Latest news with #D.E.I.
New York Times
16 hours ago
- Business
- New York Times
Trump Administration Live Updates: President Meets Scottish Leader on Last Day of Visit
Neither Harvard nor the government has publicly detailed the types of terms they might find acceptable for a settlement. Harvard University has signaled a willingness to meet the Trump administration's demand to spend as much as $500 million to end its dispute with the White House as talks between the two sides intensify, four people familiar with the negotiations said. According to one of the people, Harvard is reluctant to directly pay the federal government, but negotiators are still discussing the exact financial terms. The sum sought by the government, which recently accused Harvard of civil rights violations, is more than twice as much as the $200 million fine that Columbia University said it would pay when it settled antisemitism claims with the White House last week. Neither Harvard nor the government has publicly detailed potential terms for a settlement and what allegations the money would be intended to resolve. President Trump has privately demanded that Harvard pay far more than Columbia. The people who described the talks and the dynamics surrounding them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential negotiations. Although the two sides have made progress toward a deal, Harvard is also skeptical of Columbia's agreement to allow an outside monitor to oversee its sweeping arrangement with the government. Harvard officials have signaled that such a requirement for their own settlement could be a redline as a potential infringement on the university's academic freedom. University officials, though, concluded months ago that even if they prevailed in their court fight against the government, a deal could help Harvard to avoid more troubles over the course of Mr. Trump's term. The timing was unclear for when the administration and Harvard might reach an accord, but the university is expected to demand that any deal be tied to the federal lawsuit it brought against the government in April. Mr. Trump said in June that his administration might strike an agreement with Harvard 'over the next week or so.' Although that time frame has lapsed, the president has privately told aides that he will not green-light a deal unless the nation's oldest and wealthiest university agrees to spend many millions of dollars. The president's focus on financial terms reflects a shift in strategy for the administration, which spent the first months of its assault on higher education highlighting the prospects of reorienting the industry's perceived ideological tilt. Although the White House has tied federal research funds to its quest for negotiations with top schools since the winter, Mr. Trump's focus on the financial conditions of any settlements emerged more recently. Harvard declined to comment on Monday. A White House spokesman, Harrison W. Fields, said on Monday that the administration's 'proposition is simple and common sense: Don't allow antisemitism and D.E.I. to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students.' Mr. Fields added that the White House was 'confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision, and through good-faith conversations and negotiations, a good deal is more than possible.' The Trump administration publicly depicted last week's settlement with Columbia as a template for bargaining with Harvard and other universities it has targeted. And, indeed, higher education executives have spent days dissecting the fine print of Columbia's agreement, a wide-ranging deal that goes far beyond addressing antisemitism. Many have focused on a provision that said no part of the settlement 'shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate faculty hiring, university hiring, admissions decisions or the content of academic speech.' Although some people assailed Columbia for agreeing to the deal, others saw the arrangement as a necessity and a model for others to consider. 'They didn't admit wrongdoing — it's a classic settlement,' said Donna E. Shalala, who was the health secretary under President Bill Clinton and led four schools, including the University of Miami and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'You don't admit wrongdoing, and you preserve your right to continue as an institution.' Mr. Trump, Dr. Shalala said, had a long record of 'transactional' bargaining with powerful institutions. 'The details are less important than getting the deal and getting the win,' she said. 'So if you know that when you go into a negotiation that it's less ideological than it is getting a win, then you can get a win on both sides.' Harvard is now weighing its own calculations. But it faces a different range of considerations than Columbia, including its outsize standing in American life, its legal battle with the government and its insistence that it will not surrender its independence to any government. 'No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,' Harvard's president, Alan M. Garber, wrote in April, an early signal that the university might resist oversight like what the Trump administration has envisioned. Harvard sued soon after Dr. Garber released his statement and after the Trump administration began to strip the university of billions of dollars in federal research money. Just last Monday, a federal judge in Boston appeared deeply skeptical in a hearing about the government's tactics against Harvard. Although the judge, Allison D. Burroughs, did not immediately issue a decision in the case, her barrage of questions suggested serious doubts about the government's efforts to tie research funding to accusations of antisemitism. Mr. Trump repeatedly criticized Judge Burroughs after the hearing, where the university's negotiations with the White House were not substantively discussed. 'Harvard wants to settle, but I think Columbia handled it better,' Mr. Trump said to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on Friday. His administration has not always insisted on payments from elite universities to settle disputes with the government. When the administration cut a deal this summer with the University of Pennsylvania over accusations that the Ivy League school had violated civil rights laws by allowing a transgender person onto its women's swim team, Penn agreed to apologies and policy changes but no financial penalties. But the administration has been eyeing Harvard's wealth for months, and Trump aides believe that the university is able to pay much more than Columbia did. Columbia's $200 million fine will go to the Treasury, a White House official said last week, until Congress decides how to spend it. In April, when a government lawyer sent Harvard's legal team an array of potential actions by the university, one was the possibility of Harvard agreeing to a lien on its assets so the government could recoup federal dollars 'in event of noncompliance in the future.' The idea, included in a document that became public in connection with Harvard's lawsuit against the government, gained little traction. When the administration sent Harvard a list of demands later that month, the notion of a lien was not mentioned. Harvard has an endowment valued at about $53 billion. But most of the endowment is restricted, meaning that university leaders are limited in how they can tap a war chest that has long animated Mr. Trump and his aides. In a memorandum this month, Harvard's leaders wrote that a series of actions from Washington — including an increase in the excise tax on endowments and the administration's quest to eliminate grant funding to Harvard — could affect the university's budget by close to $1 billion a year. 'We hope that our legal challenges will reverse some of these federal actions and that our efforts to raise alternative sources of funding will be successful,' the Harvard officials wrote. 'As that work proceeds, we also need to prepare for the possibility that the lost revenues will not be restored anytime soon.' Columbia's agreement with the federal government was intended to restart the flow of federal grant money, which is essential to top research universities. About 11 percent of Harvard's revenue comes through federally sponsored research. Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Judge Declines To Immediately Block Trump's Effort To Fire Register Of Copyrights
A federal judge declined to issue an order that would immediately prevent the Trump administration from firing the register of copyrights and head of the U.S. Copyright Office, Shira Perlmutter. U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly denied Perlmutter's motion for a temporary restraining order, a move that would have put the Trump administration's efforts to dismiss her on hold. Instead, Kelly asked attorneys for a briefing schedule further proceedings to consider the merits of the case. More from Deadline "Don't Ever Say What You Said": Donald Trump Fumes At Reporter For Asking About Wall Street's Notion That He Always "Chickens Out" On Tariffs David Leavy To Depart As COO Of CNN, Will Return To Parent Warner Bros. Discovery NBC News' Kelly O'Donnell To Lead Coverage Of Justice Department Earlier this month, the White House informed Perlmutter she was being dismissed, shortly after Trump fired the Librarian of Congress, Carla Hayden. Perlmutter's lawsuit called the administration's attempts to remove her 'blatantly unlawful.' Her lawsuit stated, 'Congress vested the Librarian of Congress—not the President—with the power to appoint, and therefore to remove, the Register of Copyrights. … Accordingly, the President's attempt to remove Ms. Perlmutter was unlawful and ineffective.' Perlmutter also claimed that Trump's designee as the acting librarian of Congress, Todd Blanche, also could not fire her because the president 'has no authority to name a temporary replacement Librarian of Congress, much less name a high-ranking DOJ official whose presence offends the constitutional separation of powers.' Blanche is Trump's former personal attorney and deputy attorney general. Perlmutter's lawsuit also took issue with the administration's stated reasons for firing Hayden. White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters that there were 'quite concerning things' that Hayden had done 'in the pursuit of D.E.I. and putting inappropriate books in the library for children.' Hayden, appointed in 2016 by President Barack Obama, was the first African American and first woman to serve in the role. Perlmutter's attorneys wrote of the press secretary's comments, 'Neither Ms. Leavitt nor any other administration official provided any detail or support for these claims, which are at odds with the Library's status as a non-lending research library accessible only by those age 16 and older.' Her lawsuit also noted that, just before she was fired, the Copyright Office issued its latest report on AI. The report concluded that while some of the uses of copyrighted material in AI training models are 'fair use,' others would likely need the owner's permission for licensing. Perlmutter was informed the next day, on May 10, that she was being terminated. The following Monday, two Justice Department officials showed up at the Library requesting access to the Copyright Office. Brian Nieves and Paul Perkins showed an email from Blanche that they had been selected to serve in senior roles at the library. Nieves was to serve as acting principal deputy librarian of Congress, and Perkins replacing Perlmutter as register of copyrights. Staff, though, contacted Capitol Police, and the two DOJ officials left the grounds voluntarily. Among other things, her lawsuit sought an injunction prohibiting Blanche from exercising his authority of acting library of Congress, and another prohibiting her removal. The Trump administration defended the firings by citing the Federal Vacancies Reform Act, declaring that the Library of Congress 'is not an autonomous organization free from political supervision. It is part of the Executive Branch and is subject to presidential control.' They also argued that she had not demonstrated irreparable harm, the threshold necessary for a judge to issue a temporary restraining order. Perlmutter's legal team responded by arguing that the Federal Vacancies Reform Act does not authorize a 'takeover' of the Library of Congress, and that Trump's team was attempting 'a breathtaking and entirely novel constitutional theory.' They argue that her removal violates constitutional and statutory authority, as well as the separation of powers and appointments clause. 'Instead, Defendants fall back to the argument that, even if Plaintiff is right—and even if Defendants have no legal basis whatsoever for their actions—this Court should stand idly by and do nothing while Defendants wield unprecedented, and unlawful, authority,' they wrote. Best of Deadline 'The Morning Show' Season 4: Everything We Know So Far 2025 TV Series Renewals: Photo Gallery 'Hacks' Season 4 Release Schedule: When Do New Episodes Come Out?
New York Times
20-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Justice Dept. to Use False Claims Act to Pursue Institutions Over Diversity Efforts
The Trump administration plans to leverage a law intended to punish corrupt recipients of federal funding to pressure institutions like Harvard to abandon their diversity, equity and inclusion efforts, Justice Department officials announced late Monday. President Trump's political appointees at the department cited antisemitism on campuses as justification for using the law, the False Claims Act, to target universities and other institutions that Mr. Trump views as bastions of opposition to his agenda and a ripe populist target to rile up his right-wing base. 'Institutions that take federal money only to allow antisemitism and promote divisive D.E.I. policies are putting their access to federal funds at risk,' Attorney General Pam Bondi said in a statement. 'This Department of Justice will not tolerate these violations of civil rights — inaction is not an option.' The department's use of the law is all but certain to be met with legal challenges. Last week, the Justice Department notified Harvard, which receives billions in government grants, of an investigation into whether its admissions process had been used to defraud the government by failing to comply with a Supreme Court ruling that effectively ended affirmative action. The department will seek fines and damages in most instances where violations are found. But it will consider criminal prosecutions in extreme circumstances, Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche warned in a memo to staff. The initiative will be a joint project of the department's anti-fraud unit and its Civil Rights Division, which has been sharply downsized and redirected from its historical mission of addressing race-based discrimination to pursue Mr. Trump's culture war agenda. Peter Hyun, a former top official at the department under President Joseph R. Biden Jr., said that diverting experienced prosecutors from other tasks, including investigations of fraud in health care and pandemic relief programs, would 'stretch an already decimated work force.' Even before Monday's memo, universities across the country were bracing for a rise in False Claims Act matters, in part because the Trump administration had so quickly rewritten policies intertwined with grants and contracts. The leader of a private university, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss legal matters, said their school had been deeply unnerved by a request for certification that all diversity, equity and inclusion programs were consistent with the Trump administration's views of such initiatives. The structure of the False Claims Act and the certification language could leave schools vulnerable to challenges from anyone, said the university leader, who added that their school had briefly paused some grant activity and set up a committee to scour for potential trip wires. But they were also still preparing for complaints. The Justice Department under Mr. Trump is far from the first to use the False Claims Act against universities in recent decades. In fact, the Civil War-era law has evolved into one of the principal ways the government goes after private institutions for potential misconduct, including violations related to financial aid. In 2019, North Greenville University, in South Carolina, struck a deal to pay $2.5 million after the government accused it of paying 'incentive compensation' in connection to recruiting students. A decade earlier, the University of Phoenix settled a case related to student recruitment for $67.5 million. But the Trump administration's use of the False Claims Act is part of a broader effort to pressure Harvard, the nation's oldest, wealthiest university, to overhaul its admissions, curriculum and hiring practices to align with Mr. Trump's political agenda. This month, the Education Department also informed Harvard that its admissions policies were the subject of a new compliance review to determine whether the university was racially discriminating against undergraduate applicants, according to a letter from the agency that was viewed by The New York Times.
New York Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Top Sexual Assault Hotline Drops Resources After Trump Orders
Fearing the loss of federal funding, the nation's largest anti-sexual-violence organization has barred its crisis hotline staff from pointing people to resources that might violate President Trump's executive orders to eliminate diversity, equity and inclusion efforts. The organization, RAINN (the Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network) has removed more than two dozen resources for L.G.B.T.Q. people, immigrants and other marginalized groups from its list of permissible referrals, according to documents obtained by The New York Times. The employees who answer phone calls, and the volunteers who answer online and text chats, are instructed not to deviate from that list, a policy that predates the Trump administration. For more than three months, they have been prohibited from suggesting specialized mental health hotlines for gay and transgender people, referring immigrants to the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, directing students to a group that educates them about sex-based discrimination, recommending books about male-on-male or female-on-female sexual violence, and more. Jennifer Simmons Kaleba, a spokeswoman for RAINN, confirmed that these resources had been removed. RAINN and local affiliates operate the National Sexual Assault Hotline, which reported serving 460,000 people last year and is one of the country's largest crisis lines for sexual violence survivors. RAINN also runs a federally funded help line for members of the military. The Trump administration's push to prohibit the use of federal funds for D.E.I. initiatives has led to debates within organizations across science, education, health and law over whether — and how — to comply in order to continue receiving federal funding. Mr. Trump has made dismantling these initiatives a central goal of his presidency, arguing that programs designed to redress discrimination against marginalized groups are themselves discriminatory. His executive orders face ongoing legal challenges. At RAINN, the decision to ban referrals specific to L.G.B.T.Q. people and immigrants — groups that are disproportionately likely to experience sexual violence — angered many volunteers. A group of them signed a letter in February urging their leaders to restore the resources, and volunteers sent another letter this month escalating their concerns to the organization's board of directors, whose members did not respond to requests for comment. 'When trans, queer, Black, brown, Asian and undocumented survivors come to the hotline in crisis, we are not allowed to provide them with the same level of supportive care as other survivors,' the letter to the board said. 'RAINN may face uncertain risks in the future if we stand by marginalized survivors, but we are certain to lose our values now if we do not stand with them today,' the organization said. The letter asked the board to restore the resources and to develop a plan to keep RAINN running if it were to lose federal funding. The organization has a contract with the Defense Department worth millions of dollars to run the military hotline, and receives additional funding through federal grants. But RAINN also gets a significant portion of its revenue from private donations. Ms. Simmons Kaleba said in an interview that the executive orders had forced RAINN's hand, and that people who filled out comment cards after contacting the hotline had not noted a decline in service. She added that RAINN had decided which resources to remove based on 'guidance' from government officials, but declined to identify the officials or to describe what they had said, citing confidentiality agreements. 'In an environment where nonprofits are trying to do everything we can to stay open, to stay active, to support as many survivors as we can through some pretty unprecedented times, it's disappointing that that can't be our singular focus,' she said. In a meeting with volunteers shortly after the resources were cut — a partial audio recording of which one volunteer shared — Ms. Simmons Kaleba and Megan Cutter, RAINN's chief of victim services, said that the organization had no good options. 'We've put each of these choices up against this core question: If we do this, are we still serving RAINN's mission of ending sexual violence?' Ms. Simmons Kaleba said. She recognized that many people were 'going to think we had better options to choose from, and they're going to be mad, and I don't blame them,' she added. Ms. Cutter acknowledged in the meeting that 'we're not able to offer what we've always offered,' and said she understood why volunteers were upset. She added, 'We're trying to be as thoughtful as we can within the circumstances.' Some other organizations have responded more defiantly to the executive orders. The Trevor Project, a suicide prevention organization for L.G.B.T.Q. youth, is at risk of losing funding and is running an emergency fund-raising campaign to try to compensate without making concessions. The National Sexual Violence Resource Center initially removed references to transgender people from its website, but then restored the content and apologized for 'a fear-based decision.' Jennifer Grove, the organization's director, said it had not lost funding or heard from the Trump administration since then. RAINN also deleted references to transgender people from its website, a move reported by The Washington Post in February. It has not restored them. The volunteers who signed the letter to RAINN's board of directors cited the Trevor Project and the National Sexual Violence Resource Center as models. 'What we are asking you today is not even as expansive as these examples of public leadership,' they wrote. 'We are simply requesting the quiet but immediate restoration of internal services for all survivors.'
New York Times
29-04-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
Harvard, Under Pressure, Revamps D.E.I. Office
Harvard is revamping its diversity, equity and inclusion office in a move that seemed to accede to the Trump administration, even as the university has sued the administration and accused it of unlawfully interfering in the university's affairs. An email to the Harvard community on Monday announced that the office had been renamed the Office of Community and Campus Life. The decision follows similar reorganizations across the country by universities, which appeared to be aimed at placating conservative critics who have attacked diversity offices as left-wing indoctrination factories. Harvard's announcement stood out, though, because it came just hours after lawyers for the university and the Trump administration held their first conference in a lawsuit in which Harvard accuses the administration of invading freedoms long recognized by the Supreme Court. The Trump administration also opened another front in its fight with the university on Monday, accusing the Harvard Law Review, an independent student-run journal, of racial discrimination in journal membership and article selection. In a news release announcing that the law review was under investigation, Craig Trainor, the Department of Education's acting assistant secretary for civil rights, said the journal 'appears to pick winners and losers on the basis of race, employing a spoils system in which the race of the legal scholar is as, if not more, important than the merit of the submission.' Responding to the announcement, Harvard Law School emphasized its commitment to ensuring that programs it oversees comply with the law, but pointed out that the journal is legally independent. A similar claim against the Harvard Law Review was dismissed in federal court in 2019. In announcing that Harvard's diversity office was being revamped, Sherri Ann Charleston, formerly the chief diversity officer, said the university should bring people together based on their backgrounds and perspectives and 'not the broad demographic groups to which they belong.' Dr. Charleston's title has been changed to chief community and campus life officer. The Trump administration included abolishing D.E.I. efforts in a long list of demands it sent to Harvard two weeks ago, which the university would have to meet to continue receiving federal funding. Among other requirements, the administration ordered Harvard to appoint an external overseer to monitor students, faculty and staff for 'viewpoint diversity,' to ban international students hostile to 'American values,' and to eliminate activist faculty. The list of demands was sent by mistake, according to two people familiar with the matter, but the White House has continued to stand by the requirements. Harvard responded to the demands by filing the lawsuit in federal court. 'No government, regardless of which party, should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,' Harvard's president, Alan M. Garber, wrote in a statement to the university. In retaliation, the administration has frozen more than $2.2 billion in university grants and contracts.
