — was for many a cry of rage against a military juggernaut seen as responsible for tens of thousands of civilian deaths. For others, it crossed a line, interpreted as a violent incitement or an antisemitic attack. While cancelling Kneecap, for their chants and slogans for Palestine, was reminiscent of US campuses clamping down peaceful protests supporting freedom for Palestine. This is where art collides with politics in its rawest form. These artists did not arrive at their words casually, or in a vacuum. Bob Vylan and Kneecap belong to communities shaped by a history of state violence, their art will inevitably echo the strains of protest music. As punk rock and rap artists, their invective does not adopt the polite language of policymakers but the fury of the disenfranchised, the language of those who see no recourse in a world that ignores their pain. That is what protest music is meant to do: to jolt and provoke. It goes against being palatable by its very nature. But Glastonbury is also a vast commercial machine, broadcast to millions and now somewhat even a middle-class rite of passage. That friction between raw protest and the festival's curated, corporate-backed spectacle has come into sharp focus this year. Sure — here's a clearer rewording while keeping the same idea: The BBC, once again, finds itself at the centre of this tension. Some saw it as dangerous and a lapse of judgment that BBC cameras and live broadcast didn't censor Bob Vylan. Others see as these acts of protest as necessary. That is the challenge of public broadcasting: to reflect a divided society where one person's incitement is another person's cry for freedom. In the aftermath, politicians, pundits, and public figures lined up with their ritual condemnations. Some accused the performers of stoking hate, arguing that calls for the destruction of the IDF risked inflaming anti-Jewish sentiment at a time of rising antisemitism in Britain. Others pointed out that Gaza had become an open-air graveyard, with entire families obliterated by bombs. Where, they asked, was the outrage for them? It is a question echoing far beyond Glastonbury's rolling hills — one that cuts to the heart of how freedom of expression is measured, and whose pain is seen as legitimate. What this moment reveals, above all, is a generational chasm in how cultural resistance is framed. The younger festivalgoers, many of them radicalised by images of Gaza's devastation, heard in Bob Vylan a truth-telling. Of course — here's a rewrite that focuses on a more conservative view of free speech rather than historical trauma: Their elders, often holding more conservative views on the limits of free speech, heard the chants as crossing a dangerous line into hate speech. No festival as storied as Glastonbury can accommodate both these perspectives without deep fractures. And yet, these ruptures are essential. Political art is meant to disturb. It is meant to pick at scabs we might prefer to leave alone. From the Vietnam-era protest songs of Bob Dylan and Joan Baez, to the anthems of Public Enemy railing against systemic racism, artists have always tested the boundaries of what the public is willing to hear. In the 2000s, even pop acts like the Pussycat Dolls ventured into protest, most notably with 'I Don't Need a Man' becoming an accidental feminist rallying cry at a time when women were pushing back against media sexism — a small but significant statement about agency. Major political movements have always found a soundtrack. The anti-apartheid struggle had the power of Miriam Makeba, while Rage Against the Machine raged against American imperialism with blistering verses that still echo on protest lines today. Beyoncé brought the imagery of Black Panther resistance to the Super Bowl, in front of millions, and paid the price of conservative outrage. After 9/11, artists from System of a Down to the Dixie Chicks challenged America's wars, at enormous personal and commercial cost. From 'Ohio' protesting the Kent State shootings to today's chants for Palestinian liberation, artists have given language to anger and solidarity in ways politicians cannot. Across the Muslim world, musicians like Tunisia's Emel Mathlouthi, Palestine's DAM, and Iran's Shahin Najafi have carried this same tradition forward, using song to challenge oppression and demand justice, often at great personal risk. The challenge, then, is for the rest of us — audiences, institutions, and broadcasters — to grapple honestly with that discomfort rather than try to erase it. Protest music and performance will continue to break through polite silence, because as long as injustice persists, someone will step on a stage and name it, whether we are ready to hear it or not. Placing a finger on the pulse of a world standing at the precipice of political fracture, Bob Vylan and Kneecap have cracked open the most vital question for all of us really: how many civilian deaths must a war rack up before outrage is no longer taboo? And who gets to decide whether that outrage is acceptable speech or criminal incitement? Upon having his US visa revoked, Bob Vylan reiterated his unwavering solidarity to the cause of Palestine. This is now perhaps the most audacious slap in the face of Israel's heinous despotism by one person who grabbed the chance to raise his voice against genocide. Glastonbury 2025 will be remembered not just for its music, but for sending message to the global society forced to look itself in the mirror. Amid the anthems and encore sets, that mirror reflected a nation divided by history, by fear, and delusions.
Express Tribune
2 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Book review: Pakistan's secret history, through a spy's eyes
Published by Pen & Sword Military, Caught in the Crossfire: The Inside Story of Pakistan's Secret Services, begins with the author recounting a dramatic story from 1982, featuring former president General Zia Ul Haq. The incident perfectly encapsulates how Brigadier Naseem Akhtar Khan often found himself on the front lines of some of the most pivotal moments of the twentieth century. He also recounted another president, Pervez Musharraf, as a close friend and mentor. Imagine spending nearly thirty years as an invisible warrior for your country, constantly slipping into enemy territory to gather vital secrets, dodging bullets, and outsmarting those who want to harm your nation. This is essentially what you'll find in Brigadier Khan's book. It is the author's personal journey through decades of high-stakes counterintelligence. If you think this is just a dry history lesson, you are wrong. All those intense details have been woven into a really absorbing look at South Asian military history, especially focusing on the security challenges Pakistan has faced since it came into existence. The author firmly believes that a lot of what's said about international strategies in the region is actually made-up information spread by Pakistan's enemies to hurt its interests. That was his basic inspiration when he decided to write this book, using his own experiences as a reliable guide for anyone trying to understand the past, and predict what might happen next. At its heart, the book is about how he sees the power plays happening in South Asia between both regional and global players. Brig Khan thinks it'll be incredibly helpful for readers to get a more realistic grasp of our constantly changing world order. There are a multitude of thrilling stories in the book, worthy of any Hollywood blockbuster, and it shouldn't be surprising, given how the backdrop of Brig Khan's life easily lends itself to such high-stake action. From the Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan to 9/11 and through conflicts against neighbouring India, the former intelligence and military officer got a first-hand view of history unfolding in real time in his 23-year career in ISI. Brig Khan's story is like something out of fiction. The dashing soldier came from relatively humble beginnings in Kashmir, a warm family and proud ancestry fueling his own ambitions to 'Touch the sky', as he and his sister would cry as they played as children. There are several unexpected turning points in his life. The first one put him on a high achieving academic path that lead to the Pakistan Military Academy. His military career took off in the Army in 1969, but when he was asked to report for ISI, he worried this might spike his rise up the regular ranks. Yet there was another unprecedented opportunity, in 1979, when the Soviets went into Afghanistan, and the support Pakistan was able to provide proved instrumental to CIA efforts to undermine their Cold War rivals. The Brigadier would also see first-hand how Pakistan was betrayed by its allies in the aftermath of the fall of the Soviet Union. After 9/11, Pakistan was coerced by the US into supporting its own invasion of Afghanistan and this led to its own wave of terrorism. It is these difficult times in his country's history where Brig Khan's vantage point and analysis are most instructive for events that unfolded in 2025, including how domestic politics continues to undermine national interests, while the US is underestimating their need for the country, as it elevates India to counter China. The turbulent times Brig Khan navigated as a patriot and one of Pakistan's invisible warriors has helped him to acquire such important perspectives, so that in his retirement and in private-sector security work, he has now been able to share them in this fine book. Despite first and foremost being primarily a family man, Khan nevertheless put his life on the line for his nation several times. Regardless of the personal risks, his priority would be to protect Pakistan's interests. Loyalty features large in his story, yet it is ironic that outsiders might feel loyalty has no place in the spy game. He is unsparing in his assessment of the problems caused by the interplay between Pakistan's politicians and the army in civilian governance matters, leading to the failure, and painful loss of East Pakistan. Khan's book also serves as a concise history of Pakistan and he is able to deftly explain to readers who might not be aware, how an elite group of 22 families, accumulated such wealth and gained political power at the start of its journey, and that this ruling class influences its future even today. What Brig Khan delivers to the reader is a memoir packed with his real-life experiences, all told in a way that makes sense. He really dives into the people, groups, and the organisations that shaped his life, trying to pull you into his world so you can truly understand what it's like to be a Pakistani soldier. Mustafa Alrawi is a leading journalist and Group Director Editorial Partnerships at IMI Media, Abu Dhabi, UAE All facts and information are the sole responsibility of the writer
Express Tribune
4 hours ago
- Express Tribune
Elon Musk forms new political party in further break from Trump
Listen to article The tattered bromance between Republican President Donald Trump and his main campaign financier Elon Musk took another fractious turn on Saturday when the space and automotive billionaire announced the formation of a new political party, saying Trump's "big, beautiful" tax bill would bankrupt America. A day after asking his followers on his X platform whether a new US political party should be created, Musk declared in a post on Saturday that "Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom." By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it! When it comes to bankrupting our country with waste & graft, we live in a one-party system, not a democracy. Today, the America Party is formed to give you back your freedom. — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 5, 2025 "By a factor of 2 to 1, you want a new political party and you shall have it!" he wrote. The announcement from Musk comes after Trump signed his self-styled "big, beautiful" tax-cut and spending bill into law on Friday, which Musk fiercely opposed. Musk, who became the word's richest man thanks to his Tesla car company and his SpaceX satellite firm, spent hundreds of millions on Trump's re-election and led the Department of Government Efficiency from the start of the president's second term aimed at slashing government spending. The two have since fallen out spectacularly over disagreements about the bill. Musk said previously that he would start a new political party and spend money to unseat lawmakers who supported the bill. Independence Day is the perfect time to ask if you want independence from the two-party (some would say uniparty) system! Should we create the America Party? — Elon Musk (@elonmusk) July 4, 2025 Trump earlier this week threatened to cut off the billions of dollars in subsidies that Musk's companies receive from the federal government. Republicans have expressed concern that Musk's on-again, off-again feud with Trump could hurt their chances to protect their majority in the 2026 midterm congressional elections. Read: Elon Musk polls followers on forming 'America Party' amid backlash to Trump budget bill Asked on X what was the one thing that made him go from loving Trump to attacking him, Musk said: "Increasing the deficit from an already insane $2T under Biden to $2.5T. This will bankrupt the country." He referenced the growth of Greece from subjugation to preeminence in the ancient world in another tweet, saying: "The way we're going to crack the uniparty system is by using a variant of how Epaminondas shattered the myth of Spartan invincibility at Leuctra: Extremely concentrated force at a precise location on the battlefield." There was no immediate comment from Trump or the White House on Musk's announcement. The feud with Trump, often described as one between the world's richest man and the world's most powerful, has led to several precipitous falls in Tesla's share price. The stock soared after Trump's November reelection and hit a high of more than $488 in December, before losing more than half of its value in April and closing last week out at $315.35. Despite Musk's deep pockets, breaking the Republican-Democratic duopoly will be a tall order, given that it has dominated American political life for more than 160 years, while Trump's approval ratings in polls in his second term have generally held firm above 40 percent, despite often divisive policies.
