Columbia University to pay $200 million fine in new agreement with Trump administration
Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text.
Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here
Taylor Wilson:
Good morning. I'm Taylor Wilson, and today is Thursday, July 24th, 2025. This is USA TODAY's The Excerpt.
Today, breaking down Columbia's latest deal with the Trump administration, plus what tech executives are doing in the Army, and how a potential map redraw in Texas could kick off a coast-to-coast redistricting battle.
♦
Columbia University has struck another deal with the Trump administration. The Ivy League school in New York City announced it will pay a massive $200 million fine over three years to the government to settle allegations it violated federal civil rights laws and failed to protect members of its Jewish community from discrimination. It will also jointly appoint an independent monitor to update the federal government on its compliance with new policies and pay an additional $21 million fine to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
The agreement marks the second major concession from the university in its negotiations with the government. The school previously agreed, among other things, to bolster campus law enforcement, appoint a new administrator to oversee its Middle Eastern Studies Department, and retool its protest policies in an effort to play ball with the White House. The announcement also comes after the Trump administration pushed the University of Pennsylvania, another Ivy League school, to agree to a series of demands related to preventing transgender athletes from competing. Similarly, that deal was reached to restore massive amounts of federal money.
♦
A federal judge in Florida yesterday rejected a bid from President Trump's Justice Department to unseal grand jury testimony tied to a two-decades old investigation and to convicted sex offender, Jeffrey Epstein. The Justice Department asked the federal court in the Southern District of Florida to release transcripts from grand jury investigations that took place in West Palm Beach in 2005 and 2007, but a judge ruled that she doesn't have the power to order the records' release.
Meanwhile, Attorney General Pam Bondi told President Trump in May that he was named multiple times in the government's files on Epstein according to reports from the Wall Street Journal and CNN. A White House official did not dispute Trump's name as mentioned in the Epstein files, telling USA TODAY that briefing binders Bondi prepared for MAGA influencers in February included the president's name, but the official rejected any suggestion that Trump engaged in wrongdoing in connection with Epstein.
And the House Oversight Committee voted yesterday to subpoena the Justice Department for files related to Epstein, answering calls from lawmakers and voters alike for more information on the disgraced financier and sex offender. The committee also moved to request documents related to Epstein investigations from a swath of other well-known figures, including former President Bill Clinton, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and former Attorney General Merrick Garland.
♦
Several tech executives are joining the Army as reserve officers. I spoke with USA TODAY National Security and World Affairs reporter, Cybele Mayes-Osterman to learn more about their expected roles. Cybele, thanks for joining me.
Cybele Mayes-Osterman:
Happy to be here. Thanks, Taylor.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, so what has the Army announced about these tech executives in the military and who are they?
Cybele Mayes-Osterman:
The Army has announced that four tech executives are going to be directly commissioned in as officers in the Army Reserve. These include one executive who's from Palantir. One of them is from Meta, which used to be Facebook. One is from OpenAI, and the other is from Thinking Machines Lab, but he used to work with Palantir and one of the other companies as well.
Taylor Wilson:
I mean, how unprecedented is this? Do we have any historical context?
Cybele Mayes-Osterman:
It's not totally unprecedented for the Army to directly commission business people. It did happen in World War II. The most extreme example was an auto executive from Ford Motors who was commissioned in as a general, which is a higher rank.
And outside experts are also frequently brought into the military under this title, Highly Qualified Expert, which is unique to the Pentagon. But that being said, directly commissioning in tech executives and at this rank of lieutenant-colonel, which takes around 17 years to achieve from the bottom up, is not something that is so common
Taylor Wilson:
In terms of the Army perspective here, why does the Army say this is necessary? How is this part of the broader Army Transformation Initiative?
Cybele Mayes-Osterman:
The Army says that these executives are going to bring good insight and advice as they undertake this big shift that's called the Army Transformation Initiative. Now this was ordered by Pete Hegsath, the Secretary of Defense, and he wants the Army to get rid of some equipment that he calls obsolete, like heavy ground vehicles, and get more of this newfangled technology like AI and drones, which are the area of expertise of these executives.
Taylor Wilson:
And in reporting this piece about, did you hear from the tech execs themselves?
Cybele Mayes-Osterman:
I did, yeah. I talked to one of the executives from Palantir, who was actually the one that first pitched the idea of joining to the Army and recruited the others, and he said that they won't actually be working on tech and AI. And they're going to be working, according to the Army, on totally separate things like recruitment is one category, human performance. This executive said that they need to stay away from those spaces, tech and AI, in order to avoid conflicts of interest.
Taylor Wilson:
And what concerns do critics have here, Cybele?
Cybele Mayes-Osterman:
Critics say that there's a lot of ethical issues with bringing these executives in. These companies that they're from already hold each hundreds of millions of dollars in defense contracts with the army. And critics are concerned that the executives could either get inside information that would make it easier for them to win future contracts, or they'd be in a position where they could influence the army to buy things in the future from their companies or feel like they need to.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. So what's next for this work and this conversation going forward?
Cybele Mayes-Osterman:
The executives I've been told are going to arrive in Fort Benning by the end of the month to start training. The Army says they're going to undergo the same training that anybody else would and they're going to be subject to the same physical fitness requirements. In fact, I heard from one Army official that they're going to be teaching them which hands that they need to salute with to be officers.
Taylor Wilson:
All right, interesting stuff. Folks can find the full version with a link in today's show notes. Cybele Mayes-Osterman covers National Security and World Affairs for USA TODAY. Thanks, Cybele.
Cybele Mayes-Osterman:
Thanks so much.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
Bryan Kohberger was sentenced to life in prison yesterday for the 2022 murders of four University of Idaho students, receiving the ruling after hours of emotional statements from family and friends of the victims. Loved ones of Madison Mogen, Kaylee Goncalves, Xana Kernodle, and Ethan Chapin honored the students in court and spoke about the anger and devastation they felt after the killings. Those killed were all aged 20 or 21 years old.
Olivia Goncalves:
Do you feel anything at all or are you exactly what you always feared? Nothing. You didn't win, you just exposed yourself as the coward you are.
Taylor Wilson:
That was some of what Olivia Goncalves, sister of Kaylee Goncalves, had to say. You can read and hear more from victims' loved ones with the link in today's show notes.
♦
Republican Texas Governor Greg Abbott has requested at the White House's urging that the legislature consider redrawing lines for a handful of Texas's 38 congressional districts, giving Republicans the chance to flip seats red in the upcoming 2026 midterm elections. I spoke with USA TODAY Congress Reporter Savannah Kuchar for more and to hear how Democrats are pushing back. Savannah, thanks for hopping on.
Savannah Kuchar:
Thanks for having me. I always love talking about my home state.
Taylor Wilson:
Yeah. Well, let's get into this redistricting proposal from Governor Greg Abbott and Texas Republicans. What does this actually entail?
Savannah Kuchar:
What we're looking at is right now, Texas state lawmakers are at the start of a special session, and in that special session they will evaluate quite a few things that the governor has specifically asked them to look at.
And one of those things is a proposal to redraw the congressional map in Texas, which is pretty rare for in the middle of the decade. It's typically every 10 years after a census data comes out. But Governor Greg Abbott in Texas has asked lawmakers to take a look at the congressional maps, potentially redraw some of the boundaries, and change up where districts are, which could affect elections as soon as next year's midterm elections.
Taylor Wilson:
Could this kick off a coast-to-coast redistricting battle nationwide? What really are the national implications here?
Savannah Kuchar:
Obviously this is happening right now in Texas, but it pretty quickly garnered reaction from, like you said, coast-to-coast. Democrats in states like California as well as New York are looking at how they can respond in a sense if Texas Republicans redraw the map to give themselves a boost in a handful of districts. Maybe California, New York, some other blue states will do basically an equal and opposite reaction. And then of course, that could set off other states, such as Florida and New Hampshire, it would be possible to redraw there. Ohio has to redraw their maps before 2026 due to their state constitution. So it's set off as interesting arms race of redistricting across the country.
Taylor Wilson:
Well, Savannah, as you said, Democrats are vowing to respond. Just more specifically, I mean, do Dems in Texas have any power to push back, and how is the party approaching this on a national level?
Savannah Kuchar:
Democrats in Texas really don't have a whole lot of tools to respond. The main one that they have used in history before is a walkout. So fleeing the state, not being there in person, would break a quorum and the state legislature couldn't move forward on agenda items.
There are fees associated with that, so it will be curious to see if they do employ the strategy, but state Democrats have said they will do what they can to block this move. That'll be interesting to see how much they are able to move.
At a national level, Democrats are responding in full, absolutely, or at least promising a tit-for-tat response of, "If you do this, we will respond," to try to cancel out what Texas Republicans are doing.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. And what has the President said about all this?
Savannah Kuchar:
It did originate from the White House and Trump's team has been pushing this idea and was asking Governor Greg Abbott to move forward on this. And so Trump wants Republicans to do this, to bump their numbers in 2026 and help the House out. President Trump has said that if they do redistricting in Texas, Republicans could maybe pick up as many as five districts is what he said.
Taylor Wilson:
All right. Well, we know midterms are really just around the corner, just over a year out at this point. What's next for this conversation?
Savannah Kuchar:
In the immediate future, state lawmakers in Texas are in that special session for 30 days. They're a few days in so far. So right now we're watching to see any maps to come out, how exactly Republicans want to redraw the map, we're waiting for specific map proposals to come out. And then like you said, midterm elections are right around the corner next year.
And I think the other interesting thing is, along with Democrats saying they will actively respond, they're also warning that this could backfire on Republicans. If they move Republican voters from one district to a blue district to flip that seat, the district that those voters left could be potential pickups for Democrats. So the interesting thing to watch next year and heading into the election will be who does have the advantage? Did Republicans, if they change the map, did they help themselves out or did they shoot themselves in the foot? That would be the interesting to watch.
Taylor Wilson:
Great insight for us as always. Savannah Kuchar covers Congress for USA TODAY. Thanks, Savannah.
Savannah Kuchar:
Thank you, Taylor.
♦
Taylor Wilson:
And before we close this episode, let's take a moment to remember Amelia Earhart on her birthday. The trailblazing aviator was the first woman to fly solo across the Atlantic in 1932. She also advocated for women's roles in aviation, broke barriers in the air and on the ground, and inspired generations. When she disappeared in 1937, she was setting out to be the first woman to complete a circumnavigation flight around the globe.
♦
And coming up later today, millions of Americans struggle with acute insomnia, an inability to fall or stay asleep for several days at a time. But what can you do about it?
Jennifer Senior:
I did all the things. I took Tylenol PM, which did not work. I did acupuncture, which were lovely, but did not work. I listened to a meditation tape that a friend gave me, did not work.
Taylor Wilson:
That's Jennifer Senior, staff writer at The Atlantic, sharing what she learned as she looked into her own experience with insomnia and what could be done to alleviate it. You can catch my conversation with her right here on this feed today, beginning at 4:00 PM Eastern Time.
♦
And thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio. If you're on a smart speaker, just ask for The Excerpt. As always, you can email us at podcasts@usatoday.com. I'm Taylor Wilson. I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Trump announces 90-day negotiating period with Mexico as 25% tariff rates stay in place
WASHINGTON (AP) — The United States will enter a 90-day negotiating period with Mexico over trade as 25% tariff rates stay in place, President Donald Trump said Thursday. Trump, posting on his Truth Social platform, said a phone conversation he had with Mexican leader Claudia Sheinbaum was 'very successful in that, more and more, we are getting to know and understand each other.' The Republican president said that goods from Mexico imported into the U.S. would continue to face a 25% tariff that he has ostensibly linked to fentanyl trafficking. He said that autos would face a 25% tariff, while copper, aluminum and steel would be taxed at 50%. He said that Mexico would end its 'Non Tariff Trade Barriers,' but he didn't provide specifics. Trump had threatened tariffs of 30% on goods from Mexico in a July letter, something that Sheinbaum said Mexico gets to stave off for the next three months. 'We avoided the tariff increase announced for tomorrow and we got 90 days to build a long-term agreement through dialogue,' Sheinbaum wrote on X. Some goods continue to be protected from the tariffs by the 2020 U.S. Mexico Canada Agreement, or USMCA, which Trump negotiated during his first term. But Trump appeared to have soured on that deal, which is up for renegotiation next year. One of his first significant moves as president was to tariff goods from both Mexico and Canada earlier this year. Census Bureau figures show that the U.S. ran a $171.5 billion trade imbalance with Mexico last year. That means the U.S. bought more goods from Mexico than it sold to the country. The imbalance with Mexico has grown in the aftermath of the USMCA as it was only $63.3 billion in 2016, the year before Trump started his first term in office.
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Senate panel advances funding bill with $1 billion for Ukraine
The Senate Appropriations Committee on Wednesday advanced legislation that provides approximately $1 billion in security assistance for Ukraine. The funding was included in the fiscal year 2026 Defense appropriations legislation and was pushed by Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), the chair of the Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, and Sen. Chris Coons (D-Del.). The bill advanced in the committee by a vote of 26 to three. It includes $800 million in security assistance for Ukraine and $225 million in security assistance for Baltic countries. Coons earlier told reporters that the funding for the Baltics — Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia — is likely to go towards those countries' support for Ukraine, saying the total for Kyiv can be viewed as $1 billion. 'The secretary of the Army rightly calls Ukraine the Silicon Valley of warfare. The navy considers the maritime fight between Russia and Ukraine as the Black Sea battle lab, and recognizes the need for rapid innovation,' McConnell said at the committee's meeting on Thursday. 'But abandoning the foremost experts in drone warfare would be strategic self-harm, shutting off engagement with Ukraine would undermine our military's efforts to prepare for the modern battlefield. Like our friends on the Armed Services Committee we are restoring funding for the USAI and other security assistance programs that make America safer.' The funds for Ukraine proved non-controversial in Thursday's committee meeting, where partisan debates focused on things like Trump's acceptance of a luxury plane from Qatar and requested funds to retrofit it as Air Force One. There's a bipartisan majority supporting Ukraine in the Congress, even if Trump and the MAGA movement argue against the U.S. sending military assistance to other nations. 'I think there's broad enthusiasm for bringing this war to a just conclusion, but also broad awareness that that means, not peace at any price, by strengthening Ukraine so that it is able to defend itself against what will almost certainly be either continued or renewed attacks by Russia,' Coons told reporters in a briefing on Wednesday. The Senate bill will put the $800 million into the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), which funds sending direct military assistance to Ukraine, provides other support systems and training programs. The fund, established in 2016, typically receives $300 million per year from Congress. Coons said it was important to increase the funding in the face of Trump's efforts to completely end U.S. funding for military support to Ukraine. But the $1 billion appears to be a drop in the bucket to the more than $60 billion Congress approved in an April 2024 in a supplemental military assistance package, and as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has issued an urgent appeal for air defense missiles and long-range munitions that the U.S. is the foremost supplier. 'Last night, Russia launched another massive attack on Kyiv: hundreds of Shahed drones and missiles. Air defense shot down many, but not all,' Zelensky said in a speech Thursday, marking 50 years of the Helsinki Final Act, which established the OSCE, a forum between western Europe and former Soviet Union countries. 'President Trump is truly interested in ending the war. We must do everything we can to make sure the U.S. and Europe act together – for security.' Trump has spoken out against the U.S. sending weapons to Ukraine at the expense of the American taxpayer and did not request funding for Ukraine in his 2026 budget. A House version of the Defense appropriations bill had no money for Ukraine. But Trump has not completely halted U.S. weapons deliveries sent with funds approved during the Biden administration. He's also provided a quick green light for Ukrainian purchases of military equipment from U.S. companies. He has also increasingly shown frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin as the obstacle to a ceasefire and set a deadline of Aug. 8 for Moscow to halt the fighting or face financial penalties. Earlier this month, Trump announced a deal where NATO would purchase U.S. weapons to send to Ukraine, a workaround from direct American support for Kyiv. The White House did not respond to a request for comment on the funding.
USA Today
20 minutes ago
- USA Today
Next stop, White House? Anticipation builds for Kamala Harris, other eager Dems
Like the party they hope to lead, the jumbled field of Democratic presidential hopefuls lacks a consistent philosophy or plan for victory - yet. She'll have plenty of company. Former Vice President Kamala Harris closed the door on a campaign for California governor next year, keeping open the door for a White House bid in 2028. Three years out, the presidential contest is rapidly becoming a full employment project for ambitious Democrats. Already in the mix of The Hopefuls and the Often-Mentioneds are governors and senators, rising stars and the once-were-rising stars. There are both Democratic Socialists and centrists, those who vow to battle President Donald Trump at every turn and those who counsel accommodation when it's possible. The Democratic contenders and maybe-contenders form a disparate group that lacks a consistent political philosophy or a clear plan for victory, in a party that could be described the same way. That's no coincidence. One shapes the other. A compelling candidate who emerges at the top in town-hall forums, debates and primaries will define the Democratic Party. And a consensus on where the Democrats stand will affect which candidate is seen as compelling. But not yet. The Republican Party could be clearly defined and immediately identified by the official, glowering portrait of Donald Trump. But without a president, or a presidential nominee, or even a frontrunner − or, for that matter, a speaker of the House or majority leader of the Senate − both the Democratic Party and its White House race is at the moment a wilderness. Albeit a crowded wilderness. There was a sign of the battles ahead on the Senate floor Tuesday night. When Nevada Democratic Catherine Cortez Masto sought to move a bipartisan package funding police departments, New Jersey Sen. Cory Booker accused his fellow Democrats of "complicity" with Trump. "I say we stand, I say we right, I say we reject this," he declared. Minnesota Sen. Amy Klobuchar − who, like Booker, ran for the Democratic presidential nomination in 2020 −rose to object that perhaps he should have shown up in the Judiciary Committee when the bills were being considered instead of waiting for the bigger stage of the Senate floor. How to spot a presidential candidate To identify prospects who would like to be president, or at least to be considered for the job, the key often isn't to listen to what they say. The default stance is that they love their current job in the Senate or the statehouse and are committed to it. Instead, watch what they do. Gathering chits by campaigning for fellow Democrats in 2025 and 2026? Check. Launching a "listening tour" to hear from voters in South Carolina? Check. Railing on Trump and his policies? Check. Dropping by New Hampshire on summer vacation? Check. Writing a book on policy prescriptions laced with personal anecdotes? Check. By the way, Harris announced she wasn't running for governor on July 30, Wednesday. On Thursday morning, Simon and Schuster announced she had written a memoir, titled "107 Days," chronicling her the whirlwind presidential campaign last year. More: Kamala Harris explores 'drama of running for president' in new book on 2024 bid The publication date is Sept. 23, less than a year since that Election Day. In another time, or maybe another political party, Harris would be viewed as the early frontrunner. She is credited with running a credible campaign under difficult circumstances, carrying 48.32% of the popular vote, compared to 49.80% for Trump. The Electoral College count was more lopsided, at 312-226. But she lost, and Democrats in the past have demonstrated little loyalty to losers. The last Democratic nominee who lost one presidential race and was nominated for another was Adlai Stevenson, in 1956, who lost to Dwight Eisenhower again. That was eight years before Harris was born. For the record, Republicans seem to be more forgiving. Trump, for one, was nominated in 2024 and won after losing to Biden in 2020. Richard Nixon was nominated in 1968 and won after losing to John F. Kennedy in 1960. In what may have been an object lesson for Harris, Nixon chose to run for California governor two years after that loss, in 1962, only to lose to Democratic incumbent Pat Brown and declare he was through with politics altogether. "You won't have Nixon to kick around any more," he famously, and prematurely, announced. Dealing with the legacy of Biden Harris would face another challenge: The continuing debate over Biden. The former president's decision to seek a second term, only to belatedly withdraw amid questions about his mental acuity, has contributed to the Democrats' current nadir. She was his vice president and defender. Now the Democratic field is wide open with the possibility to numbers could rival the 30-something record set in 2020, when a comprehensive alphabetical list included six names before you finished with the "Bs": Colorado Sen. Michael Bennet, New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, Biden, Booker, Montana Gov. Steve Bullock and South Bend (Ind.) Mayor Pete Buttigieg. More: Tarnished legacy? How Biden's age and refusal to pass torch earlier hang over his exit For 2028, a non-comprehensive list of those who have signaled interest in the presidential race would start with Biden administration veterans Harris and Buttigieg. Governors Gavin Newsom of California, J.D. Pritzker of Illinois, Josh Shapiro of Pennsylvania, Wes Moore of Maryland. Senators Booker and Chris Murphy of Connecticut, House members Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York and Ro Khanna of California. Whoever prevails faces an uphill job ahead. In a new Wall Street Journal poll, only 33% of Americans had a favorable view of the Democratic Party; 63% had an unfavorable one. That's a three-decade low.
