Columbia University to pay $200 mn in clash with Trump
In a sweeping deal that will restore the prestigious New York institution's federal monies, Columbia has pledged to obey rules that bar it from taking race into consideration in admissions or hiring, among other concessions.
"Columbia University has reached an agreement with the United States government to resolve multiple federal agency investigations into alleged violations of federal anti-discrimination laws," a statement said, adding that the $200 million would be paid over three years.
The university will also pay $21 million to settle investigations brought by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, it said.
"Under today's agreement, a vast majority of the federal grants which were terminated or paused in March 2025 will be reinstated and Columbia's access to billions of dollars in current and future grants will be restored," the statement said.
The promise of the federal funding spigot reopening offers relief for the university, which was under growing financial pressure, despite a comfortable endowment and a reputation it can bank on.
The agreement also represents a victory for Trump, who has repeatedly claimed elite universities brainwash students against his nationalist ideas with left-wing bias.
The centuries-old Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, is also in a fight with the administration over Trump's threats to rip away federal funding, and Wednesday's carefully worded agreement -- in which Columbia admitted no wrongdoing -- could offer a framework for future deals.
"This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty," Columbia's acting president Claire Shipman said.
"The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track.
"Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest."
- Disciplinary actions -
Under the settlement, Columbia will maintain a security force to prevent demonstrations in academic spaces, such as those that rocked the campus last year when pro-Palestinian protestors clashed with law enforcement and occupied university buildings.
The school also agreed to "promptly provide" federal authorities with any requested information on "disciplinary actions involving student visa-holders resulting in expulsions or suspensions, and arrest records that Columbia is aware of for criminal activity, including trespass or other violation of law."
Columbia found itself at the center of a firestorm last year over claims of anti-Semitism triggered by campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
Some Jewish students claimed they were intimidated and that authorities did not act to protect them.
The school announced a wave of various student punishments on Tuesday, including expulsions and degree revocations, against nearly 80 students involved in the pro-Palestinian protest movement that has called on the university to divest from Israel.
"Our institution must focus on delivering on its academic mission for our community," Columbia said in a statement about student protests on its campus.
"Disruptions to academic activities are in violation of University policies and rules, and such violations will necessarily generate consequences."
While the university appears to be acquiescing to the Trump administration's demands to quash student protest, one of the most prominent leaders of the US pro-Palestinian campus protests is still raising his voice.
Mahmoud Khalil, a Columbia University graduate active in campus demonstrations, has sued the Trump administration for $20 million over his arrest and detention by immigration agents.
Khalil, a legal permanent resident of the United States who is married to a US citizen, missed the birth of his son while being held in a federal immigration detention center in Louisiana.
He called the lawsuit a "first step towards accountability."
hg/sla/jgc
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Mayor Evelyn George will not run for re-election
Jul. 27—Newton Mayor Evelyn George announced this week she will not be seeking another term, putting an end to her long tenure in city government. George was elected mayor in November 2023. The tight race was determined by just 13 votes, with George earning 911 votes and council member Randy Ervin earning 898 votes. Lonnie Appleby, who launched his second campaign for mayor after running as a write-in candidate in 2021, received 798 votes. Prior to her run for mayor, George served the Ward 2 seat on the Newton City Council from 2013 until 2017, and then the at-large seat from 2017 until 2023. At the conclusion of the July 21 city council meeting, George said she and her husband have been married 43 years and counting. She suggested she is not running for re-election this coming November in order to focus more of her time family while they are still healthy to do so. "As we were planning our family vacation to Smoky Mountains, we're like, 'There are so many other places we want to visit and see,'" George said. "And while we're still healthy and able to do that, we've decided that's going to be a priority. So, I will not be running for office this fall." George said the most important characteristics for anyone wanting to serve as mayor are: open-mindedness, a positive attitude and a willingness to listen to people, especially those that aren't of the same background. She also said it helps to be someone who strives to be a lifelong learner. "If someone comes in thinking they have all the answers and they know it, they'll soon find out that city government is quite different than anything else," she said. Solve the daily Crossword
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Donald Trump Repeats False Claim Beyoncé Was Paid $11 Million To Endorse Kamala Harris; Calls To Prosecute Singer, Oprah & Al Sharpton
On Saturday, Donald Trump repeated false claims that Beyoncé was paid $11 million to endorse Kamala Harris on the campaign trail in October of last year. The Truth Social post comes as the president faces scrutiny from his own base over the release of the Jeffrey Epstein files. Taking to his social media platform yesterday, the GOP leader wrote, 'I'm looking at the large amount of money owed by the Democrats, after the Presidential Election, and the fact that they admit to paying, probably illegally, Eleven Million Dollars to singer Beyoncé for an ENDORSEMENT (she never sang, not one note, and left the stage to a booing and angry audience!), Three Million Dollars for 'expenses,' to Oprah, Six Hundred Thousand Dollars to very low rated TV 'anchor,' Al Sharpton (a total lightweight!), and others to be named for doing, absolutely NOTHING! These ridiculous fees were incorrectly stated in the books and records. YOU ARE NOT ALLOWED TO PAY FOR AN ENDORSEMENT. IT IS TOTALLY ILLEGAL TO DO SO. Can you imagine what would happen if politicians started paying for people to endorse them. All hell would break out! Kamala, and all of those that received Endorsement money, BROKE THE LAW. They should all be prosecuted! Thank you for your attention to this matter.' More from Deadline Beyoncé Reunites Destiny's Child For Final 'Cowboy Carter' Tour Stop In Vegas Stephen Colbert Praises 'South Park's Naked AI Trump PSA: "An Important Message Of Hope" Donald Trump Denies Being Briefed That His Name Appeared In Jeffrey Epstein Files, Despite Wall Street Journal Report That He Was Informed Trump is referring to the 35-time Grammy-winning artist's appearance at a rally in Houston, where the singer took to the stage to endorse the vice president and call for unity. 'It's time to sing a new song, a song that began 248 years ago. The old notes of downfall, discord, despair no longer resonate. Our generations of loved ones before us are whispering a prophecy, a quest, a calling, an anthem. Our moment right now — it's time for America to sing a new song. Our voices sing a chorus of unity. They sing a song of dignity and opportunity,' she said to the crowd. Federal campaign spending records show a $165,000 payment made from the Democratic presidential candidate's organization to Beyoncé's production company, per CNN, with 'campaign event production' listed as the reasoning for the expenditure. Last year, senior spokesperson for the Harris campaign Adrienne Elrod told Deadline that the campaign did not pay any celebrity endorsers but was required by campaign finance law to cover costs associated with holding such events, per Federal Election Commission rules. This accounts for the $1 million the Harris campaign spent on Oprah's Harpo Productions, as the famed TV personality endorsed her at a Michigan-held 'Unite for America' event in September 2024. The baseless allegation was fact-checked by websites and PolitiFact last year, though Trump repeated his sentiments about Beyoncé, Oprah and Al Sharpton back in February. Trump has also previously harped on the matter in a post made back in May, where he named other influential Harris endorsers like Bruce Springsteen and Bono, calling for a 'major investigation.' There's also no evidence to suggest such expenses were incorrectly categorized, and though Trump maintained payment for endorsement is illegal, there's actually no FEC law that prohibits such campaigns for paying for endorsements, though they must disclose such expenditures. Best of Deadline Celebs Supporting Zohran Mamdani In New York's Mayoral Race: From Ramy Youssef To Cynthia Nixon The Fox News To White House Pipeline: TV Personalities Who Joined The Trump Administration Celebrities Voting And Encouraging Voting In The 2024 Election
Forbes
7 minutes ago
- Forbes
What Most People Don't Know About Our 250-Year History, Part I
The Fed allowed one-third of U.S. banks to fail during the Depression. FPG/Hulton Archive. As we approach our country's 250th birthday, there is no better time to reflect on where we have been and how we got here. Yet Americans are surprisingly ignorant about our past. One reason: So much bad history has entered the popular culturecourtesy of bad historians, a few bad economists, and some talented writers like Charles Dickens and Upton Sinclair, who didn't understand history or economics at all. To remedy this problem, I highly recommend The Triumph of Economic Freedom: Debunking the Seven Myths of American Capitalism by Phil Gramm and Donald J. Boudreaux. Gramm is a former U.S. senator and Boudreaux is a professor of economics at George Mason University. Together they have combed through the scholarly literature and savagely dismantled myths about our economic history – myths that are routinely taught in high schools and colleges across the country. In this essay, I will address two severe economic downturns: the Great Depression and the more recent Great Recession. The Great Depression There are five myths here, beginning with the assertion that the depression was caused by capitalism and greed. Put differently, it's the idea that the worst economic downturn in our country's history occurred because of too much individual freedom and too little government. In contrast, the authors write, The worst failure was that of the Federal Reserve System, created to be a lender of last resort, providing liquidity to banks in times of a credit crisis. In fact, the Fed stood by, allowing one-third of the nation's banks to go out of business. A second myth is the idea that in the early stages of the depression, Herbert Hoover stood by and did nothing. In fact, Hoover was a very activist president. In response to the economic downturn, he raised taxes, increased spending, signed the Davis-Bacon Act (ensuring higher wages on federal construction projects) and the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act. Like many of Franklin Roosevelt's policies, most of what Hoover did made things worse, not better. A third myth is that Roosevelt's policies saved us from the depression. In fact, they almost certainly caused the depression to extend for 12 years— longer than it did in any other industrialized country except for France. The authors write: A fourth myth is that Roosevelt united the public in times of crisis. In fact, Roosevelt was a divider, not a uniter. He vilified successful industrialists who opposed his policies as 'economic royalists' who made up an 'economic autocracy.' In fact, it is probably no exaggeration to say that Roosevelt vilified the rich in the United States the way Hitler, at the same time, was vilifying the Jews in Germany. University of Texas historian Henry W. Brands says that 'Roosevelt came disturbingly close to the demagoguery not only of Father Coughlin and the late Huey Long, but also of the fascists of Europe.' The final myth is the idea that it took the enormous increase in government spending during World War II to pull us out of the depression. Were that really true, when the war ended and government spending precipitously retracted, we should have been right back into the depression again. In the four years following the end of World War II, government spending fell by 75 percent. The federal deficit fell by more than 50 percent and then eased into a small surplus. Yet income, output and economic wellbeing continued to rise. The Great Recession Following the Great Depression, the Great Recession—from 2007 to 2009—was our nation's most severe economic downturn. It encompassed a sharp fall in housing prices, accompanied by a spike in mortgage defaults, especially on subprime loans. The Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) and the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corporation (Freddie Mac)—two government-sponsored enterprises established to support home ownership—went into receivership. There are four myths here, beginning with the assertion that the recession was caused by too much private sector greed and risk-taking and too little government supervision. If anything, the reverse is true. Subprime lending actually became a goal of the federal government—beginning under the Clinton administration, primarily through the expansion of the Community Reinvestment Act (CRA). The authors explain: Using newly expanded CRA requirements, bank regulators began to pressure banks to make subprime loans. Guidelines turned into mandates as each bank was assigned a letter grade on its making of CRA loans. Banks could not even open ATMs or branches, much less acquire another bank without a passing grade—and getting a passing grade was no longer about meeting local credit needs. Increasingly, passing grades were gotten by making subprime home loans. By 2008, roughly half of all outstanding mortgage loans in America—28 million in all—were high-risk loans. The second myth is that the crisis was caused by lack of regulatory authority. In fact, there were a slew of federal and state banking laws, which gave rise to an army of regulators with the power to investigate, mandate corrective action, and fine and even imprison violators. The problem was that the traditional interest in meeting community credit needs with sound banking practices was overridden by a new federal policy designed to make 'affordable housing' available to more and more people. A third myth is that the recession was caused by banking deregulation—in particular by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (GLB). In fact, GLB removed barriers to competition in banking—making the financial sector more efficient. But regulatory authority did not decrease. It increased. The Congressional Budget Office actually scored GLB as increasing regulatory costs. Regarding GLB, President Clinton said, 'There's not a single solitary example that it had anything to do with the financial crash.' The final myth is the idea that the length of the recession was somehow caused by banking practices. In fact, an unusually weak recovery was more likely caused by increased penalties for working and increased subsidies for not working. During the Obama years, the authors say, the 'American economy was hit with a tidal wave of new rules and regulations across health care, financial services, energy and manufacturing.' At the same time there was an explosion in the enrollment numbers for disability benefits, food stamps and cash welfare. So why are these facts so important to know? George Santayana is reputed to have said, "Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it." The experiences of the Great Depression and the Great Recession are events that no sane person should want to experience again.
