Judge presses Trump admin on Harvard funding cuts
Judge Allison Burroughs pressed the administration's lawyer to explain how cutting grants to diverse research budgets would help protect students from alleged campus anti-Semitism, US media reported.
Trump preemptively fired off a post on his Truth Social platform blasting Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic president Barack Obama, claiming without evidence that she had already decided against his government - and vowing to appeal.
The Ivy League institution sued in April to restore more than $2 billion in frozen funds. The administration insists its move is legally justified over Harvard's failure to protect Jewish and Israeli students, particularly amid campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
The threat to Harvard's funding stream forced it to implement a hiring freeze while pausing ambitious research programs, particularly in the public health and medical spheres, that experts warned risked American lives.
Harvard has argued that the administration is pursuing "unconstitutional retaliation" against it and several other universities targeted by Trump early in his second term.
Both sides have sought a summary judgment to avoid trial, but it was unclear if Burroughs would grant one either way.
The judge pressed the lone lawyer representing Trump's administration to explain how cutting funding to Harvard's broad spectrum of research related to combatting anti-Semitism, the Harvard Crimson student newspaper reported from court.
"The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge. She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling," Trump wrote on Truth Social.
"Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America," he claimed, pointing to the university's world-leading endowment.
Both Harvard and the American Association of University Professors brought cases against the Trump administration's measures which were combined and heard Monday.
- 'Control of academic decision making' -
Trump has sought to have the case heard in the Court of Federal Claims instead of in the federal court in Boston, just miles away from the heart of the university's Cambridge campus.
"This case involves the Government's efforts to use the withholding of federal funding as leverage to gain control of academic decision making at Harvard," Harvard said in its initial filing.
The Ivy League institution has been at the forefront of Trump's campaign against top universities after it defied his calls to submit to oversight of its curriculum, staffing, student recruitment and "viewpoint diversity."
Trump and his allies claim that Harvard and other prestigious universities are unaccountable bastions of liberal, anti-conservative bias and anti-Semitism, particularly surrounding protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
The government has also targeted Harvard's ability to host international students, an important source of income who accounted for 27 percent of total enrolment in the 2024-2025 academic year.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
IOL News
17 minutes ago
- IOL News
US Message Is Step Out Of Line Or Pay The Price
U.S. President Donald Trump (R) greets visiting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa (C) at the White House in Washington, D.C., the United States, on May 21, 2025. U.S. President Donald Trump confronted visiting South African President Cyril Ramaphosa on Wednesday with conspiracy theories on "white genocide" in South Africa, which Ramaphosa firmly denied. Image: Xinhua South African exports to the United States have been slapped with a 30% tariff. A blow, yes, but not a surprise. These tariffs don't exist in a vacuum. They are the latest move in a pattern of increasing diplomatic pressure from the United States, and they arrive on the back of months of thinly veiled threats to review South Africa's eligibility under the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). The politicisation of AGOA and the new tariffs, raises serious questions about the conditionality of so-called development partnerships and global trade. Is economic cooperation only valid when African states remain silent and compliant on global political issues? Government estimates more than 100,000 jobs could be lost across key sectors like agriculture, textiles and autos, at a time when unemployment is already hovering above 32%. Entire communities stand to lose income, security and dignity, but what's equally staggering is how little South Africa actually exports to the U.S. We make up just 0.25% of all U.S. imports, less than a rounding error in Washington's trade book. Our exports don't compete with American industries, they complement them. Our fruit, for instance, is counter-seasonal, plugging supply gaps in the U.S. market rather than replacing local produce. In fact, our trade supports U.S. industry. So what, exactly, is being punished? The answer, of course, has little to do with economics and everything to do with power. This is not about trade. It's about sending a message. And that message has been loud, blunt, and unmistakable – step out of line, and pay the price. Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Advertisement Video Player is loading. Play Video Play Unmute Current Time 0:00 / Duration -:- Loaded : 0% Stream Type LIVE Seek to live, currently behind live LIVE Remaining Time - 0:00 This is a modal window. Beginning of dialog window. Escape will cancel and close the window. Text Color White Black Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Background Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Opaque Semi-Transparent Transparent Window Color Black White Red Green Blue Yellow Magenta Cyan Transparency Transparent Semi-Transparent Opaque Font Size 50% 75% 100% 125% 150% 175% 200% 300% 400% Text Edge Style None Raised Depressed Uniform Dropshadow Font Family Proportional Sans-Serif Monospace Sans-Serif Proportional Serif Monospace Serif Casual Script Small Caps Reset restore all settings to the default values Done Close Modal Dialog End of dialog window. Next Stay Close ✕ From Rhetoric to Retaliation The U.S. administration's growing discomfort with South Africa's independent foreign policy, especially its stance on global conflicts and growing ties with BRICS partners—has clearly influenced this economic escalation. Washington's displeasure has shifted from diplomatic rhetoric to economic punishment. Threatening to revoke AGOA benefits, in tandem with the new tariffs, sends a powerful signal that dissent from Global South nations will be met with financial consequences. To compound the blow, Danish shipping giant Maersk has announced it will halt direct cargo shipments between South Africa and the U.S., effective October 1. While the company has cited global operational restructuring as the reason, the timing could not be more telling. The withdrawal forces South African exporters to reroute goods via European ports, increasing costs, delays, and administrative burdens. It effectively builds yet another barrier between South African goods and the U.S. market, making AGOA benefits, should they even survive this political fallout—more expensive and harder to access. Breaking the Myth of 'Rules-Based' Trade What we are witnessing is not mere coincidence. The tariff imposition, AGOA expiring next month, and Maersk's rerouting form a cumulative pattern of economic pressure. It is no longer just about trade; it's about submission. The U.S. is signalling that if South Africa won't play the geopolitical game by Washington's rules, then its economy will be made to suffer. This is a dangerous precedent, not just for South Africa, but for all emerging economies that dare to exercise political independence. When trade becomes a tool of coercion rather than cooperation, the very premise of multilateralism begins to collapse. For those of us watching the steady unraveling of what was once called the rules-based international order, this feels like the logical next step in a long, cynical game. Perhaps, it's the nudge we've needed to finally stop begging for a seat at someone else's table and start building our own. It's no coincidence that these tariffs come in the same year South Africa took Israel to the International Court of Justice (ICJ) for genocide, criticised MAGA politics, and continued to deepen ties within BRICS. What we are witnessing is the punishment of a middle power that dared to act like it had agency. The U.S. doesn't like being questioned, least of all by African democracies who refuse to toe the line. So when Pretoria tried to stave off the tariffs by offering to import U.S. gas, buy American crops, and invest in U.S.-linked recycling infrastructure, Washington wasn't interested. Retaliation was the point. Choosing Ourselves in a Multipolar World The irony though is that by turning up the pressure, the U.S. may have inadvertently done us a favour. For too long, South Africa and many in the Global South, have built trade strategies on the assumption that Western markets are stable, rational, and rules-based. That if we behaved, played nice, opened our markets, and said the right things in multilateral meetings, we'd be rewarded with access. That myth is now shattered, and it should be, because access isn't guaranteed. Rules are arbitrary, and partnership, at least under Trump's doctrine, is contingent on silence and compliance. So where do we go from here? President Ramaphosa's promise to support exporters and expand trade ties with Africa, Asia and the Middle East is more than damage control, it's a signal of something bigger. A chance to rebuild South Africa's trade identity on our own terms, not as a junior partner to the West, but as a central node in an emerging multipolar economy. We're not starting from scratch. BRICS, once dismissed as a diplomatic photo-op, is fast becoming a platform for alternative cooperation. At last year's summit in Kazan, countries like India, Brazil and South Africa called not just for new development banks and infrastructure funds, but for serious structural alternatives to a dollar-dominated world. At the same time, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) holds the promise of turning our fragmented markets into a $3.4 trillion single economy. Asian demand for African raw materials, manufacturing capacity, and fintech innovation is accelerating. The pieces of a new trade reality are already on the table. The challenge? Putting them together. Yes, it will be hard, but it will be ours. Let's not romanticise this shift. South–South trade is still fraught. Logistics are weak, infrastructure is uneven, and trust among governments is not always consistent. We face years of hard work, standardising policies, improving ports, digitising customs, and building the kind of supply chains that aren't just extractive, but transformative. If there's one thing this moment has made clear, it's that dependence is a liability, and the only true resilience lies in integration, production, and self-determination. I often think about how the Global South is described. Lacking capital. Lacking infrastructure. Lacking voice. But what if we stopped focusing on what we lack and started recognising what we are? A collection of nations with the resources, labour, culture, and leverage to rewire the global economy. A bloc that doesn't just have raw materials, but the power to set new rules, if we work together to do so. This isn't just about the U.S. punishing South Africa. It's about us realising that we no longer need to wait for validation from somewhere else. What Trump may not realise is that in trying to isolate us, he may have finally given us permission to choose ourselves. And I'm hoping this time, we will. By Chloe Maluleke Associate at The BRICS+ Consulting Group Russian & Middle Eastern Specialist * MORE ARTICLES ON OUR WEBSITE ** Follow @brics_daily on X/Twitter & @brics_daily on Instagram for daily BRICS+ updates
The South African
an hour ago
- The South African
30% tariffs kick in after Ramaphosa-Trump trade talk
The United States' (US's) 30% tariffs on South African exports took effect on Friday, 8 August. This was two days after President Cyril Ramaphosa and his US counterpart, Donald Trump, held a telephonic discussion regarding bilateral trade matters. The two leaders are expected to continue with further engagements, given the range of trade negotiations the US is currently involved in. The sectors hardest hit by Trump's tariffs include manufacturing, citrus, wine, steel, automotive parts, agricultural processing, and textiles. However, the Presidency said trade negotiating teams from both countries will continue with more detailed discussions. Some economists estimate the tariffs could shave 0.2% off South Africa's economic growth, depending on factors such as the country's ability to find alternative markets. According to a joint media statement from the government, 35% of South African exports remain exempt from the tariffs. These include copper, pharmaceuticals, semiconductors, lumber products, certain critical minerals, stainless steel scrap, and energy products. The US president took to his Truth Social platform to express delight over the tariffs, claiming billions are flowing into the country. 'Tariffs are flowing into the USA at levels not thought even possible!' he said. Trump also reiterated his long-standing view that the money is coming from countries that have 'taken advantage' of the US. However, the South African government has previously pointed out that local companies help sustain American jobs. 'Our goal is to preserve and grow these mutually beneficial relationships,' the statement read. The government also shared that it intends to keep trade channels open despite the latest setback. Let us know by leaving a comment below, or send a WhatsApp to 060 011 021 11. Subscribe to The South African website's newsletters and follow us on WhatsApp, Facebook, X and Bluesky for the latest news
Daily Maverick
2 hours ago
- Daily Maverick
How democracy has led to economic stagnation, and what to do about it
The exploitation of South Africa's large mineral endowment explains the relative development of its economy; at the same time, it explains its stagnation. South Africa is an old country with a lot of old problems that are not amenable to many technical solutions. South Africa belongs to a group of countries that were known as the New World. These are countries that were carved out of the Americas by the European powers after Christopher Columbus. New World countries were created by genocide against, among others, Native American populations and replaced with free populations from Europe and enslaved populations from Africa. South Africa and Mauritius are the only New World countries in Africa. The most economically successful New World country is the US. The least successful is probably Haiti. What has all this to do with South Africa today? The answer is plenty. The modern South African economy is as old as the economy of the US. The efforts to develop both countries date back to the 1860s, about 150 years ago. In 1865, the US started on its road to development from an agricultural economy by abolishing slavery. South Africa abolished slavery in 1834. In 1867, South Africa commenced its road to development by starting diamond mining, soon followed by gold mining. Today the US is the largest industrial economy in the world while South Africa is the largest economy in Africa. However, that is where the comparison between the two countries ends. South Africa's level of economic development today is where the US was 115 years ago, in 1910. Today, the per capita gross domestic product (GDP) of the US is $89,000. The per capita GDP of South Africa is $6,000. Why did the economies of the two countries diverge to the extent that an average American today is 15 times more productive than an average South African? The answer is not as complicated as one may imagine. Leaders of the two countries chose two different roads to economic development. American leaders chose an innovation-driven industrialisation model to development. South African leaders, on the other hand, chose a minerals-export-driven development model that was combined with import-substitution industrialisation. The American road to development prioritised investment in the skills and health of its population. The South African road to development prioritised exploitation of natural resources through the use of cheap, unskilled labour. This is what accounts for the massive differential between the productive power of an average American compared with an average South African. Natural resource curse The World Bank regularly publishes a Global Human Capital Index, which measures which countries are best at mobilising their human capital – the economic and professional potential of their citizens. It thus measures how much capital a country loses through lack of education and health. The top 10 in a survey of 169 countries in the 2020 Human Capital Index were Singapore, Hong Kong, Japan, Korea, Canada, Finland, Macao, Sweden, Ireland and the Netherlands. South Africa was number 132. Among African countries, Mauritius was number 58, Kenya was number 91. The bottom 10 countries were all African: the Democratic Republic of Congo, Sierra Leone, Angola, Mozambique, Nigeria, Liberia, Mali, Niger, Chad and the Central African Republic. Why does South Africa's economy, the most diversified on the African continent, have one of the lowest human capital indexes, both in Africa and in the world? This is explained in part – ironically – by South Africa's vast mineral resource endowment. Large mineral endowment is both a blessing and a curse. South Africa is a classic illustration of this duality. The exploitation of South Africa's large mineral endowment explains the relative development of its economy; at the same time, it explains its stagnation. The South African economy, as we know it today, dates from 170 years ago with the discovery of copper deposits in Namaqualand in 1854. These discoveries were soon followed by the discovery of diamonds, gold, coal and platinum deposits, to mention only a few minerals in South Africa's treasure trove. To extract these minerals South Africa had to import everything except black labourers. It imported capital, machinery, skilled miners, railways, food and other supplies. The exploitation of minerals thus created what came to be known as an enclave capitalist economy. This type of economy employs a relatively small number of workers, most of them unskilled, but produces minerals of very high value in the world market. Such an economy can thus sustain a small enclave population with a fabulous standard of living in a sea of poor, low-skilled population. This was what South Africa became during the past 170 years. Compared with the US, which has a developed capitalist society, South Africa's middle and upper class/elite is only 12% of the economically active population, whereas a similar population group in the US – proprietors, managers and professionals – are 37.6% of the economically active population. Most striking is South Africa's size of the category 'underclass and unemployed'. They comprise nearly half of the economically active population. This category does not exist in the US. An enclave capitalist economy in South Africa developed through imports substitution industrialisation. This is in contrast to how the economies in East and South East Asia are developing. They are developing through export promotion industrialisation. This explains why the South African economy is less sophisticated than most Asian economies. An important attribute of a natural resource enclave capitalist economy is its dependence on imported skills and technology. Such an economy is dominated by foreign companies in most sectors, especially in manufacturing. This explains its relatively low investment in research and development. Foreign firms carry out their research and development in their home countries. It also explains the dominance of oligopolies in many sectors of the economy. This therefore accounts for low levels of entrepreneurship in such an economy as South Africa's. The foreign firms carve up the limited, protected domestic market in an enclave capitalist economy and so keep out new entrants into the economy. A mineral-dependent enclave economy lives with enormous risks. Top of the list is what happens when mineral resources become depleted and/or are substituted due to technological changes. We are seeing this in South Africa today in connection with its four top primary export minerals – gold, diamonds, coal and platinum group metals: Gold deposits have become more uneconomical to mine due to the depth of the deposits; Diamonds are being replaced with cheaper synthetic diamonds; Coal is being phased out due to climate change considerations; and Platinum is being made superfluous by the phasing out of the internal combustion engine which used platinum to scrub exhaust fumes. Mineral assets' depletion or their substitution is one cause of South Africa's economic stagnation. The second source of its stagnation is democracy. Democracy, deindustrialisation and economic stagnation One of the most important outcomes of democracy in South Africa was that it transferred political power from property owners, farmers, miners, factory owners, bank owners and shop owners to non-property owners – the African middle-class professionals and organised labour. This is one of the major drivers of the country's economic stagnation. Non-property owners – African middle-class professionals – who control the state use their political power to transfer the economic surplus from potential investment in the production sector to consumption by the ruling political elite using the tax system, and awarding themselves inflated public sector salaries. This contributes to fuelling economic stagnation. Democracy is a last-resort form of appeasing or accommodating the demands of aggrieved social groups through the creation of a more inclusive system of governance. Democracy comes about when the use of force has failed to suppress or overcome threats from below to an existing socioeconomic order. Democracy is a mode of preserving, as much as possible, the existing socioeconomic order through compromise and accommodation where use of force by protagonists has failed to prevail. I once asked Pik Botha why the National Party (NP) decided to negotiate when it did, from a position of strength. Botha said the NP estimated it could hold back the threat from the blacks by force for another 10 years. He said a more immediate threat to the regime were the whites. The whites were not prepared to sacrifice their standards of living in order to preserve apartheid. The main threat to the white standard of living came from international sanctions, especially American sanctions. The British government was also aware of the threat of the collapsing South African economy posed by the American sanctions. By their own calculations, the British concluded a collapsing South African economy would dislocate 800,000 people of British descent from South Africa and another 200,000 citizens in the UK who would lose their jobs derived from trade with South Africa. Given the threat to South Africa's socioeconomic order, the NP therefore had to find a formula that preserved as much of the existing socioeconomic system as possible by accommodating its adversaries who by the mid-1980s included: big business, whites, blacks, the American government, the UK government, African governments, the United Nations and the Commonwealth. South Africa's industries had grown behind high tariff walls. When the walls were lowered with the advent of democracy after 1994, the economy proved uncompetitive and thus started to deindustrialise rapidly. Democracy has therefore proved to be a double-edged sword. On the one hand it brought about many social, economic and political benefits. On the other it contributed to economic stagnation. Conclusion: How to overcome economic stagnation The conclusion is that political power in South Africa after the May 2024 elections is in the hands of the combined black and white middle-class. Left out of political power are the working class, the poor and the capitalists. As the middle class in South Africa is consumption-driven, this is a risky outcome for the country economically. It means economic stagnation is going to continue indefinitely unless a coalition of the marginalised groups intervenes politically and forms a new coalition to contest for political power on a production-driven agenda. Desirable way forward for South Africa: Promote conversation between the groups politically marginalised by democracy, especially the poor and business, about a better and inclusive future for South Africa; Promote industrial modernisation policies to reduce dependence on mineral resources; Creation and promotion of a new entrepreneurial class linked to digital and 4IR technologies; Overhaul of the education system to improve South Africa's Human Capital Index position from 132 out of 169 globally; Repeal black economic empowerment (BEE) legislation; Professionalise public service and halve its cost as a percentage of GDP; Draw up an urbanisation plan for South Africa and a development strategy for rural areas in former homelands; and Overhaul the education system and health provision for the population. DM This is an edited version of a paper delivered at the recent FW de Klerk Foundation Conference on 'Achieving an Inclusive Economy'. Moeletsi Mbeki is chairperson of the South African Institute of International Affairs (SAIIA), an independent think-tank based in Johannesburg.
