George Mason University faces investigation in Trump administration's anti-DEI crackdown
The Education Department said it is responding to a complaint from multiple professors at George Mason who accuse the university of favoring those from underrepresented groups. The complaint takes aim at the university's president, Gregory Washington, saying he issued guidance that favors faculty candidates based on diversity considerations rather than their credentials, according to the department.
It marks an expansion of the Trump administrations campaign to reshape higher education, which until recently focused on elite private institutions like Harvard and Columbia universities. George Mason is the second big public university to face scrutiny in recent weeks, following a Justice Department investigation at the University of Virginia that prompted the school's president, James Ryan, to resign.
A statement from George Mason denied any allegations of discrimination and said the university "affirms its commitment to comply with all federal and state mandates."
The Trump administration has used civil rights law to fight DEI, saying diversity preferences amount to illegal discrimination against white and Asian American people. On his second day in office, Trump signed an action demanding an end to DEI at all universities that receive federal money.
George Mason responded to federal orders by renaming its DEI office in March, but it concluded that its policies were already in line with federal law.
The complaint to the Education Department said the school did nothing to change campus hiring and promotion policies that favored those from minority groups, the department said. The complaint said George Mason had a policy to include an "equity adviser" in every academic department to help recruit faculty. The university also created an "anti-racism" task force whose work included "diversity cluster hire initiatives," according to the agency.
It also accuses Washington of issuing guidance allowing faculty and staff to be hired based partially on their diversity "even if that candidate may not have better credentials than the other candidate."
Craig Trainor, acting assistant secretary for the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights, said "it appears" that George Mason's hiring and promotion policies "not only allow but champion illegal racial preferencing."
George Mason has built a reputation as a conservative powerhouse, especially in law and economics. But it has also been the subject of conservative criticism over its DEI initiatives. A 2023 report by the Heritage Foundation found that George Mason was "bloated" with high numbers of DEI officials and had "radical content" on its websites. Washington disputed the report and its methodology.
The University of Virginia was also called out in the report, and its president more recently faced criticism from conservative groups that said he was too slow to end DEI initiatives on the Charlottesville campus. Among those leveling complaints were America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Diplomat
7 hours ago
- The Diplomat
US Foreign Aid With Chinese Characteristics
The dismantling of USAID is the culmination of a decade-long realignment of Western approaches to development, inspired by China's Belt and Road Initiative. The GSEZ Mineral Port in Gabon, one of the projects supported by public-private partnership via the U.S. International Development Finance Corporation. As President Donald Trump takes a chainsaw to U.S. foreign aid programs, it would be easy to attribute such extreme measures to MAGA isolationism or DOGE zealotry. While anti-globalist and anti-government ideologies certainly played a role, the shift away from traditional foreign aid is not limited to the U.S. and does not represent a full-scale abandonment of development finance. Indeed, Trump's moves represent the culmination of a decade-long realignment of Western approaches to development, inspired by China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). The retreat from traditional foreign assistance cuts across the Western world. By 2026, estimates hold that foreign aid budgets will have fallen by over one-quarter in Canada and Germany and by close to 40 percent in Britain, compared with 2023 levels. Overall, G-7 countries, which account for 75 percent of foreign assistance, spent 28 percent less in 2025 than in 2024. Yet even as Trump's Big Beautiful Bill cut foreign aid, it also provided new funding – a $3 billion revolving fund – for the International Development Finance Corporation (IDFC), which was created by the 2017 BUILD Act. The IDFC is up for renewal this year, and the House Foreign Affairs Committee has already voted in support of authorizing its operations for another seven years with a lending cap of $120 billion, double the initial level. The IDFC was intended as an answer to China's BRI, which represented an alternative to traditional Western approaches to aid. The Development Assistance Committee (DAC) – a club of Western donor countries – defines Official Development Assistance (ODA) as concessional finance directed toward developmental projects in low- and middle-income countries. The DAC encourages transparency and discourages the tying of aid to purchases of goods and services from the donor country. Most DAC countries emphasize 'soft' aid, focused on health, education, and humanitarian assistance. ODA typically draws upon budgeted funds that must be renewed annually. Very little of Chinese development finance meets these criteria. Instead, China's development finance is commercial in orientation. Most loans are initiated by policy banks – the China Development Bank and the China Export-Import Bank – that raise funds by issuing bonds to investors. Loans carry near-market interest rates and must be repaid in full. Much of Chinese development finance has been channeled through the BRI, which focuses on infrastructure construction. Loans through these policy banks and others have amounted to well over a trillion dollars over the past decade. Western countries have followed China's lead both in commercializing development finance and in driving more resources toward infrastructure development. The latter move has transpired under the guise of various initiatives: the BUILD Act (U.S.), Build Back Better World (U.S.), the Global Gateway initiative (European Union), the Blue Dot Network (U.S., Australia, Japan), the Quality Infrastructure Investment Initiative (Japan), and the Partnership for Global Infrastructure and Investment (G-7). The competitive ambitions of the West have been limited by a paucity of available public funds, which makes it difficult to match the scale of China's BRI. This problem gave rise to efforts to leverage public money to mobilize private capital for development purposes through blended finance initiatives. At the multilateral level, a group of multilateral development banks issued a planning document titled 'From Billions to Trillions: Transforming Development Finance' in 2015. This paper outlined a vision for mobilizing private financial resources toward Global South infrastructure and other developmental needs. This was followed by the World Bank's 'Maximizing Finance for Development' initiative and the United Nation's 'Global Investors for Sustainable Development Alliance.' These projects and those discussed below constituted what Daniela Gabor characterized as a 'Wall Street Consensus.' Many types of infrastructure take the form of public (or semi-public) goods. Public goods, by their nature, are underproduced relative to their social utility because producers cannot exclude consumers from benefiting once the goods are produced. The Wall Street Consensus aims to make infrastructure projects 'bankable' or attractive to private investors by shifting the risk of unprofitability to the state. If successful, private money is pooled with public funding through blended financing models such as syndicated bond issues. In this 'development as derisking' model, private capital is 'escorted' into the process of financing infrastructure through the creation of new asset classes freed of investor risk. In 2018, the G-20 declared support for a Roadmap to Infrastructure as an Asset Class. Two types of risks must be minimized for private investors: regulatory risk and financial risk. Reducing regulatory risk includes lower environmental and safety standards, guaranteed grid access, legal protections against nationalization, and liability limits. Financial risk is managed through guaranteed toll revenues, preferential credit, loan guarantees, tax relief, or subsidies. Multilateral Development Banks (MDBs) or DAC donors help build state capacity in project identification and development, provide expertise in securitizing infrastructure assets for the market, and offer partial financing or loan guarantees. The necessity for subsidies and other forms of state support arises from the fact that more than half of infrastructure projects in emerging economies do not promise sufficient cash flow to attract private investors. Even projects with dedicated revenue streams often carry demand risks, meaning they turn unprofitable if demand for the service declines. Governments may be compelled to include contract provisions that promise to cover revenue shortfalls with public funds when demand falls below certain thresholds. Seth Schindler, Ilias Alami, and Nicholas Jepson noted that what Gabor referred to as the 'derisking state' becomes both more dependent upon global finance and increasingly interventionist in shaping market outcomes. This contrasts with the Washington Consensus, which counseled state neutrality vis-à-vis the market, but also differs from the East Asian development model, where state intervention sought to shape the behavior of national capital rather than global capital. By relieving private investors of risk, states aim to amplify the capital that can be mobilized toward critical development needs beyond national savings or the resources of MDBs and bilateral donors. The trade-off is the acceptance of risk by the developing state, a danger highlighted when the COVID-19 pandemic and rising interest rates threatened the solvency of many highly indebted countries. The U.S. International Development Finance Corporation fits this model. The BUILD Act described its purpose as to 'provide countries a robust alternative to state-directed investments by authoritarian governments and United States strategic competitors.' With a financing authority of $60 billion, the IDFC seeks to 'crowd-in' private capital with a flexible toolkit that includes nonconcessional loans, loan guarantees, export credits, political risk insurance, equity investments, and technical assistance. Largely due to IDFC activity, nonconcessional development finance flows jumped from 4 percent of overall U.S. aid spending in 2020 to 36 percent in 2021. Among the major projects funded by the IDFC are investments related to the Lobito Corridor in Southern Africa, which aims to create transportation links allowing Western firms to access critical minerals that are presently monopolized by China. Ironically, this growing Western emphasis on nonconcessional, commercialized development finance with an emphasis on infrastructure development comes at a time when China has scaled back the BRI (largely due to growing evidence that many recipient countries have exceeded their borrowing capacities) and begun allocating more resources to 'soft' aid through the Global Development Initiative. An obvious drawback of the blended finance model is that it diverts attention and resources from traditional concessional aid and the investment in health, education, and disaster assistance that remain essential. But even on its own terms, the effectiveness of the Wall Street Consensus remains in doubt. A 2020 report by the Center for Global Development concluded that the overall flow of blended finance had been disappointing and that the great bulk of MDB-mobilized private financing was directed to middle-income rather than low-income countries. A 2019 study by ODI Global reached similar conclusions. In low-income countries, on average, each $1 in public development financing mobilized only $0.37 in private finance. Blended finance was constrained by the low risk tolerance of both public and private actors in the face of environments hampered by poor governance and few profitable investment opportunities. Since most blended finance flowed to middle-income countries and to 'hard' sectors, such as transport and energy, as opposed to social sectors, the report suggested that the increased priority given such investments came at the expense of programs that more directly targeted poverty in low-income countries. Indeed, the proposed doubling in the funding cap for the IDFC cannot substitute for the human costs that follow from the cuts to U.S. Official Development Assistance, which one study suggests will lead to 14 million deaths over the next five years. Traditional aid may have drawbacks, whether evaluated as a tool of U.S. foreign policy or in terms of development effectiveness, but abandoning it in favor of the privatization of development finance is neither wise nor humane.
The Diplomat
7 hours ago
- The Diplomat
Trump's Tariffs Aren't the Only US Policy Hurting South Korea's Economy
Any trade deal will also need to address regulatory changes that are degrading South Korean investments in the U.S.. With the August 1 deadline for South Korea to strike a new trade deal with the United States rapidly approaching, Seoul's focus has been on minimizing the potential for significant tariff increases on Korean exports to the United States. However, shifts in regulatory and subsidy policy under the Trump administration are also negatively impacting Korean investments in the United States and should be a part of any negotiations. Over the last three years, Korean firms have invested $114 billion in the United States. Centered in strategic areas such as semiconductors and clean energy, these are significant investments in U.S. manufacturing capacity. However, the Trump administration's turn against clean energy and related products has decreased the long-term potential of much of this investment. Ironically, these regulatory shifts come at a time when Washington is reportedly pushing South Korea to create an outward investment fund to support manufacturing in the United States that could run into the hundreds of billions of dollars. In essence, Trump administration policy is devaluing current Korean investment, while demanding additional investment in the United States to avoid tariffs of 25 percent or more on Korean exports to the United States. In some cases, these policies seemingly undermine Trump administration objectives. Restoring manufacturing to the United States has long been a priority for Donald Trump and has been touted by his administration. The administration has launched a wide range of Section 232 national security investigations focused on the impact of imports on domestic manufacturing and national security, presumably with the intention of addressing the decline in manufacturing in the United States through higher tariffs to incentivize domestic production. The Trump administration has also made restoring dominance as a key goal for the administration but has sent conflicting signals. It initiated a Section 232 investigation into polysilicon, which is used in semiconductors and solar panels. A separate Section 232 investigation into semiconductors already covers some of the uses of polysilicon in semiconductor manufacturing, suggesting that the separate polysilicon investigation relates primarily to its usage in solar panels. Expanding solar power as part of an energy security agenda would also support the administration's objective of maintaining the United States' dominance in AI. This will require significant new amounts of electricity production, with the International Energy Agency expecting AI data centers to account for half of the growth in electricity demand in the United States by 2030. Nominally, the Trump administration's Section 232 investigation into polysilicon imports should be beneficial to Hanwha Q Cells, a Korean firm that manufactures solar panels in the United States. According to the International Energy Agency, China accounts for 93 percent of global manufacturing of polysilicon, making U.S. manufacturers dependent on Chinese sources of polysilicon for the production of solar panels. Hanwha Q Cells is investing $2.5 billion to develop the sole U.S.-sourced supply chain for the production of solar panels in the United States, but has struggled to ease its dependence on China for polysilicon. OCI, another Korean solar manufacturer, is also working to develop a non-China solar power supply chain in the United States utilizing polysilicon from its facilities in Malaysia. While the Section 232 investigation should help Hanwha Q Cells by incentivizing polysilicon production in the United States, there are more significant countervailing forces in U.S. policy that will negatively impact those investments. The Trump administration has introduced a new policy requiring a political review of new solar projects in the United States. Rather than being reviewed by lower-level staff, 68 different actions by the Department of Interior for the deployment of solar panels will now need to be personally approved by Secretary Doug Burgum. Because even projects not on federal land consult with the Interior Department to determine if their projects require permits or are in compliance with federal laws, this new policy has the potential to significantly slow the deployment of solar power in the United States. The One Big Beautiful Bill also moved forward the phase out of solar power subsidies to require construction to begin by July 4 of next year or power to be produced by the end of 2027. The subsidies were originally scheduled to be in place until 2028. Hanwha Q Cells and OCI are not the only Korean firms facing increasing pressure due to policy changes from the Trump administration. Over the last three years, about half of Korean investment into the United States has been in the EV battery sector. Those investments created over 20,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs. Yet these EV battery firms were already under financial pressure even before the removal of the Inflation Reduction Act's $7,500 tax credit under the One Big Beautiful Bill. The financial pressure on Korean EV battery makers will increase with the slowing growth in demand for EVs following the removal of the consumer tax credit. This decline will also impact Hyundai, which just invested $12.6 billion to build its new Metaplant in Georgia to produce 500,000 EVs and hybrid vehicles per year across all of its brands. The regulatory shifts under the Trump administration will only add to the increasing cost pressures manufacturers face from the various Section 232 and anti-dumping investigations on commodities, which will drive up the cost of producing goods in the United States. The proposed 50 percent tariff on copper will increase costs for producers of semiconductors, EVs, and consumer electronics. A new 93.5 percent anti-dumping tariff on graphite, a key material for making EV batteries, will also increase the costs of EV batteries. With reductions in subsidies and increasing regulatory barriers for these industries, production costs will increase will demand for their products will decline. Trump promised a low regulatory environment to boost manufacturing in the United States and to help compensate companies for the new tariffs. That low regulatory environment to date only applies to industries favored by the Trump administration; in other sectors, new policies actually undermine existing manufacturing investments in the United States. Any new trade deal between the United States and South Korea needs to address the negative impact of policy changes on Korean firms to protect US manufacturing and encourage further Korean investment in the United States.
The Diplomat
9 hours ago
- The Diplomat
What Marcos Got From His Meeting With President Trump
The Philippine president has come under fire for opening the country to U.S. imports without getting much in return. The United States has announced that it will lower its tariff rate for the Philippines from 20 percent to 19 percent. In exchange, the Philippines will open its market to the U.S. and some U.S. goods like automobiles will have a zero tariff rate. This is what U.S. President Donald Trump posted on his social media platform after meeting Philippine President Ferdinand 'Bongbong' Marcos Jr. at the White House. Marcos confirmed this in a media briefing and immediately assured the public that the deal would benefit the Philippine economy. 'Now, one percent might seem like a very small concession,' he said. 'However when you put it in real terms, it is a significant achievement.' The Philippine ambassador to the U.S. added that the tariff reduction announcement would lead to more trade negotiations. 'The lowering of tariff to 19 percent is a good deal for the moment, but there is still more that we can do and that there will still be more discussions ahead,' he said. The Philippines was initially given a 17 percent tariff rate before Trump raised it to 20 percent. Marcos flew to the U.S. with the intention of negotiating for a better trade agreement by banking on the good relations of the two countries. Since becoming president in 2022, Marcos has allowed the establishment of four more U.S. military facilities in the Philippines under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA). He has expanded the joint military exercises involving the U.S. and its allies in the region. He also agreed to the deployment of U.S.-made Typhon and other missile systems in the Philippines. Before the Marcos-Trump meeting, Philippine defense officials reported the establishment of a U.S. naval repair facility in Palawan province and an ammunition factory at Subic Bay, a former U.S. military base. News of the results of the trade negotiations angered several Philippine legislators. Act Teachers Partylist Representative Tonchi Tinio described Marcos's trip to the U.S. as a 'disastrous humiliation ritual.' Senator Ping Lacson said 'it is the worst insult that a host can throw at his guest.' He added, 'it is time for us to look for other trade partners.' Senator Juan Miguel Zubiri compared the one percent tariff rate reduction to the more favorable terms Japan got from Trump. 'If the United States truly sees us as a treaty ally, we should be accorded the same level of mutual respect in trade policy,' he said. He also mentioned that Indonesia was given a similar trade concession. 'We have a similar trade arrangement with Indonesia, which is not even a treaty ally and does not host U.S. forces or EDCA sites,' he said in a statement. 'The least we could have done was to negotiate terms on par with what Japan enjoys, a fellow U.S. treaty ally.' Senator Francis Pangilinan is worried that the zero tariff for U.S. goods will gravely affect local producers. 'If implemented without careful consideration, a zero tariff policy will disadvantage our farmers and fisherfolk, and put in peril our work toward food security and national development.' But House Speaker Ferdinand Martin Romualdez, a cousin of Marcos, enjoined the public to rally behind the gains made by the president. 'Access to the U.S. market is a game-changer,' he asserted. 'What matters is that President Marcos secured a seat at the table, and the terms of engagement can be shaped from here.' Marcos' arrival statement mentioned the trade and security deals he clinched in the U.S., including investment pledges that would create jobs and livelihood opportunities, but there was no mention of the tariff rate reduction and the zero tariff he offered to the United States. Perhaps details of the trade negotiations and other important matters that transpired during his meeting with Trump will be released in the next few days, leading up to his fourth state of the nation address on July 28. It is not just the tariff deal that Marcos has to explain to the public. The more serious problem facing the country at the moment is the flooding disaster in the capital region and nearby provinces. Several cities are still submerged in floods, with disgruntled citizens asking about the flood control projects mentioned by Marcos in his state of the nation address last year. Marcos was unable to directly oversee the disaster response of the government in the past few days since he was on an official visit to the United States to meet with Trump. Some critics are wondering if the trip he made was really worthwhile since he got a measly tariff deal despite giving away substantial concessions.
