Trump's settlement with Columbia could become a model for his campaign to reshape higher education
And at colleges around the country, the deal clarifies the stakes for anyone weighing whether to fight the administration's demands or concede.
Columbia agreed Wednesday to pay more than $220 million to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. That decision offers a contrast to the path taken by Harvard University, which has lost billions of dollars in government funding as its legal battle escalates with no end in sight.
Yet the Columbia deal also raises questions about university independence as the school submits to closer federal oversight.
No sooner had Trump announced the deal than he sent a warning: Numerous other universities, he said, 'are upcoming.'
The deal is the first to settle a federal investigation into allegations of campus antisemitism since Trump returned to office. It's also the first agreement with a university touching on so many elements of the president's agenda, including diversity, equity and inclusion programs and admissions to women's sports and campus protests.
Columbia agreed to some provisions similar to those that Harvard rejected and called a dangerous precedent. The settlement requires the hiring of new faculty in Jewish studies and a review of academics to ensure 'balance.' Additionally, Columbia will be placed under the watch of an independent monitor and ordered to disclose hiring, admission and discipline data to be audited for compliance.
In what Columbia described as a victory for university autonomy, the agreement includes a clause saying the government has no authority to dictate hiring, admissions decisions or the content of academic speech. Acting University President Claire Shipman said it was 'carefully crafted to protect the values that define us' while restoring the university's federal research funding.
Where some see pragmatism, others see capitulation
Some at Columbia called it the best feasible outcome. Some called it capitulation. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., a Columbia graduate whose district includes the Manhattan campus, called it a 'cowardly' agreement that won't improve the campus.
Columbia has effectively waved "the white flag of surrender in its battle at the heart of the Trump Administration's war on higher education and academic freedom,' Nadler said.
Columbia had been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support, including more than $400 million in research grants canceled earlier this year.
David Pozen, a law professor at Columbia, said the settlement raises legal questions about Trump's strategy of regulation by dealmaking. Instead of applying a single standard across all of higher education, Pozen said, Trump is relying on one-off deals with individual universities as a condition to regain federal funding. It mirrors his hardball approach with trade partners and prominent law firms.
'In short, the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme,' he said.
Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard, called the settlement an 'excellent template' for agreements with Harvard and other universities. He said it preserves Columbia's independence while addressing antisemitism and renewing a focus on merit.
'This may be the best day higher education has had in the last year,' Summers wrote on the social media platform X.
Dozens of colleges are facing federal investigations
With the deal, Trump has new momentum in his expanding campaign to bring the nation's universities in line with his vision. Dozens of campuses are under federal investigation for allegations related to antisemitism, DEI and transgender athletes in women's sports. Trump has saved his strongest rebuke for elite private universities, yet his administration has also recently turned attention to big public universities including George Mason University.
Among Trump's backers, the Columbia agreement is seen as a first step to counteract the liberal bias they say has permeated college campuses.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon called Columbia's reforms a roadmap for universities looking to regain public trust. 'I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come,' McMahon said in a statement.
The settlement follows smaller wins for the administration, including a recent deal with the University of Pennsylvania over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. Penn agreed to modify school records held by Thomas and to apologize to female athletes 'disadvantaged' by Thomas' participation.
Just days earlier, the president of the University of Virginia agreed to resign amid a Justice Department investigation over DEI policies.
Dozens of university presidents have rallied behind Harvard in its fight against the Trump administration, seeing their own independence jeopardized by the government's sanctions against the Ivy League school. Harvard, the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, is often seen as a bellwether for other institutions, and some regard it as the best hope to repel the Trump administration's pressure campaign.
Now even more rides on Harvard's case. Earlier this month, Trump said a deal with Harvard appeared imminent, only to lash out at the university this week following a court hearing in one of Harvard's legal battles.
'A big part of it is going to be how much Harvard gets in the future,' Trump told reporters this week. 'And they're not going to get very much.'
Even before Trump took office, more universities had been pulling back on DEI and taking other steps to backtrack on what some see as a leftward political drift. Yet if the Columbia agreement becomes a model, it could force an even deeper reckoning.
The agreement requires full compliance with the administration's interpretation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Trump officials have used the law to force the removal of transgender athletes from women's sports. The deal also requires regular reports to ensure Columbia does not 'promote unlawful DEI goals.'
On admissions, the settlement pushes Columbia to limit the consideration of race even beyond the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action. That decision left open the possibility that universities could consider an applicant's discussion of how their race affected their life, including in college application essays. The Columbia deal appears to bar such considerations.
It also requires Columbia to heighten scrutiny of international students and ask questions about their reasons for wanting to study in the United States. It orders the school to take steps to 'decrease financial independence' on international students. Columbia has one of the largest international student populations in the nation, making up about 40% of its enrollment.
How much Columbia ceded in exchange may not be clear for years. There's also no guarantee that the school is fully in the clear — the agreement leaves open the possibility of future 'compliance reviews, investigations, defunding or litigation' by the government.
Still, Trump commended the university for doing 'what is right.'
'I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' he said on his social media platform.
___
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Says U.S. Has ‘50-50 Chance' of Reaching Trade Deal With EU
President Trump arrived in Scotland to meet the U.K. and the European Union leaders, saying the U.S. has a 'good, 50-50 chance' to strike a trade deal with the EU. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Newsweek
11 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Defends 'Weak Dollar,' Economic Analysts Respond
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump defended the weakening U.S. dollar during a conversation with reporters Friday. "Well, you know, I'm a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money," Trump said in a media Q&A. Newsweek spoke with financial experts about the matter. Why It Matters While the U.S. dollar gained ground Friday, it still set for a weekly drop amid ongoing tariff negotiations and The Fed's bank meeting scheduled for next week. This week marks the greatest drop in a month, with the dollar index standing at 97.448. That shows a 1 percent weekly decline, while the euro stayed at $1.1754, close to its four-year high of $1.183. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, To Know During Trump's conversation with reporters, he defended the declining value of the U.S. dollar, arguing that there were actually some benefits to the currency losing value. "When we have a strong dollar, one thing happens," Trump said. "It sounds good, but you don't do any tourism.... You can't sell anything. It is good for inflation. That's about it." Trump went on to say the U.S. has wiped out inflation. "I will never say I like a low currency, but you remember the battles I China, with Japan... They always wanted a weak currency. They're trying to get a weak currency now." However, economists have warned that the weakening U.S. dollar is likely to spark a price hike on everyday items while also forcing U.S. travelers to pay more when abroad. "A weaker dollar does have certain benefits—particularly for multinational corporations and U.S. exporters. It makes American goods more competitive abroad and can boost earnings when foreign profits are converted back into dollars," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "But let's be clear: the U.S. is a consumer-driven, import-heavy economy. A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive, which can drive inflation. So while there are benefits on the corporate side, it also hurts households by increasing the cost of everyday goods." Thompson also said Trump's comments on inflation were incorrect, as consumers are still facing price increases in many areas. "He's dead wrong," Thompson said. "We're still seeing elevated prices in areas like energy, particularly piped gas, and in household essentials. Food costs continue to climb, especially meat, and many families are seeing higher utility bills. Disinflation doesn't mean prices are falling—it just means they're rising more slowly, but they're still rising." In June, the consumer price index for all urban consumers climbed 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted. Meanwhile, food was up 3 percent year-over-year, not seasonally adjusted. So far this year, the dollar has dropped more than 10 percent in value relative to foreign currencies from many of America's trading partners. Thompson said the U.S. dollar's weakness stems from a mix of concerns over U.S. fiscal policy. "Continued deficit spending and ballooning debt levels have led to questions about long-term economic stability. Since the dollar is the world's reserve currency, its strength is tied to global trust in our economy," Thompson said. Trump's ongoing tariff negotiations have also signaled alarm amongst some economists, who say that the heightened tariffs could be passed along by importers via higher prices. What People Are Saying Peter Schiff, chief economist and global strategist at wrote on X: "Trump said he wants a strong dollar but he also wants a weaker dollar. He says a strong dollar makes you feel better, but a weak dollar makes you richer. He also claimed he crushed inflation. His policies are highly inflationary. Trump's weak dollar dream will be a nightmare." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "A weaker dollar can have some benefits, namely in the form of cheaper exports which can boost demand for our goods and services internationally. However, the cons can easily outweigh the pros. A weaker dollar equates to higher prices on many items for American consumers, particularly on imports." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Despite no rate cuts yet this year, the dollar has weakened due to shifting interest rate expectations and a broader macroeconomic backdrop. Historically, higher U.S. interest rates attract capital, strengthening the dollar—but even with relatively high rates, the dollar is off to one of its worst starts in decades." What Happens Next For everyday Americans, the declining U.S. dollar could continue to impact their wallets after years of inflationary pressures, experts say. "Inflationary pressures have already left a sizable dent in many Americans' wallets in the years since the pandemic. Further weakening of the dollar could just prolong this effect," Beene said.
New York Times
11 minutes ago
- New York Times
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. Advertisement The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. Advertisement However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Advertisement Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. Advertisement The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Advertisement Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions.
