
What is the significance of Columbia's $221 million settlement with Trump administration?
The University has also agreed to a bunch of demands of the administration. For instance, Columbia agreed to suspend, expel, or revoke degrees of some 70 students who participated in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
The development is a big win for the Trump administration, which has sued other universities over similar allegations. It has essentially paved a way for the administration to exert greater control over higher education, including campus activism.
What settlement has Columbia University reached?
On March 3, 2025, the Trump administration announced the review of alleged violations by Columbia University of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which 'prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance'.
The review was conducted by the 'multi-agency Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism' that was announced under Trump's Executive Order titled 'Additional Measures to Combat Anti-Semitism.' This was followed by the cancellation of $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University on March 7, resulting in a freeze on research funding.
Columbia University was the first university to be accused of anti-semitism on campus. Other universities, like Harvard and Cornell, were given similar accusations thereafter.
On March 13, the Trump administration sent Columbia University a letter stating their demands for it to make changes to student discipline on campus and revise their admission policies. The letter stated that the University had 'failed to protect American students and faculty from anti-semitic violence and harassment'.
The letter also said that the University should comply with demands like 'ban masks that are intended to conceal identity' and 'formalise, adopt, and promulgate a definition of anti-semitism.'
The University agreed to these demands in the week that followed, when the government refused to negotiate on the $400 million restrictions.
Since then, Columbia has expelled dozens of students for hosting pro-Palestine protests, including cases of deportation and cancellation of student visas. Around 180 researchers were also laid off due to the funding restrictions the university faced.
Columbia obtains approximately $1.3 billion in federal research funding each year, and the University stated that it would have faced significant jeopardy had it stayed on the administration's list of excluded institutions.
Therefore, the University decided to settle the case by paying $200 million over three years to the federal government and $21 million to settle the investigations by the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. The agreement has led to the reinstatement of a vast majority of restricted federal grants and shows the university's 'broader commitment to combating antisemitism,' according to the Acting President, Claire Shipman.
Why is this significant?
The Columbia University settlement marks a significant moment in the Trump administration's broader strategy to regulate university governance through federal enforcement mechanisms. It is the first University to formally comply with the administration's demands related to alleged antisemitism on campus. This compliance sets a precedent for other institutions facing similar federal scrutiny.
Harvard University, in stark contrast, chose to resist the administration's demands and instead filed a lawsuit against them. The University argued that the administration was attempting to overreach by exerting undue influence over its academic decision-making processes, threatening the institution's long-standing commitment to academic independence and integrity.
The Columbia case and other government accusations reflect a growing trend of federal intervention in higher education, where funding is used as leverage to enforce political and administrative compliance. With Columbia's decision to settle, other universities may come under pressure to choose between legal resistance and financial risk. The outcome positions the federal government as a more assertive actor in shaping campus policy, particularly around issues of protest, speech, and civil rights enforcement.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


India.com
9 minutes ago
- India.com
France denounces US-European Union trade deal, French PM calls it..., Emmanuel Macron...
(Image: President Donald Trump shakes hands with European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen in Turnberry. Pic: Reuters) New Delhi: France has criticized Sunday's, July 28 trade deal between US President Donald Trump and European Union (EU) President Ursula von der Leyen. French Prime Minister François Bayrou called it a dark day for the EU. What did France say over US-EU trade deal? François Bayrou said the EU had bowed to President Trump's increasing tariff pressure. He wrote on X: 'It is sad when a coalition of independent countries, formed to protect their common values and interests, buckles under pressure.' At the same time, French Minister of European Affairs Benjamin Haddad said that this situation is not good and the EU should take countermeasures. French Trade Minister Laurent Saint-Martin said, 'Trump only understands the language of power. If we should have taken countermeasures earlier, the deal might have been better.' However, French President Emmanuel Macron has remained silent on the matter. What is the response of Italy and Germany? German Chancellor Friedrich Mertz and Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni welcomed the agreement. European Trade Commissioner Maros Sefcovic called it a 'big step' as it averted a trade war between the USA and Europe. Under the agreement, most goods going from Europe to the US will face a 15% tariff, three times the current 4.8%. However, the 30% tariff was avoided after Trump's threat of August 1. How much of Europe's goods will face 15% tariff? According to the details of the agreement, 70% of goods from Europe will be subject to 15% tariff. This includes cars, medicines and electronics. However, some agricultural products such as aircraft parts, some chemicals, semiconductor equipment and cork will not be subject to tariffs. There will be no tariff on drugs yet, and if there is one in the future, it will not be more than 15%. The EU will buy energy worth 750 billion dollars or about 64 lakh crore rupees from America in the next three years. Along with this, the EU will invest 600 billion dollars i.e. 51 lakh crore rupees in America.


News18
20 minutes ago
- News18
Trump Is Getting The World Economy He Wants — But The Risk To Growth Could Spoil His Victory Lap
President Donald Trump is getting his way with the world partners from the European Union to Japan to Vietnam appear to be acceding to the president's demands to accept higher costs — in the form of high tariffs — for the privilege of selling their wares to the United States. For Trump, the agreements driven by a mix of threats and cajoling, are a fulfillment of a decades-long belief in protectionism and a massive gamble that it will pay off politically and economically with American consumers.: CNNNews18 Mobile App -


Time of India
33 minutes ago
- Time of India
At no stage of talks with US was trade tied to Sindoor: EAM S Jaishankar
NEW DELHI: External affairs minister S Jaishankar on Monday strongly defended India's global outreach after the April 22 Pahalgam terrorist attack and the subsequent developments related to Operation Sindoor, saying in Lok Sabha that the international community had overwhelmingly backed India. Even as President Donald Trump again claimed he ended the India-Pakistan conflict, Jaishankar asserted there was no conversation between Trump and PM Modi between April 22 and June 17 - the two publicly known days Trump dialled Modi - and also denied trade was a part of the talks that were going on with the US, ahead of the truce. Trump continues to claim that he used trade to enforce peace. Jaishankar cited statements by Quad, Brics, the US listing of terror group TRF and the UNSC condemnation of the attack, which called for holding the perpetrators accountable, to buttress govt's argument about support for India from across the globe and to dismiss opposition's claim that India had again been hyphenated with Pakistan. He was responding to opposition MPs who had said that Indian foreign policy had come a cropper as international support was not forthcoming. He said India's objectives in its engagements with the global community was to ensure zero tolerance for terrorism, and to stress "the right to defend ourselves, right to defend the people of India against cross-border terrorism". Jaishankar said that the UNSC condemnation of the Pahalgam attack resonated throughout the international community, adding that while there are 193 members of the United Nations, only three, apart from Pakistan, opposed India's strikes on terror camps in Pakistan. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like The World's Oldest Living Actors. Reportingly Undo Jaishankar also attacked Congress for agreeing with Pakistan that terrorism is a threat to both countries and accepting a reference to Balochistan in the Sharm El Sheikh joint statement, six months after the Mumbai attacks. The minister also defended his recent visit to China saying he went there to discuss de-escalation, trade restrictions and terrorism. "In 2005, China was designated as a Strategic Partner during Premier Wen Jiabao's visit to India. Strategic Partner! And there is a very famous concept called Chindia. A belief that China and India have common interest," he said, while attacking Congress functionary Rahul Gandhi for getting a briefing from the Chinese ambassador while the Doklam crisis was still on.