logo
Education Secretary Linda McMahon is ‘hoping' Harvard learns from Columbia's $200M settlement — but Jewish alumni say more work to be done

Education Secretary Linda McMahon is ‘hoping' Harvard learns from Columbia's $200M settlement — but Jewish alumni say more work to be done

New York Post6 days ago
WASHINGTON — Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Thursday she's 'hoping' that Harvard University will get wise and drop a lawsuit against the Trump administration for stripping $2.6 billion in funds away over concerns about campus antisemitism.
McMahon urged the Ivy League to think carefully after Columbia University caved and agreed to pay the administration $200 million in a historic settlement.
'We've had continuing negotiations and conversations with Harvard, even though there is a pending lawsuit that I think is going to, will play out, but we're hoping that Harvard will come to the table,' McMahon told NewsNation's 'Morning in America.'
Advertisement
'We're already seeing other universities that are taking these measures before investigation or before our coming in to talk to them,' she added. 'That's why the monitors are in place and the Department of Justice — so that we can have a long-reaching legacy for universities to follow.'
Some members of the Columbia community were less certain, with Jewish alumni Ari Shrage doubting the concessions would spur Harvard either way.
6 Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Thursday she's 'hoping' that Harvard University will get wise after Columbia caved in a historic $200 million settlement — and drop a lawsuit against the feds for stripping $2.6 billion in funds away.
AFP via Getty Images
Advertisement
'What they had on Columbia — they don't have on Harvard — is that Columbia's liquidity is very, very weak,' Shrage said, noting its immense endowment and the fact that its the largest private landowner and building owner in the Big apple.
'Harvard has a much more liquid portfolio, and they can wait out Trump, so they could just keep it in court and they could fund it. Columbia could not,' he added.
'And because of that, the Trump administration had the opportunity to force additional reforms. They just completely dropped the ball. Now the hard work begins and we look forward to being part of the process.'
Shrage added: 'I think this is a good first step, but there's a lot more to do to rebuild trust with the Jewish community.'
Advertisement
The education secretary in her interview noted that Harvard had already made concessions by ousting members of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, Cemal Kafadar and Rosie Bsheer, who sat on a panel that the university's former president, Larry Summers, said 'very likely' spewed antisemitic rhetoric.
Harvard had also announced the closure of its diversity office on Wednesday, according to the Harvard Crimson.
But the federal judge overseeing Trump's court battle with Harvard in a recent hearing expressed skepticism that the administration could make sweeping, 'ad hoc' decisions about withholding federal funds to leverage changes in university policies.
On Thursday, Summers posted on X that Columbia's agreement with the Trump administration was 'an excellent template' for other universities and colleges.
Advertisement
6 Some of Columbia's Jewish alumni were less certain, with grad Ari Shrage doubting the lackluster concessions would prompt Harvard to have a change of heart.
James Keivom-Pool/New York Post
'First, academic freedom is preserved as the University maintains academic autonomy,' he explained.
'Second, ongoing reform with respect to anti Semitism, maintenance of order, promoting merit-based admissions and hiring, and strengthening the commitment to intellectual excellence is reinforced and a framework for further reform is established,' he continued.
'Third, normality is restored with a return to normal funding patterns, availability of visas for foreign students and removal of legal overhangs.'
The former Ivy League president concluded that the settlement 'may be the best day higher education has had in the last year.'
6 To address safety concerns, Columbia agreed to work closer with the NYPD to prevent another repeat of the anti-Israel mob that took over Hamilton Hall in the spring 2024.
rfaraino
In addition to the settlement sum, Columbia will also be paying more than $20 million to its Jewish employees who were discriminated against amid antisemitic demonstrations that engulfed the Morningside Heights campus following Hamas' Oct. 7, 2023, massacre.
'Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming,' Trump posted Wednesday on his Truth Social.
Advertisement
'I look forward to watching them [Columbia] have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!'
6 The Ivy League university will now submit to independent monitoring to uproot antisemitism and ensure it is complying with merit-based hiring and admissions requirements.
James Keivom
The elite university will now submit to independent monitoring and mandatory reporting to the federal government to uproot antisemitism and ensure it is complying with merit-based hiring and admissions requirements.
'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' said Columbia acting president Claire Shipman. 'Importantly, it safeguards our independence, a critical condition for academic excellence and scholarly exploration, work that is vital to the public interest.'
Advertisement
To address safety concerns for students, Columbia agreed to also maintain a trained security force to stop protests from invading academic spaces and work closer with the NYPD to prevent another repeat of the anti-Israel mob that took over Hamilton Hall in the spring 2024.
6 Demonstrators won't be able to wear masks, except facial coverings will still be allowed for medical and religious reasons.
James Keivom
Demonstrators won't be able to wear masks, though facial coverings will still be allowed for medical and religious reasons.
'This announcement is an important recognition of what Jewish students and their families have expressed with increasing urgency: antisemitism at Columbia is real, and it has had a tangible impact on Jewish students' sense of safety and belonging and, in turn, their civil rights,' said Brian Cohen, the executive director of Columbia and Barnard's Hillel chapter.
Advertisement
'Acknowledging this fact is essential, and along with the new path laid out by the President and Trustees, I am hopeful that today's agreement marks the beginning of real, sustained change,' he added. 'This is not the end of the process, however it is a major step forward.'
Shrage also said, 'I'm thrilled that the researchers got their funding back. They are doing lifesaving work. I only wish the university didn't drag this out so long and they could have gotten it sooner.'
6 'Our students must feel safe when they go to campus, and they should feel safe,' McMahon said Thursday.
James Keivom
Critics of the agreement have pointed to the differences between demands made by the Trump administration in April and the final product, including the loosened rules on the mask ban as well as the failure to punish more of the anti-Israel protesters who descended on campus in 2024.
Advertisement
The Trump administration had also previously asked for the University Judicial Board, which failed to discipline those students, to be abolished, but backed off in the final agreement.
Others were dissatisfied that the university expressed no guilt for the state of affairs or that the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department wasn't placed under an academic receivership and will instead be put under review by a senior vice provost.
McMahon said Thursday that the administration got 'the bulk of what we negotiated for.'
'Our students must feel safe when they go to campus, and they should feel safe,' she affirmed. 'The parents who are sending them there need to have assurance that their students will be protected, and we're not going to have these violent protests that we've seen.'
The White House and Department of Education did not immediately return requests for comment.
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

A congressional stock trading ban just got closer to becoming law
A congressional stock trading ban just got closer to becoming law

Business Insider

time9 minutes ago

  • Business Insider

A congressional stock trading ban just got closer to becoming law

A bill to ban politicians from trading stocks in office moved one step closer to a vote — but only after an hour of intense argument and insults between Republicans. The Senate Homeland Security and Government Affairs Committee passed the bill on an 8-7 vote. All Democrats voted for it, while every Republican voted against it except one: Josh Hawley of Missouri, who sponsored the bill. The legislation is broadly similar to a bill that passed the same committee last summer, but never received a Senate floor vote. This version would ban members of members of Congress, the president, and the vice president from buying stocks immediately upon enactment, and would block them from selling stocks beginning 90 days after that. It would then require lawmakers to divest entirely from their stock holdings at the beginning of their next term, and it would require the president and vice President to do so beginning in 2029 — after President Donald Trump's current term. It also would not allow for blind trusts, which sets it apart from other similar bills. "I think we have to accept that the American people think that all of us, Democrats and Republicans, are using our positions and our access to enrich ourselves," Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin of Michigan said during the hearing. "People don't believe that we are here for the right reasons. We have a problem." It is unclear when or if the bill would become law — the next step would be a Senate vote. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has said that he believes current disclosure laws are sufficient, while House Speaker Mike Johnson has expressed cautious support for a ban. Trump has said that he would sign a congressional stock trading ban into law. The bill ultimately passed despite the furious objections of several GOP senators on the committee — and tense intraparty debate. Sen. Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, who was the CEO of a plastics manufacturing company before he was elected to the Senate, argued that the stock divestiture requirements would discourage businesspeople from seeking federal office. "We make it very unattractive for people to step up to the plate," Johnson said. "This piece of legislation, really, it's legislative demagoguery." Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, the chairman of the committee, said that existing laws banning insider trading and requiring stock trade disclosures were sufficient, calling Hawley's bill a "solution looking for publicity." Another key issue was how the bill would apply to the president and vice president — it would block them from buying and selling stocks, but wouldn't force them to divest any holdings during their current terms. Trump owns individual stocks, while Vance divested from his individual stock holdings during his Senate tenure. Paul argued that the bill would "protect Donald Trump" by not requiring divestiture before 2029, arguing that provision demonstrated that the bill was "crummy." Meanwhile, Sen. Rick Scott of Florida said the bill was an attack on Vance and Trump. "Trump has gone through unbelievable hell," Scott told reporters after the hearing, referring to his indictments and impeachments. He said the bill would "allow the Democrats to go after the President of the United States." Much of the hearing was taken up by Hawley sparring with fellow Republicans on the committee. After Scott raised a question about a provision of the bill applying to illiquid assets, Hawley snapped back at him, pointing out that he supported last year's bill. "It's the same one you voted for last year," Hawley said. At one point, during a tense exchange with Sen. James Lankford of Oklahoma over the bill's elimination of blind trusts, Hawley made a passing reference to Scott's wealth. "I practice what I preach. I don't have individual stocks, I don't trade in stocks," Hawley said as Scott sat beside him. "I'm not a billionaire, unlike others on this committee." Scott, worth hundreds of millions of dollars, is one of the wealthiest members of Congress. Minutes later, he said it was "disgusting" to criticize lawmakers for their wealth. "I don't know when in this country it became a negative to make money," Scott said as he described his modest upbringing. "This idea that we're going to attack people because they make money is wrong. It's absolutely wrong."

Starvation stalks Gaza
Starvation stalks Gaza

USA Today

time10 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Starvation stalks Gaza

On Tuesday's episode of The Excerpt podcast: There are major international starvation concerns in Gaza, even as Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says there is no starvation there. A gunman killed four people, and then himself at a prominent Midtown Manhattan skyscraper on Monday. USA TODAY Domestic Security Correspondent Josh Meyer breaks down President Trump's comments about being 'allowed' to pardon Ghislaine Maxwell. President Trump sets a new deadline of 10 or 12 days for Russia to end its war in Ukraine. A federal judge has blocked enforcement of a provision in Trump's tax and spending bill that would deprive Planned Parenthood and its members of Medicaid funding. USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent Phillip M. Bailey takes a look at some upcoming governor races and why they will be major referendums on Trump vs. Democrats. 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 Tuesday, July 29th, 2025. This is USA TODAY's The Excerpt. Today, the latest from Gaza amid severe hunger worries, plus breaking down Trump's comments about Epstein associate Ghislaine Maxwell this week, and what's at stake in a slew of upcoming governor races? ♦ For the second day running yesterday, Israel paused its military operations in Gaza to improve the humanitarian response. That follows a series of alarming warnings from world leaders and global officials from the United Nations World Health Organization and from dozens of humanitarian agencies that malnutrition and even starvation in Gaza are on a dangerous trajectory. The UN's World Food Programme says a third of Gaza's population does not eat for several days at a time. One in four Gazans it says, are enduring famine-like conditions. The Hamas-run health ministry, the chief source of health data in Gaza says more than 100 people have died from malnutrition in recent days. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed those concerns yesterday. Benjamin Netanyahu: Israel is presented as though we are applying a campaign of starvation in Gaza. What a bold-faced lie. There is no policy of starvation in Gaza, and there is no starvation in Gaza. Taylor Wilson: That prompted a response from President Trump while on his trip in Scotland. President Trump: Those children look very hungry, but we're giving a lot of money and a lot of food and other nations are now stepping up. Taylor Wilson: And it's hard to parse the Israeli leaders' comments with some of what we've heard directly at USA TODAY, including from 35-year-old Amal Nassar, an English teacher from Gaza who said simply that she, her children and husband don't have enough to eat. Trump, though also criticized Hamas for holding Israeli hostages. President Trump: They don't want to give hostages. Very unfair. Taylor Wilson: You can read more on the latest from Gaza with a link in today's show notes. ♦ A gunman charged into a prominent Manhattan skyscraper during rush hour yesterday and fatally shot at least four people, including a New York City police officer before killing himself, according to authorities. Police received multiple reports of an active shooter inside 345 Park Avenue, a building that houses the NFL headquarters and offices of major financial firms, according to New York City Police Commissioner Jessica Tisch. Surveillance footage showed a man exiting a vehicle outside before entering the building with an M4 rifle. The suspect immediately opened fire at an NYPD officer who was working a paid detail at the building. He then shot a woman who took cover behind a pillar and continued through the lobby opening fire, according to authorities. He then went up to the 33rd floor. Police said the motive for the shooting remains under investigation and investigators are working to understand why the suspect targeted the commercial building. ♦ President Donald Trump kicked off the week filled in questions about the ongoing conversation surrounding the late disgraced Jeffrey Epstein and his key associate Ghislaine Maxwell. I spoke with USA TODAY domestic security correspondent Josh Meyer for the latest. Josh, thanks for joining me. Josh Meyer: My pleasure, Taylor. Taylor Wilson: All right, another day, another chapter in the Epstein-Trump-White House drama. What did President Trump say yesterday about pardoning Ghislaine Maxwell? Josh Meyer: He was asked about it for the second time, and he said the same thing that he did last Friday, which was that, "I haven't really considered it, but I'm allowed to do it." So he was doubling down on that. He provided more information about it, and then he deflected and of course said that if there's anything in the documents that's damaging to him politically, then the Democrats must have put it in there and made it up when they were in office. Taylor Wilson: Trump also faced a question yesterday about whether his Attorney General Pam Bondi has told him his name is mentioned in the federal government's Epstein files. Remind us what Bondi has said here, Josh, and how did Trump approach this? Josh Meyer: Pam Bondi has been accused of providing cover for Trump, but she has not commented on this. Trump has said that Pam Bondi never told him that he was in the files, but The Wall Street Journal did do a story last week in which they said that several Justice Department officials have confirmed that Pam Bondi did tell the president in a meeting in May that he is in the Epstein files. It's not clear whether that's in investigative documents or that he shows up in some of the videos, but that his name appears several times in this investigative information that the Justice Department has in its possession and that it's not releasing. Taylor Wilson: We know Trump and Epstein ran in similar social scenes, at the least, over the years. At this point, Josh, what is Trump saying about whether he's visited the notorious Epstein island? Josh Meyer: He said categorically that he has never visited Epstein's island. There has been some investigative documentation that he showed up on the flight logs. It's not clear where or when, but again, Trump said that he has never been to Epstein's island. He said that he was invited to go to Epstein's island. By the way, this is where a lot of the alleged sex trafficking of underage girls happened, but he said he was invited there and that unlike a lot of other people from Palm Beach, he said no and that he didn't do it. Taylor Wilson: Have we heard from Ghislaine Maxwell or her legal team on any of this? What's the latest with her? Josh Meyer: So I've been in touch with her lawyer. Maxwell, of course, is not saying anything. She's in prison serving a 20-year term for sex trafficking in connection with Jeffrey Epstein, and she was his girlfriend and former accomplice. But her lawyer said Friday after Trump said the first time that he hasn't thought about it, but that he could pardon Maxwell, her lawyer David Markus said that he hopes Trump pardons Maxwell and that she's being made a scapegoat here and that she wasn't given a fair trial and that she deserves to be freed. That is ignoring, of course, mountains of evidence that were produced at her trial conviction by a jury, and basically a lot of evidence showing that Maxwell was an active accomplice of Jeffrey Epstein's in the trafficking of young girls. Taylor Wilson: All right, Josh Meyer covers domestic security for USA TODAY. Thanks, Josh. Josh Meyer: My pleasure, Taylor. ♦ Taylor Wilson: President Trump said he's moving up a deadline for Russia to agree to a ceasefire with Ukraine, warning that in 10 or 12 days, Russia must end the war or face sanctions and tariffs from the U.S. The president's threat came as he continued to express frustration with Russian President Vladimir Putin, for refusing to scale back his country's war in Ukraine. When Trump's second term began, he placed equal blame on Putin and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy for Russia's 2022 invasion of Ukraine, and the war is still going on three and a half years later. But Trump has zeroed in on Putin in recent weeks as the Russian leader repeatedly rebuffs Trump's attempts to broker a ceasefire and pushes forward with drone and missile attacks on Ukrainian cities. ♦ A federal judge has blocked enforcement of a provision in the recently enacted tax and spending bill that would deprive Planned Parenthood and its members of Medicaid funding saying it is likely unconstitutional. U.S. district judge in Boston issued a preliminary injunction yesterday after finding the law likely violated the Constitution by targeting Planned Parenthood's health centers specifically for punishment for providing abortions. That provision and the recent bill passed by the Republican-led Congress denied certain tax-exempt organizations and their affiliates from receiving Medicaid funds if they continue to provide abortions. ♦ Some upcoming governor races are set to be major referendums on Trump versus Democrats. I caught up with USA TODAY Chief Political Correspondent, Philip M. Bailey to discuss. Philip, thanks for hopping on. Phillip M. Bailey: Taylor, how's it going? Taylor Wilson: All right. Let's start with Virginia and New Jersey as you do here in the piece, Philip. Who are the players in these elections and what might be some of the national implications at play? Phillip M. Bailey: Virginia has always historically been looked, it's governor's race at least, has been looked at as a bellwether for the nation because it's the election right before leading up to either the midterms and the presidential election. In this case, things seem to be a bit different. Republican incumbent Glenn Youngkin is term-limited, and there are already reports that underscore his Lieutenant Governor Winsome Earle-Sears, the Republican nominee giving her anemic fundraising and some other internal campaign combustion, one talk show radio host on the conservative side described as a "clown car". There are some issues the Republicans are having, but that's still one of the early gubernatorial races that we're going to be looking at. She's going to be running against Democratic Representative Abigail Spanberger, who I think in a recent July 16th poll by the Virginia Commonwealth University showed Earle-Sears, the Republican trailing Spanberger by about 12 points. There are other polls that have this a little bit closer, but I think when you look at all of these gubernatorial races, governors are at the forefront of policy decisions. Think of during the COVID-19 crisis, the critical role that governors play. Nationally speaking, Virginia's home to about 152,000 federal workers, Taylor, so right next door to D.C. where the Trump administration laid off untold amounts of federal workers. Right now, it just seems like Republicans are just trying to keep their head above water in this race. It's looked at as more of a democratic pickup, but it's one that Republicans certainly aren't going to stop fighting for. But those internal campaign problems for Earle-Sears is something that cannot be overlooked and that may hamper our candidacy and get Republicans shifting elsewhere. Taylor Wilson: Well, shifting to next year, we have a bunch of swing state governor elections. What role might President Trump play here and what's at stake? Phillip M. Bailey: Well, look, I think the president's role is going to be outsized in most of these elections, either for or against. You're going to see Democrats, I mean some who've already announced their candidacies, like in Wisconsin, for example, already calling him a maniac and calling out his agenda, talking about the immigration crackdown. So a lot of places Republicans are going to be on defense. But look, any MAGA folks will tell you, any Republicans will tell you that having the White House is always better than not. The president's shadow is going to loom in some of these races, particularly these swing state races. When we look at some of these gubernatorial races, and 38 in total, the more premier ones, the more competitive ones are going to be in your swing states like Nevada, like Georgia, like Arizona. So the president who won all of those swing states last year in the 2024 presidential election, he's confident. He was speaking to the Republican Governors Association earlier this year, and he said he looks forward to working with these governors. They've made a lot of progress. So I expect that some of these states that you could see President Trump arrive, but it all depends, I think, on his polling numbers there as we see President Trump's polling numbers begin to dip, as we've seen Trump, some of his more controversial maneuvers, particularly around immigration, particularly around the treatment of college or universities and other areas that could be the first signs of a backlash. We usually measure that in these congressional midterms, but these gubernatorial races with these chief executives, that's going to be critical of some of these issues in the president's role, and his impact and his popularity in those states is really going to come down to the why in a lot of these toss-up elections. Taylor Wilson: Well, I found this interesting, Phillip, that you feature former Vice President Kamala Harris in this piece. Is she considering a run for governor in California? What do we know about that race as of now? Phillip M. Bailey: When we talk about these 2026 gubernatorial elections, when we talk about New Jersey and Virginia are going to be the first test this year, we talk about some of these more competitive ones in swing states, but one feature of these gubernatorial contests is going to be the presidential campaign of 2028, and one of those ideas is that maybe Kamala Harris will make a return to the national stage. She has talked openly about, hey, she's considering running for governor in her home state of California. If she were to do that, polls show that she will be automatically one of the more popular, the lead candidate, really, in that race. So I think being in charge of the fourth-largest economy in the world certainly is nothing to bat your eyes at, but there's a question of does Harris have her mind on running for president for a third time, which I think a lot of donors and Democrats might have some misgivings about, or going back to California and perhaps having a confrontation with Trump there. Remember Gavin Newsom, the current governor of California, who was also term limited, he's not running for reelection, but he's already had some major clashes with Donald Trump over immigration. We saw some serious clashes, some violent clashes in the streets between ICE agents and federal officials and law enforcement and pro-immigration demonstrators who were opposing the Trump administration. So if Harris does make this announcement, it will automatically just put her on a collision course with Donald Trump and return her to the national stage. It doesn't forbid her from running for president in 2028. It's a bit difficult, I guess, to have those back-to-back campaigns, but her return to the national stage will certainly be a feature of the 2026 campaign. Taylor Wilson: All right, Phillip M. Bailey is USA TODAY's Chief Political Correspondent. Thanks, Phillip. Phillip M. Bailey: Thanks Taylor, as always. ♦ Taylor Wilson: Thanks for listening to The Excerpt. You can get the podcast wherever you get your audio, and as always, you can email us at podcasts@ I'm Taylor Wilson. I'll be back tomorrow with more of The Excerpt from USA TODAY.

Trump 'should not pardon' Sean 'Diddy' Combs, Megyn Kelly says
Trump 'should not pardon' Sean 'Diddy' Combs, Megyn Kelly says

USA Today

time10 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Trump 'should not pardon' Sean 'Diddy' Combs, Megyn Kelly says

Megyn Kelly is speaking out to urge President Donald Trump against potentially pardoning Sean "Diddy" Combs. In an X post on July 30, Kelly said that "Trump should not pardon Diddy" because "he doesn't deserve it" referencing a Deadline report published a day earlier – featuring unnamed sources – that considered the possibility of a pardon. "He's a Trump hater. He's a woman abuser. MAGA is already upset over elites seeming to cover for each other. This would not help. GOP struggling w/young female voters, most of whom will HATE a Diddy pardon," Kelly continued. USA TODAY reached out to Combs' team for comment. Trump weighed in on the possibility of pardoning Combs on May 30 in the Oval Office. "Nobody's asked" about a pardon, the president said. "But I know people are thinking about it. I know they're thinking about it. I think some people have been very close to asking." Trump added, "I haven't spoken to him in years. He really liked me a lot." Kelly and Trump have a complicated relationship of their own that spans more than a decade. Despite falling out in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election, which Trump won, the pair have since patched things up: They embraced at a Pennsylvania campaign rally in November, where the former Fox News star proudly endorsed him for president in an enthusiastic speech. Trump should not pardon Diddy. He doesn't deserve it. He's a Trump hater. He's a woman abuser. MAGA is already upset over elites seeming to cover for each other. This would not help. GOP struggling w/young female voters, most of whom will HATE a Diddy pardon. Ex-Trump staffer Hope Hicks joins Megyn Kelly's media company as COO Pressure toward the president has mounted recently as questions arise about his past relationship with former friend and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, who sexually abused underage girls and died by suicide in August 2019 under circumstances that have since become the source of widespread conspiracy theories. But Trump has shown a willingness in the past to pardon imprisoned celebrities, including during his first term and now in his second. In May, Trump announced pardons for reality TV couple Todd and Julie Chrisley and rapper NBA YoungBoy – also known by his legal name Kentrell Gaulden and artistically as YoungBoy Never Broke Again. Near the end of his first term in 2021, Trump pardoned rappers Lil Wayne and Kodak Black. Sean 'Diddy' Combs argues for jail release on $50 million bond ahead of sentencing Combs legal team argued again this week for his release from federal prison, nearly one month after the embattled music mogul was acquitted of the most serious charges in his sex-crimes trial. According to legal documents reviewed by USA TODAY, Combs' lawyers asked Judge Arun Subramanian on July 29 to release Combs on a $50 million bond and allow him to live in his Miami mansion — instead of the Metropolitan Detention Center in Brooklyn — as he awaits sentencing in October. Contributing: David Oliver, Marco della Cava

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store