logo
Harvard Set to Lose All Federal Contracts

Harvard Set to Lose All Federal Contracts

Bloomberg27-05-2025

00:00
So this would be another $100 million worth that the Trump administration will be taking away. Is it doable? It would just compound the financial attacks that the Trump administration has already opened on Harvard. They have already frozen more than $2.6 billion of funding that primarily went to research. They have threatened to Harvard's tax exempt status. They have moved to block the school from enrolling international students. So it's really a multipronged attack on Harvard's financial well-being. And in fact, more on that political reporting just in the last hour or so that the U.S. is ordering a halt to student visa interviews. You reportedly pending a decision on whether or not it wants to vet social media. So the Trump administration clearly not too worried about Mark Zuckerberg or any of these people that are running these social media sites. If that's the route, it's going down to try and fight Harvard in the courts. But what is Harvard doing to defend itself, just not just on the international students side of things, but on these federal grounds? Is there anything you can do to fight this action? Sure. And just a point about, you know, the companies that many companies look to, that talent pool that comes out of Harvard and many other universities across the U.S., which do rely on international students to help develop that next generation of workers for the U.S.. And so, you know, I think a number of companies have a vested interest in continuing to see international students come to the U.S. and learn here at these institutions. Now, in terms of what Harvard is doing, they have now filed two different lawsuits against the Trump administration, one challenging those funding freezes that we talked about, arguing that it is a situation of government overreach, where the Trump administration is looking to assert more control over how Harvard manages its academic student campus disciplinary processes. And then the other suit involves the step to block international student enrollment. Now, it does have $53 billion in assets. Can Harvard wait this out, assuming there is an end to this onslaught at some point? And is it getting support from other universities? Sure. I mean, I think that $53 billion endowment, while it is important, is somewhat of a misnomer because it's not just this giant pile of money that Harvard has sitting around that it can draw from to plug these spending gaps. There are parameters on much of that money, some of it coming from the donors that provided the money in the first place that want to see those funds go to endow specific scholarships or support particular schools, whatever it might be. The money is also locked up in longer term investments. So Harvard can't just use it like an ATM. But it is you know, Harvard is the richest US university, which does give it more of a buffer to fight back against these actions. And I think that's part of the reason why you're seeing the school take this stand that, you know, if Harvard weren't to push back on some of these demands from the Trump administration, it would make it harder for smaller schools who are not as robustly funded to fight back.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

10-Year Treasury Yield Heads Toward Largest Decline Since April 14
10-Year Treasury Yield Heads Toward Largest Decline Since April 14

Wall Street Journal

time23 minutes ago

  • Wall Street Journal

10-Year Treasury Yield Heads Toward Largest Decline Since April 14

1316 ET — The yield on the 10-year U.S. Treasury note is headed toward its biggest one-day decline since April 14 after a pair of lackluster reports on the U.S. economy. Yields, which fall when bond prices rise, began sliding early in the session after the ADP's National Employment report showed that 37,000 jobs were created in May, the slowest pace of private-sector hiring in two years. Economists polled by The Wall Street Journal projected hiring would increase by 110,000 new jobs. Yields extended their decline after an ISM services report, which suggested that activity among service firms fell unexpectedly in May. The survey's index for new orders and inventories both sank into contraction, with respondents reporting difficulty in planning due to uncertain tariff policies. The 10-year yield recently traded near 4.36%, down from 4.46% Tuesday. ( 0841 ET – An ominous sign from the U.S. labor market triggers a rush to Treasury bonds, driving yields sharply lower. ADP says only 37,000 jobs were created by private employers in May, the lowest since March 2023. Economists surveyed by WSJ expected 110,000. ADP revises the April figure to 60,000 from 62,000 and says hiring is losing momentum while pay growth remained at robust levels. The report may reflect businesses reluctance to hire amid tariffs uncertainty. Trump cites the report to call on the Fed to lower rates. Friday, payrolls are expected to slow a little from April. The 10-year is at 4.419% and the two-year at 3.931%. ( @ptrevisani)

Rep. Alford to introduce congressional stock trading ban mirroring Senate's 'PELOSI Act'
Rep. Alford to introduce congressional stock trading ban mirroring Senate's 'PELOSI Act'

Fox News

time23 minutes ago

  • Fox News

Rep. Alford to introduce congressional stock trading ban mirroring Senate's 'PELOSI Act'

FIRST ON FOX: Rep. Mark Alford, R-Mo., on Wednesday will introduce legislation that would ban congressional stock trading, serving as the House companion bill to Sen. Josh Hawley's, R-Mo., "PELOSI Act" in the Senate. Alford's proposed bill would ban lawmakers and their spouses from holding, purchasing or selling individual stocks while in office, but it allows investments in diversified mutual funds, exchange-traded funds or U.S. Treasury bonds. If passed, current lawmakers would have 180 days to comply with the legislation. Likewise, newly elected lawmakers must achieve compliance within 180 days of entering office. "As public servants, we should hold ourselves to a higher standard and avoid the mere appearance of corruption," Alford said in a statement. "Unfortunately, too many members of Congress are engaging in suspicious stock trades based on non-public information to enrich themselves." "These gross violations of the public trust make clear: we must finally take action to ban members and their spouses from owning or selling individual stocks," he added. Under the proposed legislation, lawmakers who continue to make wrongful transactions would be required to hand over any profits they made to the U.S. Treasury Department. The House or Senate ethics committees could also impose a fine on such lawmakers amounting to 10% of each wrongful transaction. House Speaker Mike Johnson endorsed a stock trading ban on Wednesday, saying "a few bad actors" have ruined Americans' trust in lawmakers on the issue. "You want me to tell you my honest opinion on that? I'm in favor of that, because I don't think we should have any appearance of impropriety here," he told reporters during a press conference. President Donald Trump himself endorsed the same ban for members of Congress in an interview with Time magazine last month. "I watched Nancy Pelosi get rich through insider information, and I would be okay with it. If they send that to me, I would do it," he said of a trading ban. "You'll sign it?" the reporter pressed. "Absolutely," Trump responded. Democrats in the House of Representatives have also expressed support for a ban, with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., throwing his weight behind the proposal last week.

Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting map
Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting map

CBS News

time24 minutes ago

  • CBS News

Tarrant County citizens file lawsuit against new redistricting map

Less than a day after Tarrant County commissioners approved a controversial redistricting proposal, a group of citizens filed a lawsuit claiming intentional discrimination. According to the Lone Star Project, the lawsuit claims that Tarrant County Judge Tim O'Hare and his followers engaged in intentional racial discrimination in violation of the Voting Rights Act and the U.S. Constitution by drawing the new district lines. "Intentional discrimination is still against the law," said lead legal counsel for the citizen plaintiffs, Chad Dunn. "The map they drew, the process they used to draw it, and the animosity shown to the citizens of Tarrant County violate the Voting Rights Act and the Constitution." Hundreds of residents speak out for, against the redistricting More than 200 people spoke out about redrawing boundary lines during public comment Tuesday night. The majority who spoke were against redistricting, including the mayors of Arlington, Mansfield and Forest Hills. There were still several speakers who expressed their support. Several used the phrase "don't Dallas my Tarrant." Tarrant County "I want to say that I fully support deterring redistricting efforts. These lines haven't been updated since 2010," said Carlos Turcios, the community development committee chairman for the Tarrant Republican Party. Commissioners moved into executive session around 3 p.m. on Tuesday after some tense moments between the two Democrats and the three Republicans. As Commissioner Alisa Simmons expressed all the reasons she is against redistricting, Judge Tim O'Hare abruptly moved to executive session in an effort to limit her comments. O'Hare is spearheading this process and has been clear that it's about partisan politics. He wants another Republican seat on the court to ensure conservative leadership for the next decade. "It's a very divided country and the parties, I'm not sure, have never been further apart in their beliefs," O'Hare said. "I don't apologize for being a Republican. I don't apologize for being a conservative." "It's not partisan. It is racism." Critics believe the redistricting is racial gerrymandering, saying it goes beyond partisan politics and say it dilutes the voting power of minorities. "Absolutely, it's not partisan. It is racism," Simmons said during the meeting. The new map does appear to take areas with high Black and brown populations from precinct two and put them in precinct one. SMU political science professor Calvin Jillson said what the court did is not unusual, but the legality of the new lines comes down to intentions. "Oh, this absolutely gerrymandering – it is the redrawing of electoral boundaries for partisan purposes," Jillson said. "The question is whether the purposes behind the redrawing were actually political, in which case gerrymandering is legal, or racial discrimination, in which case it would not be legal." Check out more on the CBS News Texas YouTube page: contributed to this report.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store