An Olympics-sized lobbying initiative
NEXT SUMMER OF SPORTS: The U.S. Travel Association is looking forward to tens of millions of foreign visitors coming to the U.S. for the 2026 FIFA World Cup and the 2028 Summer Olympics in Los Angeles. But the group is raising concerns about a new cost that those travelers will have to contend with thanks to the One Big Beautiful Bill.
— Under the new law, the Department of Homeland Security must start charging visa applicants a $250 fee at the time their application is approved. The fee will be revised annually to keep up with inflation, meaning it could be higher by the time of the 2028 Olympic games. The Congressional Budget Office estimated the fee would raise around $28.9 billion over the next decade.
— 'This is the exact wrong time for the United States to charge $250 for every new visa,' said Erik Hansen, senior vice president of government relations for the Travel Association. 'We're on the cusp of probably the most pivotal year in the American travel industry's history.'
— 'I think the administration has the opportunity not to implement it, particularly ahead of these historic events, so we're urging the administration to do that,' he added.
— Today, the travel industry group announced the launch of the America's Sports and Travel Mega Event Coalition, a new effort to support the president's focus on the mega sporting events and urge administration officials to delay implementation of the visa fee or lean on Congress to remove it altogether. Monument Advocacy, which has worked with the U.S. Travel Association since 2006, will lead the coalition's lobbying efforts.
— 'The No. 1 concern about coming to the United States is often cost,' Hansen said. 'And so if the visa integrity fee would be put in place, we would be one of the most expensive countries to visit in terms of how much it costs to get a visa.'
— The coalition, which includes Marriott International, InterContinental Hotels Group (IHG), American Airlines and others, also plans to push for increased U.S. consular staffing and expanded hours of operation to make the visa process more efficient, Hansen said.
— 'Customs is going to be another issue,' he added. 'When we have millions of international visitors arriving at our airports within a very focused period of time, we can't welcome the world by making them wait in line for two, three or four hours.'
Happy Thursday and welcome to PI. This is your new regular co-host Daniel B. and I'm looking forward to hearing more from all you fine people. Caitlin isn't going anywhere so be sure to send your tips to both of us at dbarnes@politico.com and coprysko@politico.com. We're on Signal at danielbarnes.13 and caitlinoprysko.17 and on X at @dnlbrns and @caitlinoprysko.
FIRST IN PI — Oil trader Niels Troost on Thursday sued strategic intelligence firm The Arkin Group for defamation for public statements they've made on behalf of Troost's former business partner, Gaurav Srivastava, the Indian American businessperson who had donations to Democrats last year frozen or returned after allegations he had posed as a CIA spy, Daniel L. reports.
— The lawsuit alleges that the firm, founded by former top CIA official Jack Devine, and managing director Victoria Kataoka have waged a 'vicious, unfounded disinformation campaign against Mr. Troost on behalf of their client, Gaurav Srivastava.'
— During a panel on disinformation last year at a conference in London, Kataoka said that Troost 'create[d] a big and bold lie' and 'a very sexy fiction' that Srivastava was 'a fake spy.' She repeated the claims in a podcast, saying he created an 'incredibly well developed and expertly designed ... disinformation campaign' with a 'very shiny ... sexy fake spy story.' She also accused Troost of lying that Srivastava is 'a con man.'
— 'As a respected firm founded by a former acting head of the CIA, The Arkin Group should have known better than to parrot Srivastava's story without regard for the stacks of evidence, public reporting, and witnesses that were readily available when they were doing it,' Troost's lawyer Jason Masimore, a former federal prosecutor with Brodbecks Law PLLC, said in a statement to PI.
— 'This is particularly true since the evidence presented, including sworn witness statements, shows that Srivastava has presented a threat to U.S. national security by posing as a CIA operative in front of world leaders and gaining direct access to top U.S. leaders.'
— Devine, the CEO of the Arkin Group, pushed back on the lawsuit in a statement to PI.
— 'The Arkin Group looks forward to the truth coming out through the U.S. legal system concerning Mr. Troost — a wealthy European oil trader who is sanctioned by UK, EU, and Swiss authorities for being 'involved in obtaining a benefit from or supporting the Government of Russia,'' he said.
— 'Through the lawsuit he has initiated, Mr. Troost, a public figure, will be required to present evidence under oath, through depositions, interrogatories, and admissions, which will shed light on the extent of his relationships and involvement with the government of the Russian Federation which, fundamentally, in our view, continues to be what this matter is about.'
— Kataoka and Srivastava didn't respond to requests for comment. A lawyer for Srivastava declined to comment.
DINNER WITH THE PRESIDENT: The owner of a biotech company that donated $5 million to a pro-Trump super PAC was able to lobby the president to delay implementation of a Joe Biden-era plan that would have limited Medicare reimbursement for 'skin substitute' bandages.
— During a dinner at Mar-a-Lago, Extremity Care founder Oliver Burckhardt, criticized Biden for having 'rammed through a policy that would create more suffering and death for diabetic patients on Medicare' and presented Trump with a copy of a flier the president later posted on Truth Social, Kenneth Vogel, Sarah Kliff and Katie Thomas report in The New York Times.
— 'About one month later, the Trump administration announced it would delay until next year the Biden administration plan to limit Medicare's coverage of the bandages, known as skin substitutes, saying that it was reviewing its policies.'
— 'It is not unusual for deep-pocketed interests to use political donations to try to win access, but Mr. Trump's hands-on participation in a fund-raising operation for a group devoted to him is unique for second-term presidents barred from running for re-election. It has created an opportunity for fund-raisers and lobbyists to boost their standing with Mr. Trump while advancing their clients' interests.'
CHAMBER GOES BIG AND BEAUTIFUL: The U.S. Chamber of Commerce aims to sell the One Big, Beautiful Bill to the American public by holding 100 roundtable discussions about tax cuts and incentives in the new law, The Hill's Alexander Bolton reports.
— 'Republican strategists want to avoid the mistakes made during Trump's first term, when strategists now believe they didn't do enough to sell Trump's landmark 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act before the 2018 midterm election…Some early polling shows that Americans have a largely negative view of the law after Democrats spent months highlighting cuts to Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, cuts that led some Republicans such as Sens. Thom Tillis (N.C.) and Susan Collins (Maine) to vote against it.'
— 'The Chamber has partnered with state and local chambers of commerce to convene lawmakers and local-business owners around the country to talk about popular but overlooked provisions of the law. … It has already held more than 40 roundtable discussions about the bill's benefits with members of the Senate and House, and plans to hold a total of 100 such events.'
EYES ON ANTITRUST: 'Politically-connected lobbyists and lawyers' are inserting themselves into the Justice Department's antitrust investigations leading to confrontations with the division's leaders, Dave Michaels and Annie Linskey report for the Wall Street Journal.
— Companies facing antitrust investigations — Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Live Nation and American Express GBT among them — have hired various Trump-world figures like Mike Davis, Brian Ballard, Arthur Schwartz, Will Levi and Nick Iarossi, who appear to be delivering for their clients.
— 'Gail Slater, the department's top antitrust enforcer, has pushed back on the infusion of lobbyists into her world, but appears under siege by Trump loyalists inside and outside of the administration. Slater, who was picked by Trump for the role, saw her two top deputies fired last week after they challenged the terms of the favorable settlement that HPE negotiated with officials in Attorney General Pam Bondi's office. … Slater and the two fired deputies had objected to HPE's use of Davis and other politically connected lawyers to negotiate the settlement, people familiar with the matter said. Those comments got back to Davis and others, prompting them to complain about her leadership.'
CALL HER MOMMY: Former Trump aide turned Elon Musk aide Katie Miller announced the launch of a new podcast aimed at conservative women. The podcast won't only cover politics, Miller told Axios, but is intended to be 'a place for conservative women to gather online.'
— Miller and her husband, White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller, operated as the power couple of Trump's Washington until she left her role as a special government employee in May along with Musk.
—'Miller said in an interview that her husband, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, is 'incredibly supportive' of her new enterprise, and has even pitched in to wrangle guests.'
SPOTTED: BGR Group's Nick Iarossi at a million dollar-a-plate quarterly fundraising dinner for MAGA Inc. last Friday night at Bedminster headlined by President Donald Trump, two PI tipsters told Daniel L. His appearance at the fundraiser surprised another attendee, a person in Trump's orbit, since Iarossi was such a big supporter of Ron DeSantis, whose presidential campaign he was the national finance co-chair for.
— Iarossi, who remains close to DeSantis, has been a major supporter of Trump ever since DeSantis dropped out. He declined to comment.
Jobs report
— FleishmanHillard has appointed Rachel Catanach as global managing director, corporate affairs. Michael Moroney, senior partner in the agency's Washington office, has also been promoted to managing director, corporate affairs, Americas.
— Jamie Logan has been promoted from manager to director, state government affairs for the American Cleaning Institute.
— Cindy Nichols has been elected as the new vice chair of Airports Council International. She currently serves as the director of airports for Sacramento County, CA.
— Annika Olson joins Americans for Responsible Innovation as director of government affairs. She was previously political and legislative representative for the National Air Traffic Controllers Association.
New Joint Fundraisers
A Joint Fundraising Vehicle (Sen. Marsha Blackburn, Democracy Mobilization Project PAC, Mark Burns For US Congress, Fair Future NC)
New PACs
Red Peaks PAC (Super PAC)
Standing Together For Utah (Super PAC)
Citizens For Carroll Cares Campaign (PAC)
New Lobbying REGISTRATIONS
Arentfox Schiff LLP: Medallia, Inc.
Blue Tusk Communications: Let Experienced Pilots Fly
Cavarocchi Ruscio Dennis Associates, L.L.C.: Child Sexual Abuse Prevention Now
Continental Strategy, LLC: Vivex Biologics
Etherton And Associates, Inc.: Onebrief, Inc.
Francis Edward & Cronin, Inc.: Lewy Body Dementia Association
Mcdermott+ LLC: Stationmd
Mcguirewoods Consulting (A Subsidiary Of Mcguirewoods LLP): Risepoint, LLC
Mr. Robert L. Redding Jr.: National Watermelon Association
Net Centric Alliance LLC: Brownstein Hyatt Farber Schreck, LLP Obo Eptura, Inc.
Rubin, Turnbull & Associates: Embraer Aircraft Holdings, Inc
Steptoe LLP: Ameripen
Velocity Government Relations, LLC: Assured Space Access, Inc.
New Lobbying Terminations
Ballard Partners: Shein Technology LLC
Bluewater Strategies: Centrus (Fka USec Inc.)
Bluewater Strategies: North San Diego Water Reuse Coalition
Bluewater Strategies: Olivenhain Municipal Water District
Bob Riley & Associates, LLC: Next Step Specialty Pharmacy
Carlyle Consulting: Miccosukee Tribe Of Indians Of Florida
Government Relations Group, LLC: Curated Investments
Health Equality Campaign Inc.: Health Equality Campaign
I Street Advocates: Fuse Media, Inc. (Formerly Known As Sitv, Inc.)
Paul Hastings LLP: Blockchains Inc.
Paul Hastings LLP: Panama Colon Container Port, Inc.
Paul Hastings LLP: Star Scientific, Inc.
Thunderbird Strategic LLC: Indian Land Tenure Foundation
Velocity Government Relations, LLC: Cognitive Space
Velocity Government Relations, LLC: Ensemble Government Services, LLC
Vitello Consulting: Conservation Logistics, LLC
Vitello Consulting: Fortune Metal Group, LLC
Vitello Consulting: Hudson Valley Fisheries
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Chicago Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Editorial: Gerrymandering now truly is a dangerous threat to American democracy
'If the United States is to deter a nuclear attack,' then-U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara said in a 1967 speech in San Francisco, 'it must possess an actual and a credible assured-destruction capability.' McNamara was elucidating a long-established defense concept known as 'mutually assured destruction,' meaning that if one side has the ability to destroy its enemy but knows that it cannot do so without being destroyed itself, and that its enemy can and will act to do precisely that, stability is the result. Something like that argument is being applied to gerrymandering, which is applying nuclear-level destruction to American democracy at both state and federal levels. And it is proliferating. California Gov. Gavin Newsom used the phrase 'fight fire with fire' when he said he planned to work with the California legislature and congressional representatives on a plan that would temporarily set aside California's independent redistricting commission. The aim is to draw a map that would offset any gains the GOP makes in Texas, where President Donald Trump and Gov. Greg Abbott are trying to force a gerrymandered, mid-decade congressional map through the Texas legislature with the aim of maintaining Republican control of the U.S. House. That action in Texas, of course, explains why Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker was holding a news conference this week with Texas Democrats who had fled the Lone Star State to try to prevent, well, their own mutually assured destruction. After other Texans in exile made their way to New York City for a separate news conference, New York Gov. Kathy Hochul said that 'if Republicans are willing to rewrite these rules to give themselves an advantage, then they're leaving us no choice, we must do the same.' Closer to home, Pritzker assailed what was happening in Texas as a 'corrupt' act, likely to 'silence millions of voters,' with nary a sense of irony, as if his own party was squeaky clean on the matter in Illinois, which is hardly the case. Illinois Republicans, or what is left of them, roared at the hypocrisy, given that the Illinois version of gerrymandering, as egregiously implemented in 2021, has effectively disempowered Republicans, and thus Republican voters, to the point that very few of them even see a point in running for office in Illinois districts anymore, beyond the safe Republican islands. That's despite 44% of Illinoisans voting for Trump in 2024. The problem with applying the language of assured mutual destruction is that democracy does not die in a nuclear flash, to be avoided at all costs. It dies progressively, eaten away by incremental loss of trust. The Illinois State Fair, which began Thursday in Springfield, is typically the kickoff of the new political season. But this year serious Republican candidates in districts now held by Democrats are outnumbered not just by cows but maybe even the one made of butter. Party representatives tell us that donors can read maps with impossible odds like anyone else and thus no longer see much point in supporting Republican efforts in Illinois. They feel their money is better spent on races outside the state, the competitiveness of which are now being undermined by Trump and his cronies in Texas and elsewhere. Indiana appears to be next. Vice President JD Vance already has met with the Indiana governor and Republican legislative leaders, reportedly to 'discuss ways to strengthen the GOP's House majority ahead of the 2026 midterms.' The vice president would have been better advised to stand for fair and impartial maps in the Hoosier State and beyond. He should be shouting out for democracy, loud and clear. We've railed against gerrymandering on both state and federal levels before, of course, and not just to lament the cowardice on gerrymandering displayed by the Illinois Supreme Court, as well the U.S. Supreme Court's lamentable 2019 decision in Rucho v. Common Cause that removed federal courts as a crucial check on partisan gerrymandering. At the time, Chief Justice John Roberts clearly recognized the threat gerrymandering posed to democracy, but the 5-4 court majority he led ruled that the only lawful remedies were political, as distinct from federal judicial intervention. Already that decision has not aged well. We're with Justice Elena Kagan, who wrote in her dissent: 'The practices challenged in these cases imperil our system of government. Part of the Court's role in that system is to defend its foundations.' If not that, then what else is the court for? We're back on the topic today to say that the events of the last few days only have deepened our conviction that gerrymandering is a real and present threat to American democracy that must be stopped before yet more damage is done. We also are here to say that phrases like 'fire with fire' and 'all's fair in love and war' are nothing more than lazy, partisan thinking, tempting as they may be to utter. So we were glad to hear Rep. Mark Lawler of New York say on CNN Tuesday that he thought what his fellow Republicans were doing in Texas was 'wrong.' A voice in the wilderness perhaps, but a voice nonetheless. 'We have to actually have neutral districts across this country,' Lawler told the news outlet. 'It would serve the country better.' Ya think? In a separate interview with PBS, wherein he strikingly echoed the arguments in Kagan's dissent from 2019, Lawler allowed that 'both sides have been guilty' of gerrymandering. 'We should have competitive districts based on communities of interest, and ultimately the voters, not the politicians, should decide who is in the majority,' he said. Such a novel concept. Lawson has said he plans to introduce legislation that would 'outright ban gerrymandering.' Good for him. We hope to be able to support that. We think all Americans with a sense of fairness should do the same. Erudite cynics like Karl Rove have written that gerrymandering has been around as long as there have been politicians and districts and that public officials invariably become inured to their own hypocrisy. . Perhaps. But such is the frighteningly rapid deterioration of structural fairness within the American political system these last few months, thanks mostly to a craven administration that sees everything as a zero-sum game and its singular ability to bring out the worst in its opponents, that surely some who have failed to see the clear and present dangers might wake up. Even if that means acting against their own short-term interests. This isn't about one side laying down its arms, or refusing to do so. It's about building a structure with bipartisan buy-in so both are able to do so at once. We like to believe that could still be done in America.
Chicago Tribune
7 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Letters: The Tribune Editorial Board is hypocritical in criticizing US Rep. Delia Ramirez
The Tribune Editorial Board sees no contradiction or hypocrisy, apparently, in its statement about words that matter. Its members decided to criticize U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez, who represents Illinois' 3rd District, for her comment that she felt a strong affiliation with her family's native Guatemala by commenting, 'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American' ('Words matter when you're elected to represent America, congresswoman Ramirez,' Aug. 6). The editorial board writes: 'But Americans expect their leaders to confirm their belief in and allegiance to this country.' In these challenging and frustratingly difficult times, I often have to search to find pride in my own American birthright. Our authoritarian president continues his daily attacks on our democracy and has made astounding progress in deconstructing our government with the active assistance of Congress and the Supreme Court. Are there Tribune editorials about Donald Trump's authoritarianism that decry his words? Should I find myself in a discussion with any French, Canadian, British or other person born outside the U.S. about America's values, I would struggle to find the words to support our domestic agenda and the government's poor treatment of other nations with the administration's threats and bullying. What is the importance of words if editorial board members make their living through the use of words but don't see the overriding importance to speak out about the downfall of our democratic institutions? Does the Tribune Editorial Board honestly believe that words matter or is the editorial on Ramirez just clickbait?I am profoundly disappointed with the editorial on U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez's speech to the Panamerican Congress. A responsible editorial staff would have published the original Spanish transcript as well as her English remarks and given its audience a fuller context. Instead, the editorial board jumped on the right-wing narrative clearly designed to outrage people. There are competing translations that support the interpretation that she meant to say she identified as American first. Has the editorial board even bothered to consult with Spanish speakers? With so many Spanish speakers in Chicagoland, it is incredible that the editorial board could botch a simple assignment. How is this contributing to the civil discourse that is severely stressed under this current regime?The editorial on U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez takes out of context a statement in which Ramirez declares her pride in her ethnicity, twisting it to sound like she is unpatriotic. Does this editorial writer know of anyone of Irish or Mexican or Indian descent who is proud of their ethnic origin? I wonder if the Tribune writer spoke to Ramirez to ascertain what she said or look at her record as a U.S. representative. Her record is as patriotic as any and more courageous than most. She speaks truth to power, risking her political career.I can say that I'm a proud Italian before I'm an American since my father emigrated from Italy and I was born in America, but I would blemish the pride he exhibited as a U.S. citizen who assimilated in his adopted country. He had no formal education and always followed the direction offered by the local Democratic precinct captain who visited our home with instructions on pulling the lever at the polling machine to vote straight Democrat. Recently, Democratic U.S. Rep. Delia Ramirez of Illinois made a controversial comment in saying 'I'm a proud Guatemalan before I'm an American.' She was born in Chicago to immigrant parents and became a birthright citizen. I'm not attacking Ramirez, but her choice of words in the public domain casts doubt on her loyalty as a federal official taking an oath to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Will she represent all Illinoisans?For the millionth time, the issue is not immigrants. The issue is unbridled immigration in which we don't know who is coming in. And then on top of that, our government now feels responsible to take care of these migrants when our federal, state and local governments are deeply in debt. , 'out of many, one,' is one our nation's mottos. Immigrants of the past assimilated to our American culture to become full Americans. Now we are ashamed of America and its culture, and we encourage our immigrants to be diverse. Not all assimilate. And that is a weakness. Our country is no longer united. There are very few things that we are united on. Congress is split down the middle. Our country is split down the middle. Our modern immigration policies encourage only more division, not on The Associated Press article 'Many Dems not happy with party' (in print Aug. 4), the Democratic Party is perceived as 'weak' and 'ineffective' at thwarting the growing power and influence of the current White House administration. Conversely, I would like to offer a different perspective and a blueprint for the Democratic Party. Protesting, holding rallies, conducting filibusters in the Senate or expressing unrelenting criticism of the current president is not a formula for sustained, future success. It further divides disillusioned Democratic voters while alienating moderates, independents and Republicans not enamored with the current administration. Instead, the Democratic Party needs to promote a political, economic and social platform that appeals to both its loyal core and disillusioned voters. The Democratic Party needs to focus on issues that unequivocally resonate with its base, such as a robust economy that prioritizes the middle class while providing aid and economic opportunities for the poor. Democrats need to reprioritize clean energy (solar and wind) while providing job training for coal miners and other workers whose jobs will eventually become obsolete. They need to focus on rebuilding and modernizing our nation's infrastructure and aggressively promote mass transportation to curtail traffic gridlock. They need to promote an objective and fair immigration policy that encourages immigrants to immigrate to America legally while humanely addressing immigrants in the country illegally. They need to promote a foreign policy that proactively reaches out to and works collaboratively with our allies in addressing unprovoked aggression. They need to embrace a trade policy based on laissez faire principles and eradicate punitive and erratically enacted tariffs. Most importantly, the Democratic Party needs to actively reach out to and listen to its constituents and disillusioned former supporters. The upcoming 2026 congressional elections are a golden opportunity for the Democratic Party to sway the current political climate toward an empathetic, kinder atmosphere. The American people are seeking solace and inspiration from its leaders, not pettiness and skullduggery. The time to act is now. The world is was with great interest and gratitude that I read Heidi Stevens' column 'President not owed quiet subservience' (Aug. 3). At a time when too many universities, law firms and politicians are rolling over and capitulating to this president's threats, it is a relief to see articles, such as Stevens', appearing in our local newspaper. But perhaps we are already witnessing a shift in attitude as President Donald Trump's actions become more and more dictatorial and erratic. Economists and others are voicing concerns over his blustering, threatening use of tariffs as a weapon in international affairs. A few Republican members of Congress have spoken out about his threats and denials regarding the latest Bureau of Labor Statistics employment report. Some law firms and universities are standing firm against intimidation. And, of course, there are the rallies and demonstrations where thousands of ordinary citizens are coming out in defense of democracy. I hope the 'quiet subservience' is actually coming to an end, because a Hungarian-style of government will not appeal to many Americans if it should come to pass.
The Hill
7 minutes ago
- The Hill
Advocates fear Trump's plans after directive for transparent college admission data
Some higher education advocates have long sought transparency in college admissions data, but President Trump's latest actions to bring that dream to reality comes with trepidation in how the administration will use the information. In a memorandum signed Thursday, the president moved to require universities to give the Department of Education more admissions data. Education Secretary Linda McMahon is then instructed to build it into a database easily accessible to parents and students. While the information could be eye-opening into how institutions are choosing students, it comes with a backdrop of fear the president will target universities that produce unfavorable data in his view. 'I'll say lots of folks in the space, researchers and think tanks alike, have wanted more transparency on the black box that is college admissions. So, I think that from that perspective, lots of folks would be interested in seeing this data. What I question with this administration is the intention around the collection of the data,' said Wil Del Pilar, senior vice president of EdTrust. McMahon has 120 days to expand the scope of reporting requirements, leaving universities with the options to submit or fight in the legal the system. The move was made over the administration's concern universities are using 'race proxies' such as diversity statements, to circumvent the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that stated race cannot be considered in college admissions. 'American students and taxpayers deserve confidence in the fairness and integrity of our Nation's institutions of higher education, including confidence that they are recruiting and training capable future doctors, engineers, scientists, and other critical workers vital to the next generations of American prosperity. Race-based admissions practices are not only unfair, but also threaten our national security and well-being,' the order reads. Universities that accept federal money are already required to share some data with the Education Department, such as enrollment numbers and graduation rates. However, admissions data has largely been kept under wraps for various reasons. One reason is due to the complexities of compiling the data into an accurate spreadsheet. College admissions offices consider not only GPA and test scores, but extracurricular activities and personal essays that are hard to quantify. Universities may also fear what the public will think regarding whom they do and do not admit. 'I think one of the things that people are going to see is the amount of legacy admissions that have been taking place for a long, long time, and those admissions are typically white people,' said Marybeth Gasman, executive director for Rutgers University's Center for Minority Serving Institutions. After the affirmative action ruling, attention turned to legacy admissions, the practice of admitting applicants with connections to alumni or wealthy donors. Experts argue this practice largely favors applicants who are rich and/or white. The practice has been decried along partisan lines, and some schools have voluntarily banned it. Schools could also receive flack if it is discovered they admit fewer Pell Grant recipients or other types of applicants compared to rival institutions. 'I think that — that information — institutions have guarded that because they don't want narratives around them being closed to access for certain populations of students due to increased numbers of denied students. They don't want that narrative out,' Pilar said. Whatever the outcome, advocates fear the Trump administration will use this as another avenue to strip schools of their funding. The president has collectively paused billions of dollars to universities for alleged antisemitism, diversity, equity and inclusion practices, and transgender athletes in women's sports. While the focus of the Trump administration is returning to 'merit-based' admissions — a concept the federal government made Columbia and Brown agree to in their deals to release federal funding — some say the administration's moves WILL? have the opposite effect. Timothy Welbeck, director of the Center of Anti-Racism at Temple University, said this memorandum doesn't address 'legacy. They don't do anything about whether your family has the ability to donate large amounts of money to your desired institution. But they go after some of these other measures that they say are discriminatory and ignore these, which is why I believe that merit isn't really the intended outcome of these conversations to begin with.' 'This particular fight around the numbers is seeking to give another line of argument to people who are arguing that post-secondary institutions are discriminating against white people. That's ultimately a claim that's implicit in some of these arguments, and what I would say to that is that the facts typically do not bear out,' he added.
