US House committee subpoenas Harvard over tuition costs, World News
The US House Judiciary Committee sent a subpoena to Harvard University on Thursday (June 26) seeking documents and communications for its probe into tuition costs and financial aid for Ivy League students.
A letter to Harvard President Alan Garber, signed by committee chairman Jim Jordan and US Representative Scott Fitzgerald, both Republicans, described Harvard's response to previous requests for documents as inadequate and said the committee needs the documents "to fulfil its oversight and legislative responsibilities".
A spokesperson for Harvard said in a statement: "We are disappointed that the Committee has chosen to issue a subpoena and believe it is unwarranted, unfair and unnecessary."
It added: "There is no basis for an allegation of collusion in Harvard's setting of tuition and financial aid."
The investigation into tuition is part of a larger fight between Harvard and the White House and Congress, including over cuts to federal funding and efforts to block foreign students from attending the university.
President Donald Trump has said he is trying to force change at Harvard — and other top-level universities across the US — because in his view they have been captured by leftist "woke" thought and become bastions of antisemitism.
The subpoena comes as part of an investigation by the Republican-controlled US House Judiciary Committee into whether Harvard and other Ivy League schools broke antitrust laws by raising tuition costs.
"We are concerned that Ivy League member institutions appear to be collectively raising tuition prices while engaging in perfect price discrimination by offering selective financial aid packages to maximise profits," the letter to Harvard's Garber said.
US Representative Jamie Raskin, a Democratic member of the Judiciary Committee, called the investigation "plainly ridiculous" and "based on pathetically weak allegations".
The Harvard spokesperson said the school has produced thousands of pages of documents on its tuition-setting process and financial aid.
While the Judiciary Committee said it had received hundreds of requested documents, it added that some of them contained publicly available facts and lacked specific information that was desired.
[[nid:719405]]
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
2 hours ago
- Straits Times
Top Ukrainian commander sees new assault on key eastern city
A Russian military helicopter flies past a flock of birds in the course of Russia-Ukraine conflict in Donetsk, a Russian-controlled city of Ukraine, June 28, 2025. REUTERS/Alexander Ermochenko Ukraine's top commander said on Saturday that his forces faced a new onslaught against a key city on the eastern front of its war against Russia, while Moscow said it was making progress in another sector farther southwest. After their initial failed advance on the capital Kyiv in the first weeks after the February 2022 invasion, Russian troops have focused on capturing all of Donetsk region in eastern Ukraine. The city of Kostiantynivka has been a major target. Ukrainian forces have for months defended the city against fierce assaults, with the regional governor urging remaining residents this week to evacuate as infrastructure breaks down. Top Ukrainian commander Oleksander Syrskyi, writing on Telegram on Saturday, said the area around Kostiantynivka was gripped by heavy fighting. "The enemy is surging towards Kostiantynivka, but apart from sustaining numerous losses, has achieved nothing," Syrskyi said. "The aggressor is trying to break through our defences and advance along three operating sectors." A spokesman for Ukrainian forces in the east, Viktor Trehubov, told the Ukrinform news agency that Kostiantynivka and the city of Pokrovsk to the west were "the main arena of battles and the Kremlin's strategic ambitions". Syrskyi also said that Ukrainian forces had withstood in the past week a powerful attack near the village of Yablunivka in northeastern Sumy region, where Russian forces have been trying to establish a buffer zone inside the Ukrainian border. Russia's Defence Ministry, in a report earlier in the day, said Moscow's forces had seized the village of Chervona Zirka -- further southwest, near the administrative border of Dnipropetrovsk region. Russia's slow advance through eastern Ukraine, with Moscow claiming a string of villages day after day, has resulted in destruction of major cities and infrastructure. Moscow has insisted that progress towards a settlement of the 40-month-old war depends on Ukraine recognising Moscow's control over four Ukrainian regions -- Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson. Russian forces control about one-fifth of Ukraine's territory, though they do not fully hold any of the four regions. Moscow has said in recent weeks that its troops have made advances in areas adjacent to Dnipropetrovsk region, which lies next to both Donetsk and Zaporizhzhia regions. Ukrainian officials have denied those reports. REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
CNA
11 hours ago
- CNA
US Senate Republicans aim to push ahead on Trump's sweeping tax-cut, spending Bill
WASHINGTON: US Senate Republicans will seek to push President Donald Trump's sweeping tax-cut and spending Bill forward on Saturday (Jun 28) with a procedural vote that could kick off a marathon weekend session. The Bill would extend the 2017 tax cuts that were Trump's main first-term legislative achievement, cut other taxes and boost spending on the military and border security. Nonpartisan analysts estimate a version passed by the House of Representatives last month would add about US$3 trillion to the nation's US$36.2 trillion government debt. Senate Republicans have been deeply divided over plans to partly offset that Bill's heavy hit to the deficit, including by cutting the Medicaid health insurance program for low-income Americans. Republicans are using a legislative manoeuvre to bypass the Senate's 60-vote threshold to advance most legislation in the 100-member chamber. Their narrow margins in the Senate and House mean they can afford no more than three Republican no votes to advance a Bill that Democrats are united in opposing, saying it takes a heavy toll on low- and middle-income Americans to benefit the wealthy. Trump has pushed for Congress to pass the bill by the Jul 4 Independence Day holiday. The White House said early this month that the legislation, which Trump calls the "One Big Beautiful Bill", would reduce the annual deficit by US$1.4 trillion. While a handful of Republicans in both chambers have voiced opposition to some of the Bill's elements, this Congress has so far not rejected any of the president's legislative priorities. A successful vote to open debate would kick off a lengthy process that could run into Sunday, as Democrats unveil a series of amendments that are unlikely to pass in a chamber Republicans control 53-47. TAX BREAKS, SPENDING CUTS Democrats will focus their firepower with amendments aimed at reversing Republican spending cuts to programs that provide government-backed healthcare to the elderly, poor and disabled, as well as food aid to low-income families. Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer summarised the reasons for his party's opposition to the Bill at a Friday press conference by saying "it has the biggest cuts to food funding ever", and could result in more than 2 million people losing their jobs. He also highlighted the Republican rollback of clean energy initiatives ushered in by the Biden administration. Republican Senate Majority Leader John Thune stressed the tax-cut components during a Friday speech to the Senate. "The centrepiece of our Bill is permanent tax relief for the American people," he said as he showcased legislation that contains a new tax break for senior citizens and other taxpayers. The measure, Thune said, will "help get our economy firing on all cylinders again". It would also raise the Treasury Department's statutory borrowing limit by trillions of dollars to stave off a first default on its debt in the coming months. If the Senate manages to pass Trump's top legislative goal by early next week, the House would be poised to quickly apply the final stamp of approval, sending it to Trump for signing into law. But with Senate Republicans struggling to find enough spending cuts to win the support of the party's far right, Trump on Friday loosened the leash a bit, saying his Jul 4 deadline for wrapping it all up was "important" but "it's not the end-all". Among the most difficult disagreements Senate Republicans struggled to resolve late on Friday was the size of a cap on deductions for state and local taxes and a Medicaid cost-saving that could hobble rural hospitals.
Straits Times
11 hours ago
- Straits Times
US immigrants scramble for clarity after Supreme Court birthright ruling
That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution. PHOTO: REUTERS WASHINGTON - The US Supreme Court's ruling tied to birthright citizenship prompted confusion and phone calls to lawyers as people who could be affected tried to process a convoluted legal decision with major humanitarian implications. The court's conservative majority on June 27 granted President Donald Trump his request to curb federal judges' power but did not decide the legality of his bid to restrict birthright citizenship. That outcome has raised more questions than answers about a right long understood to be guaranteed under the US Constitution: that anyone born in the United States is considered a citizen at birth, regardless of their parents' citizenship or legal status. Ms Lorena, a 24-year-old Colombian asylum seeker who lives in Houston and is due to give birth in September, pored over media reports on June 27 morning. She was looking for details about how her baby might be affected, but said she was left confused and worried. 'There are not many specifics,' said Ms Lorena, who like others interviewed by Reuters asked to be identified by her first name out of fear for her safety. 'I don't understand it well.' She is concerned that her baby could end up with no nationality. 'I don't know if I can give her mine,' she said. 'I also don't know how it would work, if I can add her to my asylum case. I don't want her to be adrift with no nationality.' Mr Trump, a Republican, issued an order after taking office in January that directed US agencies to refuse to recognize the citizenship of children born in the US who do not have at least one parent who is an American citizen or lawful permanent resident. The order was blocked by three separate US district court judges, sending the case on a path to the Supreme Court. The resulting decision said Mr Trump's policy could go into effect in 30 days but appeared to leave open the possibility of further proceedings in the lower courts that could keep the policy blocked. On June 27 afternoon, plaintiffs filed an amended lawsuit in federal court in Maryland seeking to establish a nationwide class of people whose children could be denied citizenship. If they are not blocked nationwide, the restrictions could be applied in the 28 states that did not contest them in court, creating 'an extremely confusing patchwork' across the country, according to Ms Kathleen Bush-Joseph, a policy analyst for the non-partisan Migration Policy Institute. 'Would individual doctors, individual hospitals be having to try to figure out how to determine the citizenship of babies and their parents?' she said. The drive to restrict birthright citizenship is part of Mr Trump's broader immigration crackdown, and he has framed automatic citizenship as a magnet for people to come to give birth. 'Hundreds of thousands of people are pouring into our country under birthright citizenship, and it wasn't meant for that reason,' he said during a White House press briefing on June 27. Immigration advocates and lawyers in some Republican-led states said they received calls from a wide range of pregnant immigrants and their partners following the ruling. They were grappling with how to explain it to clients who could be dramatically affected, given all the unknowns of how future litigation would play out or how the executive order would be implemented state by state. Ms Lynn Tramonte, director of the Ohio Immigrant Alliance said she got a call on June 27 from an East Asian temporary visa holder with a pregnant wife. He was anxious because Ohio is not one of the plaintiff states and wanted to know how he could protect his child's rights. 'He kept stressing that he was very interested in the rights included in the Constitution,' she said. Advocates underscored the gravity of Mr Trump's restrictions, which would block an estimated 150,000 children born in the US annually from receiving automatic citizenship. 'It really creates different classes of people in the country with different types of rights,' said Ms Juliana Macedo do Nascimento, a spokesperson for the immigrant rights organisation United We Dream. 'That is really chaotic.' Adding uncertainty, the Supreme Court ruled that members of two plaintiff groups in the litigation - CASA, an immigrant advocacy service in Maryland, and the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project - would still be covered by lower court blocks on the policy. Whether someone in a state where Mr Trump's policy could go into effect could join one of the organizations to avoid the restrictions or how state or federal officials would check for membership remained unclear. Ms Betsy, a US citizen who recently graduated from high school in Virginia and a CASA member, said both of her parents came to the US from El Salvador two decades ago and lacked legal status when she was born. 'I feel like it targets these innocent kids who haven't even been born,' she said, declining to give her last name for concerns over her family's safety. Ms Nivida, a Honduran asylum seeker in Louisiana, is a member of the Asylum Seeker Advocacy Project and recently gave birth. She heard on June 27 from a friend without legal status who is pregnant and wonders about the situation under Louisiana's Republican governor, since the state is not one of those fighting Trump's order. 'She called me very worried and asked what's going to happen,' she said. 'If her child is born in Louisiana … is the baby going to be a citizen?' REUTERS Join ST's Telegram channel and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
