Trump considers redirecting $3b in Harvard grants to US trade schools
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- United States President Donald Trump said on Monday he is considering taking $3 billion of previously awarded grant money for scientific and engineering research away from Harvard University and giving it to trade schools.
His comments on his social media platform Truth Social come less than a week after his administration sought to block the Ivy League school from enrolling foreign students as part of Trump's extraordinary effort to seize some government control of US academia.
Trump, a Republican, has frozen some $3 billion in federal grants to Harvard in recent weeks, complaining that it has hired Democrats, "Radical Left idiots and 'bird brains'" as professors. Harvard, a private university, has sued to restore the funding, saying the cuts are an unconstitutional attack on its free speech rights and unlawful.
Most of that grant money is appropriated by Congress for the National Institutes of Health to disburse to fund biomedical research after a lengthy application process by individual scientists, work that is not typically done at trade schools.
It was not clear whether Trump was referring to Harvard grants his administration has already frozen. Harvard has said it was told that virtually all of its federal grant awards were revoked earlier in May, in a series of letters by the NIH, the US Forest Service, the Department of Energy, the Department of Defense and other agencies.
The letters each said the grants were being suspended because they "no longer effectuate agency priorities." Harvard did not respond to a request for comment on Monday.
The White House did not respond to questions about the specific funds Trump wants to repurpose or how it could be reallocated to trade schools under the law.
On Friday, a US judge temporarily blocked the Trump administration from revoking Harvard's ability to enroll foreign students, a policy the university said was part of Trump's broader effort to retaliate against it for refusing to "surrender its academic independence." The order provides temporary relief to thousands of international students, who were faced with potentially having to transfer under a policy that the university in Cambridge, Massachusetts called a "blatant violation" of the US Constitution and other federal laws.
It said the move would have an "immediate and devastating effect" on the university and more than 7,000 visa holders.
Harvard enrolled nearly 6,800 international students in its current school year, representing 27 percent of total enrollment and a significant chunk of its revenue from tuition fees.
The move was the latest escalation in a broader battle between Harvard and the White House, as Trump seeks to compel universities, law firms, news media, courts and other institutions to align with his agenda. Trump and fellow Republicans have long accused elite universities of left-wing bias.
In recent weeks, the administration has proposed ending Harvard's tax-exempt status and hiking taxes on its endowment, and opened an investigation into whether it violated civil rights laws by discriminating against "white, Asian, male, or straight employees" or job or training program applicants.
Harvard has said its hiring and admissions are compliant with the law.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Korea Herald
15 hours ago
- Korea Herald
Hegseth urges Asian allies to boost defense spending, do 'their part' in face of 'real' China threats
US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth called Saturday for Asian allies to increase their defense spending and do their part as "force multipliers," as he portrayed China's evolving threats as "real" and potentially "imminent," and warned against economic "entanglement" with the Asian superpower. Speaking at the Shangri-La Dialogue, an annual defense forum in Singapore, Hegseth also reassured allies and partners of America's commitment to the Indo-Pacific and vowed to increase the United States' focus on the region "if allies share the burden." His remarks came amid lingering concerns that President Donald Trump's America First policy might lead to a scaling back of the US' costly overseas security engagements in the midst of increasingly complicated challenges from China, North Korea, Russia and others. "It is hard to believe a little bit, after some trips to Europe that I am saying this, but thanks to President Trump, Asian allies should look to countries in Europe as a newfound example. NATO members are pledging to spend 5 percent of their GDP on defense, even Germany," he said. GDP is short for gross domestic product. "It doesn't make sense for countries in Europe to do that, while key allies and partners in Asia spend less on defense in the face of an even more formidable threat, not to mention North Korea." His remarks appeared to mark a subtle shift from the Trump administration's focus on some members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) that the president once called "delinquent." Hegseth stressed that defense spending should reflect "the dangers and threats we face today." "Deterrence does not come cheap," he said. "Time is of the essence. We must step up and move out with urgency." Speculation has persisted that the Trump administration might call for a rise in South Korea's share of the cost for stationing the 28,500-strong US Forces Korea. Trump has said that America was not sufficiently "reimbursed" for what he called its "big-time" military protection of the Asian ally. Hegseth highlighted the need for US allies to do their part to help counter Chinese threats. "We ask -- indeed, we insist -- that our allies and partners do their part on defense. Sometimes, that means having uncomfortable and tough conversations. Partners owe it to each other to be honest and realistic ... This is the essence of a pragmatic, common-sense defense policy," Hegseth said. "But you will also see that we are -- and will remain -- loyal to our allies and partners ... In fact, the only way to ensure lasting alliances and partnerships is to make sure each side does its part and see the benefit." Moreover, he said that an alliance cannot be "ironclad" if "in reality or perception," it is seen as one-sided." The secretary reiterated that "America First" does not mean "America alone," as he requested that US allies and partners work as "force multipliers" alongside the US in the midst of shared threats. "We will stand with you and work alongside you to deter Chinese aggression. And we will do so in a rational and pragmatic manner," he said. "Each day, together, creating more and more dilemmas and complications, should they decide to overturn the status quo." He went on to say that no one should doubt America's commitment to its Indo-Pacific allies and partners. "We will continue to wrap our arms around our friends and find new ways to work together -- not only our treaty allies here, but also our key defense partners in ASEAN and across the Indo-Pacific," he said. ASEAN stands for the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Excoriating China's assertive behavior in the region, the secretary cautioned against the perils of economic reliance on the Asian power. "We know that many countries are tempted by the idea of seeking both economic cooperation with China and defense cooperation with the United States ... But beware the leverage the CCP seeks with that entanglement," Hegseth said. CCP is short for the Chinese Communist Party. "Economic dependence on China only deepens their malign influence and complicates our decision space during times of tension or conflict." He strongly castigated China's threats against Taiwan and in the South China Sea. "China seeks to become the hegemonic power in Asia. No doubt it hopes to dominate and control too many parts of this vibrant and vital region," he said. "Through its massive military build-up and growing willingness to use military force to achieve its goals, including gray zone tactics in hybrid warfare, China has demonstrated that it wants to fundamentally alter the region's status quo." China's behavior towards its neighbors and the world is a "wake-up" call, he noted, calling attention to Chinese President Xi Jinping's order for his military to be capable of invading Taiwan by 2027. "To be clear, any attempt by Communist China to conquer Taiwan would result in devastating consequences for the Indo-Pacific and the world," he said. "There is a no reason to sugarcoat it. The threat China poses is real. And it could be imminent. We hope not." However, he pointed out that Washington does not seek conflict with its Asian competitor. "The U.S, especially under President Trump, does not seek war. We do not seek to dominate or strangle China ... We do not seek regime change," he said. "Instead, we seek peace. But we must ensure that China cannot dominate us -- or our allies and partners. Maintaining the status quo requires strength. That's just a rational, common sense goal that we should all be able to live with." In another stern message to China that he views as seeking regional dominance, Hegseth underlined that America will continue to stay as an Indo-Pacific nation. "Here in the Indo-Pacific, our futures are bound together. The prosperity and security of the American people are linked to those of your people," he said. "We share your vision of peace and stability, and of prosperity and security, and we are here to stay." (Yonhap)
Korea Herald
a day ago
- Korea Herald
How Korea's next leader should set foreign policy compass
JEJU ISLAND -- The crux of the new Korean government's foreign and security strategy, former foreign ministers said, must be adapting to a shifting, more inward-looking US -- one demanding greater burden-sharing from its allies under President Trump's 'America First' doctrine -- while keeping the alliance at the core of its foreign policy at this critical crossroads. Facing a wave of increasingly interconnected global crises and a more inward-looking Washington, the former top diplomats urged Seoul's next leadership to move beyond the conventional US-centric approach and adopt a more holistic, big-picture foreign policy suited to the shifting global order. 'What's most important as Korea's new government takes office is that we are facing not just one or two challenges, but a complex web of simultaneous crises. We all know that these issues are unfolding on multiple fronts at once,' former Foreign Minister Yun Byung-se, who served under the former conservative Park Geun-hye administration, said during Thursday's session at the Jeju Forum held on the southern island of Jeju. 'Therefore, the new administration should not approach strategy solely through the lens of relations with the US, but should instead adopt a broader, more comprehensive perspective,' Yun said during a session on South Korea's diplomatic and security strategy ahead of the early presidential election on June 3. With no transition period before taking office, the new South Korean leadership will also need to quickly find its footing as it responds to growing US calls for greater responsibility in national and regional defense, as well as increased demands across the board within the bilateral alliance framework, Yun said. He also noted that, unlike in the past when North Korea's provocations were the main concern for an incoming administration, this time will be different: "the new government will need to prioritize how quickly it can formulate its own position in response to US priorities." 'Ultimately, it comes down to two main points: the role of US Forces Korea and South Korea's own regional role,' Yun explained. In Seoul, concerns are growing that the operational scope of US Forces Korea could extend beyond the Korean Peninsula and expand to regional defense, including being repurposed for a potential Taiwan contingency. 'In 2003, some units from US Forces Korea were redeployed to Iraq. Now, if they are redeployed -- not to Iraq, but to areas near Taiwan -- that could present a whole new set of challenges, and it's something we need to think about very carefully,' Yun said. 'From what I see, neither (presidential election) camp is fully prepared to address this issue yet.' Both the classified 'Interim National Defense Guidance,' as reported by The Washington Post, and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth's statement on the development of the 2025 National Defense Strategy make clear that US forces will prioritize deterring China as the sole pacing threat. Another key point is that allies should shoulder more responsibility for defending against other regional threats -- for South Korea, this means threats posed by North Korea. Former Foreign Minister Song Min-soon underscored that 'Korea needs to transform its current alliance system -- which is now overly dependent on the US -- into a more autonomous alliance, while still faithfully upholding the Korea-US alliance.' "This is something the US also wants," Song said. "However, in Korea, there is a fear that moving toward a more self-reliant alliance could lead to isolation from the US, and how to overcome that fear is the challenge." Song, who served in the former liberal Roh Moo-hyun administration, also called for the next South Korean government to 'more actively explore ways to achieve a nuclear balance between the two Koreas,' instead of merely relying on US extended deterrence. Extended deterrence refers to Washington's commitment to deter or respond to coercion and external attacks on its allies and partners with the full range of its military capabilities, including nuclear weapons. 'However, it doesn't necessarily mean that we need immediate nuclear armament,' Song continued. Former Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan, however, said the next government should continue to focus on diplomacy with the United States and ensure that US extended deterrence is well maintained, opposing the idea of South Korea independently seeking a nuclear balance against North Korea. On the diplomatic front, Kim emphasized that the key challenge is how to navigate between the Korea-US alliance and China amid the shifting global order. "From the perspective of our diplomatic and security interests, regardless of who becomes the next president, the most important point is what stance South Korea should take between the US, our ally, and China, given our geopolitical realities," Kim said. "This remains our greatest diplomatic challenge." But Kim also pointed out that the US is no longer willing to unilaterally provide public goods as it did in the past, as it needs to focus its limited capacity on addressing mounting domestic challenges. Kim, who served under former conservative President Lee Myung-bak, expressed his concerns over a potential return to what's known as the 'Kindleberger Trap,' highlighting this as a key factor for South Korea to consider in devising its foreign policy. The trap refers to the failure of the international system due to the under-provision of global public goods and the dangers inherent in a shifting balance of power. "Looking at the current global order, if the US stops providing public goods, who will take on that role? Is Europe economically strong enough to take on that responsibility?" Kim said. "These are the kinds of questions we need to seriously consider in the context of international affairs."
![[Robert J. Fouser] Rise of the 'neo-globalists'](/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwimg.heraldcorp.com%2Fnews%2Fcms%2F2025%2F05%2F29%2Fnews-p.v1.20250529.210ab046ae014b3588c10beccb603535_T1.jpg&w=3840&q=100)
Korea Herald
2 days ago
- Korea Herald
[Robert J. Fouser] Rise of the 'neo-globalists'
Way back in the late 2010s, I remember Democratic political pundit Donna Brazile describing then-US President President Donald Trump as a 'tree shaker.' That was during his first term when traditional guardrails on presidential power were still in place. In his second term, those guardrails have disappeared, and he has become a forest fire, wreaking havoc in all directions. But four months in the era of Trump chaos is a long time and the tenor of criticism has begun to change. At first, criticism focused on the negative effects of each action, which added to the long list of things to be resisted. Recently, however, criticism has begun to focus on weaknesses in Trump's isolationist 'America First' argument that drives his decision-making. Instead of adding to the list of outrages, emerging criticism attempts to create an appealing counterargument in the hope of weakening Trump's appeal. Two arguments that have deep roots in 20th century politics have gained strength. The first is progressive-left change, advocated by Bernie Sanders since the 2016 presidential campaign. Sanders is now in his 80s, and New York Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has moved into a position to lead the movement. 'Election Betting Odds,' an aggregate of political betting websites, has her tied for first place in the race for the 2028 Democratic nomination and running second behind JD Vance for the presidency. Born in 1989, she will turn 39 just before the 2028 election. Democrats are still smarting from Kamala Harris's loss in 2024 and finding their way will take time, but Ocasio-Cortez is creating the biggest buzz among possible candidates. If she were to run, she would instantly be one of the most competitive candidates. The idea of an Ocasio-Cortez nomination makes members of the Democratic Party establishment nervous, just as the idea of a Sanders nomination did. Their worries stem from a combination of worries that progressive-left candidates cannot win and fear that they will lose influence over the party. Their worries are valid. Various analyses of US voters give the progressive left a core support level of about 15 percent, which is hardly enough to win the Democratic nomination, let alone the general election. To win, a progressive-left candidate either needs to move to the center or draw on activist energy in the hope of creating momentum. In 2016 and 2020, Bernie Sanders followed the latter strategy, but it was not enough to win. This suggests that an Ocasio-Cortez candidacy could be risky. The second argument is 'neo-globalism,' which rejects Trump's tariffs, restrictions on immigration and isolationist worldview. Neo-globalists acknowledge weaknesses in 20th century globalism and the neoliberal policies that underpinned it. They respect national interests but are firmly committed to free trade, openness to immigration, international institutions and democratic ideals. The ascendance of critiques of globalization in the 2010s, first from the progressive left and later from right-wing populist movements, put globalists on the defensive. By the 2020s, support for globalization had become passe, and pundits argued that Donald Trump's victory in 2024 marked the end of the era of globalization. During the past four months, Trump's attacks on the structures of globalization have stirred a pro-globalization backlash. Emboldened globalists are now arguing that, despite its flaws, globalization offers hope to more people around the world than isolationism and reactionary populism. The public in many countries is responding to these arguments by rejecting the tenets of reactionary populism. In the US, nearly two-thirds of voters disapprove of Trump's tariffs while negative opinions of the US have soared around the world because of Trump. Recent elections in Australia and Canada suggest that 'neo-globalists' who create broad coalitions can defeat the populist right. In Australia, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese of the center-left Labor Party won one of the largest majorities in history by tying his conservative opponent to the populist right. In Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney of the centrist Liberal Party won the most seats in parliament by drawing on resistance to Trump while pulling votes away from the progressive-left New Democratic Party. In French legislative elections in 2024, cooperation between the centrist and progressive-left parties helped beat back a strong challenge from the far-right populist parties. The midterm elections in the US in 2026 will be an important test of whether neo-globalists and the progressive left can build a coalition to win control of Congress. Now is the time for the Democratic Party to focus on building and sustaining such a coalition rather than worrying about the nominee for 2028. Robert J. Fouser, a former associate professor of Korean language education at Seoul National University, writes on Korea from Providence, Rhode Island. He can be reached at robertjfouser@ The views expressed here are the writer's own. -- Ed.
