logo
Trump agenda survives key Senate vote but final outcome still uncertain

Trump agenda survives key Senate vote but final outcome still uncertain

USA Today8 hours ago

The GOP-led Senate has agreed to begin a marathon floor debate that's expected to go overnight and culminate with a final roll call - where the outcome still remains uncertain.
WASHINGTON – The Senate voted to begin a marathon debate about President Donald Trump's package of legislative priorities − stuffed with tax cuts, Medicaid reforms and border security funding – despite lingering Republican concerns about the legislation.
Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, has said he is uncertain whether enough Republicans will support their version to send it back to the House.
"We'll find out," Thune said.
But the 51-49 vote to proceed signals that there is enough GOP support to at least begin the hours-long debate and expected voting on dozens of amendments.
GOP Sens. Rand Paul of Kentucky and Thom Tillis of North Carolina each voted against debating the bill as written.
The vote that began at 7:30 p.m. EDT was held open for more than three hours as Thune scrambled to find a majority of votes to kickstart the debate.
If the Senate is ultimately successful, the House would have to vote on the upper chamber's changes in order to reach Trump's desk by his self-imposed deadline of July 4. The Senate has trimmed the House version from about 1,100 pages to 940 − and still faces votes on what are expected to be dozens of amendments.
The success of Trump's domestic agenda for tax cuts and border security hangs in the balance. Republican approval of the spending blueprint would allow a majority of the 100-member Senate to approve all of Trump's priorities included in it through legislation later in the year, rather than needing 60 votes to overcome a filibuster for each measure.
Here's what we know about the legislative package:
Senate voting on whether to debate Trump's bill
A long wait, then a vote to begin debate
With little fanfare, the Senate began voting at about 7:30 p.m. EDT on whether to begin the debate on Trump's legislative package.
Majority Leader John Thune, R-South Dakota, simply asked the Senate to vote on a motion to begin debating the bill.
The move came after hours of inaction – interrupted by the occasional speech – since the Senate gaveled into action at 2 p.m.
- Bart Jansen
Nevada senator votes despite COVID-19
The vote was close enough and important enough that a Nevada senator voted despite testing positive for COVID-19.
'After experiencing mild symptoms, I have tested positive for COVID,' Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto, D-Nevada, said in a social media post. 'I'll continue to follow my doctor's guidelines and wear a mask while voting this weekend.'- Bart Jansen
Lee drops provision for public land sales from bill
Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, agreed to drop a contentious provision for public land sales from the legislative package.
Environmental groups had criticized the provision for opening lands to logging and oil, gas and coal production. A fellow Republican, Sen. Tim Sheehy of Montana, threatened to vote against the bill unless the provision was removed, which could have scuttled the entire bill.
Lee announced on social media that he wasn't able to secure safeguards that the land must be sold to Americans rather than the Chinese or investors.
'I continue to believe the federal government owns far too much land – land it is mismanaging and in many cases ruining for the next generation,' Lee said.
- Bart Jansen
Trump blasts Tillis over opposition to legislation
Trump criticized Sen. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, one of three Republicans to vote against debating the legislation, as 'making a BIG MISTAKE.'
Tillis had voiced concern about steeper Medicaid cuts in the Senate version of the bill than in the House version, and said he would have to oppose it.
But Trump noted he won the state in three presidential elections in the Tarheel State, where Tillis faces reelection next year. Trump highlighted provisions in the legislation to eliminate taxes on tips, overtime and Social Security. He argued taxes will rise if 2017 tax cuts aren't extended, and that the country needs to increase the limit on borrowing.
'Thom Tillis is making a BIG MISTAKE for America, and the Wonderful People of North Carolina!' Trump said in a post June 28 on social media.
In another post, Trump said he would be meeting with 'numerous people' who have asked to run in the GOP primary against Tillis. Trump said he is 'looking for someone who will properly represent the Great people of North Carolina.'
- Bart Jansen
Democrats force Senate to read entire Trump bill
Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York, forced Senate clerks to read the entire bill out loud, further delaying the start of debate on the bill.
While typically a formality, Schumer objected to waiving the reading of the bill. His objection forced clerks to read the 940-page document.
Then senators will begin hours of debate followed by hours of voting. A vote on final passage could come June 30.
- Bart Jansen
'No cause for alarm' on vote delay: Sen. Mike Rounds
South Dakota GOP Sen. Mike Rounds told CNN that he thinks Republicans will ultimately have the votes to begin the floor debate but were working on ensuring commitments for concerned GOP lawmakers that they'll get the chance to offer amendments to address their issues.
"No cause for alarm," Rounds said, adding that the lengthy delay from the plan to have a 4 p.m. EDT opening procedural vote stemmed from the wait for the Congressional Budget Office to analyze late changes to the Senate bill. Looking ahead, Rounds outlined a floor plan that would start with Democrats forcing a full reading of the 990-page bill, something the Republican said he hoped they would not do so that congressional staff can go home for the night and get rest before resuming debate on June 29.
Once the floor debate begins, Rounds said Democrats and Republicans would get 20 hours equally divided - with the GOP likely surrendering a considerable amount of that time. Only then would the Senate begin to hold what's known as a "vote-a-rama" where they consider scores of amendments."We've got a long couple of days ahead of us yet," Rounds said. - Darren Samuelsohn
Business Roundtable endorses Trump bill
Business groups endorsed Trump's legislative package for its anticipated economic benefits as the Senate prepared to debate it.
'This critical legislation would protect and enhance the transformative economic benefits that President Trump's historic 2017 tax reform delivered for American businesses, workers and families,' Business Roundtable President Kristen Silverberg said. 'We urge the Senate to swiftly pass this measure.' - Bart Jansen
Democrats to force reading aloud of the entire Senate bill
Senate Democrats unified in opposition to the legislation plan to force the chamber's clerk to read the entire 990-page GOP tax, policy and spending bill aloud if Republicans vote to open the floor debate.
"Future generations will be saddled with trillions in debt," said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-New York. "Under this draft Republicans will take food away from hungry kids to pay for tax breaks to the rich."
Schumer's plans mean that the Senate is sure to be in session late into the night, if not past dawn - presuming Republicans vote to begin the debate. - Darren Samuelsohn, Reuters
Elon Musk opens fire, calls Trump bill 'utterly insane and destructive'
Billionaire Elon Musk, Trump's former adviser on cutting government spending, fired off another set of attacks against the president's legislative package for potentially killing millions of jobs.
The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future. https://t.co/TZ9w1g7zHF
Musk had quieted his harsh criticism of Trump and the legislation the week after his departure from government May 30. But he blasted the bill again as the Senate prepared to debate it.
'The latest Senate draft bill will destroy millions of jobs in America and cause immense strategic harm to our country!' Musk said June 28 on social media. 'Utterly insane and destructive. It gives handouts to industries of the past while severely damaging industries of the future.'
As the Senate vote remained in limbo, Musk added another post warning the GOP of the electoral risks if they vote for the Trump-backed legislation that is not polling well with Republicans.
Polls show that this bill is political suicide for the Republican Party pic.twitter.com/HJwKZ9g4tu
- Bart Jansen
Paging Vice President JD Vance: The Senate might need a tie-breaker
Coming out of a GOP lunch June 28, Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, said he's 'under the impression' Senate leadership has the buy-in to advance Trump's bill. But, 'I'm thinking we need the VP,' he said.
Republicans need a simple 51-vote majority to pass the bill. But with a tight 53-member majority and ongoing disputes, every swing vote counts. If they hit 50, Vice President JD Vance, in his capacity as Senate president, can break the tie in Trump's favor. -Savannah Kuchar
Environmental groups criticize bill's support for fossil fuels
Environmental advocates criticized the Senate version of Trump's legislative priorities for not just ending incentives for renewable energy but setting taxes on wind and solar power generation.
The advocacy group Natural Resources Defense Council estimated taxes on some projects could grow 50%. The bill could also trigger the largest sale of public lands in history for logging and oil, gas and coal production, according to the group.
Trump campaigned on boosting domestic energy production with the phrase 'drill, baby, drill.'
"The new budget reconciliation bill text is a shocking fossil fuels industry fever dream come to life,' said Christy Goldfuss, the council's executive director. 'The bill has gone from fossil fuels boosterism to an active effort from Congress to kill wind and solar energy in the United States.' - Bart Jansen
GOP senators join Trump for golf
President Donald Trump had no public events on his calendar, but he had a couple of key allies join him for golf at his Northern Virginia course: CIA Director John Ratcliffe and Republican Sens. Eric Schmitt of Missouri, Rand Paul of Kentucky and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina.
Looking forward to beginning the One Big Beautiful Bill soon.Started the day with @POTUS and thanked him for his leadership.Let's Go! pic.twitter.com/P4vuWg1HEY
After posting a picture with Trump on the golf course, Graham added that he partnered with Trump and Paul to beat Schmitt and Ratcliffe.
"Proud to announce no casualties," Graham wrote. "A lot of fun! Big Beautiful Bill on the way.". - Bart Jansen
Saying 'no' and voting 'no' two different things: Sen. Markwayne Mullin
Sen. Markwayne Mullin, R-Oklahoma, a supporter of Trump's legislative package, told reporters at the Capitol that lawmakers warning about voting against it and actually voting 'no' are two different things.
Sens. Ron Johnson, R-Wisconsin; Thom Tillis, R-North Carolina; and Rand Paul, R-Kentucky, have each said they were opposed to the bill that is still changing. Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have voiced concerns about it.
'Everybody's got concerns, but saying you're voting 'no' and when you get to the floor and voting 'no' is two totally different things,' Mullin said. 'I don't believe in losing and we're going to get the votes.' - Bart Jansen
Budget blueprint debate could be 30 hours of 'nonsense': Sen. Brian Moreno
Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, a supporter of Trump's legislative package, said a final vote would likely come after 30 hours of 'nonsense' from Democrats voting on proposals to change the contentious bill.
'It's an absolutely historic and transformative piece of legislation that reverses four years of an assault on American workers,' Moreno said. 'I want everybody watching this to remember this as you listen to probably what's going to be 30-plus hours of complete nonsense from the other side.' - Bart Jansen
Senate meets before debating Trump legislative package
The Senate gaveled in at 2 p.m., in anticipation of beginning debate on President Trump's legislative priorities, but lawmakers haven't yet voted to begin talking about the measure.
A majority of senators must agree to begin debate, which can sometimes kill legislation before it begins. With 53 Republicans and 47 Democratic caucus members, just a few GOP lawmakers could prevent a debate.
But the hurdle appears a mere technicality because wavering GOP members such as Sen. Susan Collins of Maine have said she would support the debate even if not necessarily the final bill. -Bart Jansen
Sen. Josh Hawley says Republicans have 'soul searching' to do
Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Missouri, had been one of the leading voices among Senate Republicans raising concerns about proposed cuts to Medicaid and how that would impact his largely rural state.
But after studying the latest, finalized bill text — which delays pushing costs onto states and establishes a $25 billion rural hospital fund — Hawley said he's a yes on passing the bill.
Beyond this weekend's vote, though, Hawley said he intends to keep pushing back in effort to prevent the delayed federal spending cuts from ever going into effect.
'This has been an unhappy episode, here in Congress, this effort to cut to Medicaid,' he said. 'And I think, frankly, my party needs to do some soul searching.' — Savannah Kuchar
Sen. Susan Collins remains a wildcard
Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said she'll support Senate leadership bringing the mega bill to the floor and kicking off presumably hours of debate. But she cautioned reporters that she remains uncertain how she'll side when a final vote gets called.
'That does not, in any way, predict how I'm going to vote on the final passage,' Collins told reporters while walking into the Capitol for the start of the day's events.
Collins said her final vote ultimately will depend on what the bill looks like after lawmakers — including herself — introduce and potentially tack on further amendments.
'There's some very good changes that have been made in the latest version, but I want to see further changes,' Collins said. - Savannah Kuchar
What is in the Senate bill?
The largest provisions in the legislation would extend expiring tax cuts and create a few new ones, and a dramatic increasing in spending on border security.
Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, a Republican holdout on the bill, said he wouldn't vote for the bill unless the debt limit gets a separate vote. But Republican leaders want to keep the unpopular vote within the overall package. −Bart Jansen
What's not in the Senate version of the bill?
Republican support in the Senate waned after Parliamentarian Elizabeth MacDonough ruled several significant provisions would have to be removed to avoid a filibuster.
Republicans removed provisions to curb environmental regulations; restrict federal judges' powers; bulk up immigration enforcement; and cut funding from a consumer protection agency.
MacDonough also ruled against provisions that aimed to reduce Medicaid spending on health care programs for undocumented immigrants. −Bart Jansen
What does Trump say about the Senate version of the bill?
The Trump administration 'strongly supports' the Senate version of the bill, in a White House Office of Management and Budget statement June 28.
The statement isn't intended to favor the Senate version over the House version on any particular provision, but to signal Trump would sign it if approved by Congress. The two-page statement highlighted provisions for tax cuts, border security, energy and defense.
'President Trump is committed to keeping his promises, and failure to pass this bill would be the ultimate betrayal," the statement said. −Bart Jansen
Is there really a July 4 deadline?
Trump has told congressional Republicans he's want this thing wrapped up by Independence Day.
But the due date is less procedural than it is political. The sooner the president can tout legislation that makes good on several of his 2024 campaign promises, including a tax limit on tips and overtime wages, plus extends his 2017 tax cuts for high-income earners, the better.
The more impending deadlines are sometime in August, when Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has said the federal government is at risk of hitting its debt ceiling, and the end of the year, when Trump's first-term tax cuts are set to expire. The legislation up for a vote in the Senate currently contains a provision to raise the debt limit.− Savannah Kuchar

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments
To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments

CNBC

time26 minutes ago

  • CNBC

To fight Trump's funding freezes, states try a new gambit: Withholding federal payments

Democratic legislators mostly in blue states are attempting to fight back against President Donald Trump's efforts to withhold funding from their states with bills that aim to give the federal government a taste of its own medicine. The novel and untested approach — so far introduced in Connecticut, Maryland, New York and Wisconsin — would essentially allow states to withhold federal payments if lawmakers determine the federal government is delinquent in funding owed to them. Democrats in Washington state said they are in the process of drafting a similar measure. These bills still have a long way to go before becoming law, and legal experts said they would face obstacles. But they mark the latest efforts by Democrats at the state level to counter what they say is a massive overreach by the Trump administration to cease providing federal funding for an array of programs that have helped states pay for health care, food assistance and environmental protections. "Trump is illegally withholding funds that have been previously approved," said David Moon, the Democratic majority leader in Maryland's House of Delegates. "Without these funds, we are going to see Maryland residents severely harmed — we needed more options on the table for how Maryland could respond and protect its residents." Moon said the two bills are in response to various Trump actions that have withheld federal funding for programs that pay to assist with children's mental health and flood wall protections. He compared the bills he's introduced to traditional "collections" actions that one would take against a "deadbeat debtor." Even if they were not to move forward, Moon said the bills would help to bring about an audit and accounting of federal money to the state. Early in his second term, Trump's Department of Government Efficiency unilaterally froze billions of dollars in funding for programs that states rely on. He's also threatened to withhold federal funding from states that implement policies he politically disagrees with, including "sanctuary" policies for undocumented immigrants, though some such freezes have been halted by courts. A Trump White House spokesperson didn't respond to questions for this story. Wisconsin state Rep. Renuka Mayadev, a Democrat, introduced two near-identical bills that she said would seek to compel the federal government to release money it has withheld that had previously been paying for Department of Agriculture programs that help farmers, and for child care centers that mostly serve low-income families. "We've seen the Trump administration is willfully breaking the law by holding back federal funds to which Wisconsinites are legally entitled. So these bills are really about providing for a legal remedy and protecting Wisconsinites," she said. In all four states, the bills direct state officials to withhold payments owed by the states to the federal government if federal agencies have acted in contravention of judicial orders or have taken unlawful actions to withhold funds previously appropriated by Congress. Payments available for withholding include the federal taxes collected from the paychecks of state employees, as well as grant payments owed back to the federal government. In Wisconsin, the bills are unlikely to move forward because Republicans control both chambers of the Legislature. But the trajectory of the bills in Maryland, New York and Connecticut — where Democrats control the legislatures and governorships — is an open question. The same is true in Washington, where Democratic lawmakers plan to introduce similar bills next session. "It's a novel concept," said Washington state Sen. Manka Dhingra. "I don't think states have ever been in this position before … where there's someone making arbitrary decisions on what to provide funding for and what not to provide funding for, contrary to current rules and laws and congressional allocation of funds." Legal experts have raised substantial questions about the hurdles such bills would face if they were enacted. For one, they said, the U.S. Constitution's supremacy clause clearly gives the federal government precedence over states, which could complicate legal arguments defending such laws — even though it remains an open legal question whether the executive branch has the power to single-handedly control funding. More immediate practical obstacles, they explained, stem from the fact that there's vastly more money flowing from the federal government to the states than the other way around. "So withholding state payments to the federal government, even if there were no other obstacles, isn't likely to change very much," said David Super, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center who specializes in administrative and constitutional law. Super added that states withholding money could potentially further worsen the status of programs affected by federal cuts. "There's also the potential that some of the money going to the federal government has to be paid as a condition for the state receiving one or another kind of benefit for itself or for its people," he said. "The federal government could say, 'You didn't make this payment, therefore you're out of this program completely.'" But that doesn't mean states, working in the current hostile political environment, shouldn't try, said Jon Michaels, a professor at the UCLA School of Law who specializes in the separation of powers and presidential power. "Where can you try to claw back money in different ways? Not because it's going to make a huge material difference for the state treasury or for the people of the state, but just to essentially show the federal government like, 'Hey, we know what you're doing and we don't like it,'" he said. "States need to be enterprising and creative and somewhat feisty in figuring out their own scope of authority and the ways in which they can challenge the law." But another potential drawback is one foreseen by the Democratic lawmakers themselves: further retribution from Trump. "We would all be foolish to not acknowledge that the feds hold more cards than states do with respect to the budget," said Moon, the Maryland legislator. "There's certainly a risk of retaliation by the White House."

How Civil-Rights Law Became a Weapon Against Colleges
How Civil-Rights Law Became a Weapon Against Colleges

Atlantic

time36 minutes ago

  • Atlantic

How Civil-Rights Law Became a Weapon Against Colleges

Progressives have long wished that the federal government would more aggressively enforce civil-rights law in higher education. Did they wish upon a monkey's paw? Since Donald Trump retook the White House, his administration has used the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to trap dozens of colleges in the federal equivalent of a headlock, forcing them to submit to sweeping demands or else have their federal funds frozen or foreign students banned. According to Team Trump, it is targeting academics who violate civil-rights laws—by discriminating against Asian Americans in admissions, allowing biological males to compete with females in athletics, tolerating a hostile climate for Jews, or sponsoring DEI programs that malign straight, white, and male students. Critics of Trump's approach counter that he has ulterior motives. 'I consider the Trump administration's recent use of civil rights law either a pretext or a sick joke—or both,' Richard Delgado, a Seattle University law professor and pioneer of critical race theory, emailed me. 'The Administration's real objective is to intimidate institutions of higher education into doing their bidding.' Whatever the intentions, these moves represent a clear shift. Not long ago, it was Democrats who stood accused of overzealous and p unitive enforcement. The Department of Education under Presidents Barack Obama and Joe Biden put forth sweeping new interpretations of decades-old civil-rights laws, particularly Title IX. At the time, classical liberals on the left and right (myself among them) warned that, although no one ought to face discrimination, the government's expansive approach had serious costs: for academic freedom, free speech, free association, the ability of private colleges to self-govern, and the maintenance of a limited federal government. Nevertheless, colleges all over the country began to police the speech of professors and students as never before. Even a tiny, unintentional slight could trigger a months-long ordeal. Now Trump-administration officials are repurposing the illiberal playbook that progressives long deployed. Having seized control of the civil-rights-enforcement apparatus, they are aiming it at parts of civil society that are hostile to the MAGA agenda—including universities. 'Civil-rights laws have always been a weapon,' an architect of the new strategy, the activist Christopher Rufo, recently wrote in The Free Press. 'Conservatives have finally decided to wield them.' Protecting basic civil rights is truly important, and many of the prejudices and civil-rights violations that Obama, Biden, and Trump have variously cited are real. For that reason, many Americans are reflexively averse to the idea that there is such a thing as too much civil-rights enforcement. But the aggressive style born under Obama and plied with steroids by Trump is excessive. It serves fringe zealots eager to destroy academia's independence better than majorities who hope to improve higher education. If anything good comes from this moment, perhaps it will be that the left learns to recognize the need for new limits on the administrative state. To enact such a reform, lots of Republicans will need to go back to their former position on limiting bureaucratic coercion. The current era of aggressive civil-rights enforcement began in 2011. At the time, many progressives thought that colleges did not know how to handle sexual violence on campus and that they were responding to complaints in a way that was calculated to protect their image rather than students' safety. Title IX was seen as a solution. The 1972 law states that no person shall, 'on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity.' On April 4, 2011, the Department of Education's Office for Civil Rights published a ' Dear Colleague' letter meant to clarify colleges' legal obligations under Title IX. The letter said that every college receiving federal funds had to appoint a Title IX coordinator. And most had to restructure how they treated allegations of sexual violence: College administrators were told to conduct independent investigations of sexual-assault allegations rather than relying on local police; to limit accused students' ability to cross-examine their accusers; to use a 'clear and convincing evidence' standard to find accused students responsible, rather than the higher 'preponderance of the evidence' burden of proof; to eschew mediation; and more. The Department of Education's 'Dear Colleague' letters are supposed to be nonbinding guidance on what existing law requires, not new policy making. Yet the Obama administration was claiming that, to comply with the law, every institution had to adopt new policies that no institution had previously thought were required. The administration went on to investigate dozens of schools for departing from its novel interpretation of Title IX. Behind each probe was a threat: Comply or lose federal funding. The pressure tactic worked. Colleges throughout the United States hired new administrators and lawyers. Many of those expanded campus bureaucracies went on to engage in illiberal excesses. A punitive apparatus 'was being built, expanded, and deployed' to regulate conduct 'further and further from the core cases of sexual assault than most people imagined,' the Harvard law professors Jeannie Suk Gersen and Jacob E. Gersen later wrote in a law-review article. To stay out of trouble, the Gersens argued, many schools forbade 'conduct that the vast majority of students commonly engaged in during consensual sexual interactions.' The new regime put colleges in a double bind: Complying with Title IX exposed them to lawsuits from students claiming that their due-process rights had been violated. Courts later ruled that many colleges did, in fact, deny students due process. Faculty members suffered unjustly, too, as when Northwestern University investigated Laura Kipnis on the premise that she had violated Title IX by writing critically about the new Title IX enforcement. In 2017, the Trump administration took over, and Education Secretary Betsy DeVos mandated new protections for accused students. But campus Title IX bureaucracies remained intact, and colleges were still adjudicating complaints without knowing what the next U.S. president would demand. Indeed, when Biden was elected, his Office of Civil Rights reimposed much of the Obama-era approach, until a judge blocked the policy in a nationwide injunction. Trump's return to office effectively ended that legal fight, but there's no telling what the next president will do. Under the new Trump administration, campus-civil-rights enforcement has focused on Title VI, the 1964 law that says no person shall, 'on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under' any program that gets federal funds. The administration contends that universities have violated the Title VI rights of Jewish students by responding inadequately to anti-Semitic campus activism. Beyond that, Trump's team insists that highly specific changes are required as a remedy if colleges want to keep their federal funding. Greg Lukianoff: Trump's attacks threaten much more than Harvard Trump's team was not the first to apply Obama's Title IX enforcement model to Title VI. After Hamas launched its attack on Israel on October 7, 2023, and Palestine-aligned protests erupted on many campuses, political appointees at Biden's Department of Education issued a letter to clarify colleges' obligation to protect the rights of both Jewish and Arab students. The letter noted that protected speech wasn't unlawful. But it also said that some protected speech could contribute to a hostile environment that violates the Title VI rights of students, obligating a response from administrators. Once again, colleges were in a double bind: Cracking down on protected speech would create legal liability, but so would failing to respond to speech that the state deemed anti-Semitic. Scores of investigations for alleged failures to protect the rights of Jewish students quickly followed. The Knight First Amendment Institute concluded that there was good reason to believe that the Biden team was 'leveraging its power to regulate discrimination' to force crackdowns on 'protected student and faculty speech.' The Gersens felt that history was repeating itself. Their aforementioned paper goes on to show how the Office of Civil Rights under Biden once again created incentives for colleges to 'over-police and over-punish' students and faculty, this time relying on Title VI. Driving out discrimination 'is a laudable goal,' the Gersens write, but pursuing it 'may also produce far ranging negative consequences that go to the heart of the academic mission.' The new Trump administration has policed Title VI even more fervently, with initiatives from the White House and multiple federal agencies. In statements and executive orders, Trump has put colleges on notice, vowing to combat anti-Semitism and to treat all DEI initiatives as suspect (though guidance from the Department of Education seems to have softened that position). Trump has suggested that colleges should 'monitor' foreign students and staffers for anti-Semitism and 'report' their activities to the feds in case the students are eligible to be deported. Another executive order pressures college accreditors to strip the accreditation status of institutions accused of wrongdoing by civil-rights bureaucrats. The Department of Education has launched various kinds of Title VI probes of more than 50 institutions and sent letters to 60 institutions warning of potential enforcement unless they act 'to protect Jewish students.' At the Department of Justice, the civil-rights attorney Leo Terrell is leading a Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism; at the end of February, he announced visits to 10 campuses, and on March 7, the administration announced that Columbia would lose at least $400 million in federal grants 'due to the school's continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.' According to The New York Times, the Justice Department also recently demanded that the University of Virginia push out its president to 'help resolve a Justice Department investigation into the school's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts'; the president resigned on Friday. As a critic of DEI and anti-Semitism, I understand the impulse to crack down on both, much as I understood the impulse to crack down on sexual violence. But the administration's approach guarantees the same bureaucratic bloat and illiberal excesses that characterized Title IX enforcement. Two of the administration's primary targets have already been subjected to treatment that wildly exceeds reasonable and lawful oversight. In a March 25 letter to Columbia, the Trump administration demanded not only that the university 'complete disciplinary proceedings' related to campus encampments, but that it impose a minimum penalty of expulsion or multiyear suspensions. But what if, in a given case, a one-year suspension is most just? The administration told Columbia to 'centralize all disciplinary processes under the Office of the President.' What statute empowers it to dictate how administrators and faculty divide power? It demanded that the institution 'formalize, adopt, and promulgate' a definition of anti-Semitism, as if institutional neutrality about that topic of debate is somehow at odds with Title VI. Most strikingly, it ordered Columbia to begin 'placing the Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department under academic receivership' for five years, a flagrant intrusion on faculty governance and academic freedom. In an April 11 letter to Harvard, the Trump administration made at least one legitimate demand––that the university comply with the Supreme Court's 2023 ruling that its admissions office cannot discriminate on the basis of race. But the administration also made demands that ought to be beyond the state's purview. Harvard was ordered to reduce 'the power held by students and untenured faculty' in its governance. It was told to pay for an external anti-Semitism audit that would list faculty members who discriminate against Jews so that they can be punished. Yet the next paragraph of the letter demanded that Harvard shut down all DEI initiatives. The letter even seeks to micromanage student groups; funding decisions 'must be made exclusively by a body of University faculty,' it states. Harvard has rejected these demands in court filings, and it is suing the administration to stop it from enforcing the letter's terms. Still, the overall effect of the administration's enforcement is aptly summed up by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. In an amicus brief supporting Harvard's lawsuit, the organization declared that the state's 'coercion of Harvard violates longstanding First Amendment principles and will destroy universities nationwide if left unchecked.' An aggressive regime of civil-rights enforcement is easy to defend in theory. Without bureaucrats focused on the obligations that colleges have under Title IX and Title VI, institutions can neglect the statutory rights of students. Federally dictated policies and procedures can enhance consistency and impartiality. Investment in the Office of Civil Rights and campus-compliance structures can reduce sexual assaults and bigoted harassment. And penalties can be meted out justly to particularly bad actors. But that isn't how the civil-rights regime that arose in 2011 has worked in practice. Listen: Why Trump wants to control universities The new Title IX bureaucracy cost colleges hundreds of millions of dollars to implement, from 2011 to 2016. And for all the bureaucracy's illiberal excesses, colleges ultimately reported an overall increase in forcible sex offenses during the same period. Meanwhile, policy making through the bureaucracy rather than Congress sowed dysfunction, with appointees of different presidents imposing wildly different, sometimes contradictory, accounts of what the law required, such that satisfying one administration got you in trouble with the next. Similarly dismal results are likely as the Trump administration applies the Title IX playbook to Title VI. There is no reason to assume that Jewish students will be better off if colleges comply with every Trump-administration dictate. As Republican administrations used to understand, intense bureaucratic attention to a problem doesn't automatically improve it. And often, state coercion can invite state abuses, yield unintended consequences (see the Israeli students who will have to leave Harvard if Trump succeeds in banning foreign students), and crowd out better solutions. Returning to pre-2011 norms would be better than the status quo. But at this point, an act of Congress might be the only way to stop what one attorney has called the 'regulation by intimidation' that threatens higher education. Congress could clarify what Title IX and Title VI require of colleges, in particular establishing that colleges can never be punished by the administrative state for allowing speech protected by the First Amendment or extending due-process rights to accused students that they would enjoy in a court of law. It could raise the bar for launching an investigation. It could afford colleges more due process before penalties are imposed. And it could silo penalties, so that violations in one part of a university, such as the law school, do not threaten another part, such as a cancer-research center. Many kinds of reform are possible. It is, in any case, unsustainable for colleges to be micromanaged by rival factions of coercive ideologues. Yet many Trump critics are still focusing on his administration's glaring procedural violations, rather than the enforcement model that underlies them. Even if Trump's team were as procedurally diligent as its predecessors (a low bar), the overly aggressive approach to civil-rights enforcement that began in 2011 and persists today would serve academia ill. Civil-rights enforcement on campuses has mutated into something with costs that outweigh its benefits.

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