Columbia In Talks With Trump Administration Over Restoring Federal Funding
Recent versions of a potential agreement between the school and the government haven't included a consent decree, according to two of those people. A government task force had initially sought to put the university under a consent decree, which would have put a federal judge in charge of overseeing Columbia's compliance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
7 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Threatens 10% Tariff for Nations Aligned With BRICS
By Good morning. Donald Trump dials up trade tensions. China imposes curbs on EU medical devices in a retaliatory move. And Tesla shares may come under pressure on Elon Musk's political plans. Listen to the day's top stories. Donald Trump said any country aligning with the 'anti-American' policies of the BRICS nations will face an additional 10% levy. The group of countries that includes Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa met over the weekend and condemned US and Israeli attacks on Iran. Trump also said tariff letters will be delivered from noon Washington time today. US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent indicated some countries may be given an extension to finalize agreements.
12 minutes ago
Trump admin's crackdown on pro-Palestinian campus activists faces federal trial
BOSTON -- A federal bench trial begins Monday over a lawsuit that challenges a Trump administration campaign of arresting and deporting faculty and students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations and other political activities. The lawsuit, filed by several university associations against President Donald Trump and members of his administration, would be one of the first to go to trial. Plaintiffs want U.S. District Judge William Young to rule the policy violates the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, a law governs the process by which federal agencies develop and issue regulations. 'The policy's effects have been swift. Noncitizen students and faculty across the United States have been terrified into silence," the plaintiffs wrote in their pretrial brief. 'Students and faculty are avoiding political protests, purging their social media, and withdrawing from public engagement with groups associated with pro-Palestinian viewpoints,' they wrote. 'They're abstaining from certain public writing and scholarship they would otherwise have pursued. They're even self-censoring in the classroom.' Several scholars are expected to testify how the policy and subsequent arrests have prompted them to abandon their activism for Palestinian human rights and criticizing Israeli government's policies. Since Trump took office, the U.S. government has used its immigration enforcement powers to crack down on international students and scholars at several American universities. Trump and other officials have accused protesters and others of being 'pro-Hamas,' referring to the Palestinian militant group that attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023. Many protesters have said they were speaking out against Israel's actions in the war. Plaintiffs single out several activists by name, including Palestinian activist and Columbia University graduate Mahmoud Khalil, who was released last month after spending 104 days in federal immigration detention. Khalil has become a symbol of Trump 's clampdown on campus protests. The lawsuit also references Tufts University student Rumeysa Ozturk, who was released in May from a Louisiana immigration detention. She spent six weeks in detention after she was arrested walking on the street of a Boston suburb. She claims she was illegally detained following an op-ed she co-wrote last year that criticized the school's response to Israel's war in Gaza. The plaintiffs also accuse the Trump administration of supplying names to universities who they wanted to target, launching a social media surveillance program and used Trump's own words in which he said after Khalil's arrest that his was the 'first arrest of many to come.' The government argued in court documents that the plaintiffs are bringing a First Amendment challenge to a policy 'of their own creation.' 'They do not try to locate this program in any statute, regulation, rule, or directive. They do not allege that it is written down anywhere. And they do not even try to identify its specific terms and substance,' the government argues. 'That is all unsurprising, because no such policy exists.' They argue the plaintiffs case also rest on a 'misunderstanding of the First Amendment, 'which under binding Supreme Court precedent applies differently in the immigration context than it otherwise does domestically." But plaintiffs counter that evidence at the trial will show the Trump administration has implemented the policy a variety of ways, including issuing formal guidance on revoking visas and green cards and establishing a process for identifying those involved in pro-Palestinian protests. "Defendants have described their policy, defended it, and taken political credit for it," plaintiffs wrote. 'It is only now that the policy has been challenged that they say, incredibly, that the policy does not actually exist. But the evidence at trial will show that the policy's existence is beyond cavil.'
Wall Street Journal
13 minutes ago
- Wall Street Journal
Asian Markets Fall as Tension Rises Ahead of Tariff Deadline
Asian stock markets and U.S. futures were in the red Monday, as remarks by President Trump stirred up already-tense markets bracing for tariffs to hit dozens of countries this week. Trump took to Truth Social to announce that 'tariff letters and/or deals' will be delivered starting Monday, and threatened an additional levy on countries aligned with Brics. Brics is a group of countries including Brazil, Russia, India and China.
