University of Virginia president resigns amid pressure from Trump administration, NYT reports
June 27 (Reuters) - The president of the University of Virginia, James Ryan, has informed the board that oversees the school that he will resign his position, the New York Times reported on Friday, citing three people briefed on the matter.
Ryan was facing pressure from the Trump administration to step aside in order to resolve a Justice Department investigation in to UVA's diversity, equity and inclusion policies, the newspaper said.
The Times reported on Thursday that the department had demanded Ryan's resignation as a condition to settle a civil rights investigation into the school's diversity practices.
The University of Virginia did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Reuters.
In a warning issued last week, the department said the government had concluded that the use of race in admissions and other student benefits were 'widespread practices throughout every component and facet of the institution,' according to the Times.
Ryan's resignation has been accepted by the board, two of the Time's sources said, although it's unclear exactly when he will leave his post.
The Trump administration has undertaken a campaign against diversity, equity and inclusion and targeted colleges and universities that it has claimed are pushing antisemitic, anti-American, Marxist and "radical left" ideologies.
Universities have said that Trump's attacks are threats to freedom of speech, freedom of academics and the schools' very existence.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
Trump says he won't appoint anyone to Fed who doesn't back rate cuts
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - U.S. President Donald Trump said on Friday he would not appoint anyone to head the Federal Reserve who would not lower interest rates from where they are, setting perhaps the most explicit litmus test yet for candidates to be the next central bank chief to align with his demands for steep rate cuts in order to get the job. "If I think somebody's going to keep the rates where they are or whatever, I'm not going to put them in," Trump said. "I'm going to put somebody that wants to cut rates. There are a lot of them out there." Presidents in the past have complained about the Fed setting interest rates too high for their liking, but Trump has taken it further than any recent U.S. leader in setting a clear expectation for whomever he nominates to be in line with his wishes. Trump, who said rates should be cut to 1% from the current Fed benchmark rate of 4.25% to 4.50%, has repeatedly railed against Fed Chair Jerome Powell for not lowering borrowing costs since Trump returned to the White House in January, and he did so again on Friday. "I'd love him to resign if he wanted to, he's done a lousy job," Trump, speaking at the White House, said, while also labeling the Fed chair as "stupid." After raising rates aggressively coming out of the pandemic to combat the largest inflation outbreak since the 1970s and 1980s, the Fed lowered them a bit in the second half of last year but has not cut them since Trump returned to office. That is largely because Powell and the large majority of policymakers are concerned Trump's tariff policies in particular may rekindle inflation, and they prefer to wait longer to see if that develops before lowering rates again. Fed officials themselves have penciled in half a percentage point of cuts later this year, although that is a fraction of the reduction Trump is demanding. Trump's latest rant against Powell comes as he has largely backed away from threats to try to fire the Fed leader after a recent Supreme Court opinion appeared to align with long-standing views that presidents cannot dismiss top Fed officials over policy disagreements. The protection is seen as central to the Fed's independence from political interference in policymaking, which is seen as a critical pillar of its credibility as the world's most influential central bank. Trump has since turned his focus more to a successor for Powell, whose term as chair expires in May 2026. He has in recent weeks said he has three or four potential candidates in mind and he would make a decision soon. Most past Fed chair appointments have typically been made roughly three or four months before the vacancy was scheduled. There are about 10 months remaining in Powell's tenure as chair, and an early nomination by Trump is seen as an effort to undermine Powell's authority by giving voice to a "shadow chair" who would advocate for a different policy trajectory. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, seen as one of the potential candidates to replace Powell, downplayed the "shadow chair" idea, however. "I don't think anyone's necessarily talking about that," he told CNBC. Bessent noted that just one seat on the Fed Board of Governors is scheduled to open up within the year when Governor Adriana Kugler's term expires in early 2026. While Powell's term as chair expires next May, he is not required to leave the Fed altogether until his board seat expires in 2028. That leaves Kugler's expected departure as the first opportunity for a Trump appointment. "So there is a chance that the person who is going to become the chair could be appointed in January, which would probably mean an October, November nomination," Bessent said. Asked about reports that he is among the pool of candidates, Bessent said: "I'll do what the president wants, but I think I have the best job in Washington." Others seen as possible nominees for the job are White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett, former Fed Governor Kevin Warsh, and current Governor Christopher Waller. Waller, appointed by Trump during the Republican's first term in office, in the past week has said he is open to cutting interest rates as soon as the Fed's next meeting at the end of July.
Reuters
an hour ago
- Reuters
US Senate rejects bid to curb Trump's Iran war powers
WASHINGTON, June 27 (Reuters) - The Republican-led U.S. Senate rejected a Democratic-led bid on Friday to block President Donald Trump from using further military force against Iran, hours after the president said he would consider more bombing. The Senate vote was 53 to 47 against a war powers resolution that would have required congressional approval for more hostilities against Iran. All the senators had voted, but the vote was being held open.
The Guardian
2 hours ago
- The Guardian
The US supreme court has dramatically expanded the powers of the president
Those of us who cover the US supreme court are faced, every June, with a peculiar challenge: whether to describe what the supreme court is doing, or what is claims that it is doing. What the supreme court says it was doing in Friday's 6-3 decision in Trump v Casa, Inc, the birthright citizenship case, is narrowing the power of federal district judges to issue nationwide injunctions, in deference to presidential authority. The case effectively ends the ability of federal judges on lower courts to issue nationwide stays of executive actions that violate the constitution, federal law, and the rights of citizens. And so what the court has actually done is dramatically expand the rights of the president – this president – to nullify constitutional provisions at will. The ruling curtails nationwide injunctions against Trump's order ending birthright citizenship – meaning that while lawsuits against the order proceed, the court has unleashed a chaotic patchwork of rights enforceability. The Trump administration's ban on birthright citizenship will not be able to go into effect in jurisdictions where there is no ongoing lawsuit, or where judges have not issued regional stays. And so the supreme court creates, for the foreseeable future, a jurisprudence of citizenship in which babies born in some parts of the country will be presumptive citizens, while those born elsewhere will not. More broadly the decision means that going forward, the enforceable rights and entitlements of Americans will now be dependent on the state they reside in and the status of ongoing litigation in that district at any given time. Donald Trump, personally, will now have the presumptive power to persecute you, and nullify your rights in defiance of the constitution, at his discretion. You can't stop him unless and until you can get a lawyer, a hearing, and a narrow order from a sympathetic judge. 'No right is safe in the new legal regime the Court creates,' writes Justice Sonia Sotomayor, in a dissent joined by the court's other two liberals. Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, writing separately, adds that the decision is 'profoundly dangerous, since it gives the Executive the go-ahead to sometimes wield the kind of unchecked, arbitrary power the Founders crafted our Constitution to eradicate'. She also calls the ruling an 'existential threat to the rule of law'. The case concerns an executive order by the Trump administration, issued the day that Trump returned to office, purporting to end birthright citizenship – in defiance of the 14th amendment. When immigrant rights groups, representing American newborns and their migrant parents, sued the Trump administration to enforce their clients' constitutional rights, a nationwide injunction was issued which paused the Trump administration's plainly illegal order from going into effect while the lawsuit proceeded. These injunctions are a standard tool in the arsenal of federal judges, and an essential check on executive power: when the president does something wildly illegal, as Trump did, the courts can use injunctions to prevent those illegal actions from causing harm to Americans while litigation is ongoing. Nationwide injunctions have become more common in the Trump era, if only because Trump himself routinely does plainly illegal things that have the potential to hurt people and strip them of their rights nationwide. But they are not used exclusively against Republican presidents, or in order to obstruct rightwing policy efforts. Throughout the Obama and Biden administrations, Republican appointed judges routinely stymied their policy agendas with national injunctions; the Roberts court blessed these efforts. But once Donald Trump returned to power, the court adopted a newer, narrower vision of judges' prerogatives – or at least, of the prerogatives of judges who are not them. They have, with this ruling, given Donald Trump the sweeping and unprecedented authority to claim presumptive legality of even the most fundamental of American rights: the right of American-born persons to call themselves American at all. Part of why the supreme court's behavior creates dilemmas for pundits is that the court is acting in with a shameless and exceptional degree of bad faith, such that describing their own accounts of their actions would mean participating in a condescending deception of the reader. In her opinion for the conservative majority, Justice Amy Coney Barrett says that the court is merely deferring to the rights of the executive, and ensuring that the president has the freedom to do what the voters elected him to do. Putting aside the ouroboros-like nature of the majority's conception of electoral legitimacy –that having received a majority of Americans' votes would somehow entitle Donald Trump to strip them of the rights that made those votes free, meaningful, and informed in the first place – the assertion is also one of bad faith. Because the truth is that this court's understanding of the scope of executive power is not principled; it is not even grounded in the bad history that Barrett trots out to illustrate her point about the sweeping power of other executives in the historical tradition – like the king of England. Rather, the court expands and contracts its vision of what the president is allowed to do based on the political affiliation of the president that is currently in office. When a Democrat is the president, their vision of executive power contracts. When a Republican is in office, it dramatically expands. That is because these people's loyalty is not to the constitution, or to a principled reading of the law. It is to their political priors. Sign up to Headlines US Get the most important US headlines and highlights emailed direct to you every morning after newsletter promotion Another danger of reporting the court's own account of itself to readers is this: that it can distract from the real stakes of the case. In this decision, the court did not, technically, reach the merits of Trump's absurd and insulting claim that the constitution somehow does not create a birthright entitlement to citizenship. But in the meantime, many children – the American-born infants of immigrant parents – will be denied the right that the 14th amendment plainly guarantees them. The rightwing legal movement, and the Trumpist judges who have advanced it, have long believed that really, this is a white man's country – and that the 14th amendment, with its guarantees of equal protection and its vision of a pluralist nation of equals, living together in dignity across difference – was an error. Those babies, fully American despite their differences and their parents' histories, are squirming, cooing testaments to that better, more just future. They, and the hope that they represent, are more American than Trump and his crony judges will ever be. Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
