Trump Administration Reviewing $9 Billion In Government Funding For Harvard
The review was announced Monday. (Photo by Erica Denhoff/Icon Sportswire via Getty Images)
The Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration said in a joint statement they began reviewing over $255.6 million in contracts and $8.7 billion in grant commitments between Harvard and its affiliates.
The statement said the review was being conducted 'to ensure the university is in compliance with federal regulations, including its civil rights responsibilities,' referring to the pro-Palestinain protests that occurred on Harvard's campus last year and resulted in a multi-day encampment standoff between students and the Harvard administration.
Secretary of Education Linda McMahon accused Harvard of failing to protect students from antisemitism and 'promoting divisive ideologies over free inquiry.'
The statement said Harvard was ordered to submit a list of their contracts with the federal government not included in the Trump administration's initial review, with Sean Keveney, HHS acting general counsel, saying he was 'pleased that Harvard is willing to engage with us on these goals.'
Harvard did not immediately respond to Forbes' request for comment.
Get Forbes Breaking News Text Alerts: We're launching text message alerts so you'll always know the biggest stories shaping the day's headlines. Text 'Alerts' to (201) 335-0739 or sign up here.
The review of Harvard's funding is part of a large-scale investigation by the Trump administration into 60 colleges over accusations of antisemitism. Columbia University was the first school that had its funding targeted by the administration. It lost $400 million in federal funding and later complied with a list of demands from the Trump administration in an attempt to recoup the losses. Columbia issued suspensions, expulsions and temporary degree revocations of some students involved in on-campus pro-Palestinian protests last year, hired 36 'special officers' capable of removing people from campus or making arrests and banned the use of face masks during protests if they are not used for religious or medical reasons. Other universities under investigation include Johns Hopkins, Ohio State University, Stanford University, Yale University, Arizona State University, several schools part of the University of California system and many others.
The pro-Palestinian protests across college campuses last year centered around objecting to Israel's invasion of Gaza, which was launched after Hamas killed around 1,200 Isralies in a surprise attack on Oct. 7, 2023, though some of the protests were also marred by antisemitic incidents. Some 45,000 people in Gaza have been killed since the war began, according to estimates from the Hamas-run Gaza Health Ministry, with around 90% of Gaza's population displaced, according to the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees in the Near East. Some students in the U.S. also protested against their respective universities' funding ties to Israel. In addition to targeting universities at large, the Trump administration has also revoked visas, detained and sought to deport students linked to pro-Palestinain protests last year, accusing some of directly supporting Hamas. Columbia University graduate and pro-Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil is the most high-profile case of the arrests, having been detained by federal agents in early March despite having a valid visa and being a permanent legal resident of the U.S. He remains jailed as of Monday and is still fighting against his deportation.
Trump Administration Investigates These 60 Colleges Over Antisemitism Allegations (Forbes)
Columbia Agrees To Trump Administration's Demands After Losing $400 Million In Federal Funds (Forbes)
Columbia Expels And Pulls Degrees For Some Students Who Occupied Building During Pro-Palestinian Protests (Forbes)
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New York Times
10 minutes ago
- New York Times
Trump Is Bringing Back the Presidential Fitness Test
If you spent your childhood struggling to do chin-ups or groaning over a sit-and-reach box in gym class, brace yourself. Today, President Trump signed an executive order to reinstate the Presidential Fitness Test in public schools. The move is part of the administration's goal to 'restore urgency in improving the health of all Americans,' according to a statement released by the White House. The test, which was introduced in 1966, has taken several forms over the years. The most recent version included a one-mile run, modified sit-ups, a 30-foot shuttle run, the sit-and-reach flexibility test and a choice between push-ups and pull-ups. In the last iteration, children who scored in the top 15 percent nationwide earned a Presidential Physical Fitness Award. The Trump administration has yet to announce which exercises will be included in the new test. In 2012, the Obama administration replaced the Presidential Fitness Test with a program called the Presidential Youth Fitness Program, which was less focused on standardized fitness benchmarks. Some fitness and child development experts have criticized the Presidential Fitness Test as too rigid. Children who are the same age, for instance, could be very different sizes or at different developmental stages. And focusing on scores, experts said, could risk turning some children off exercise altogether. Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Dozens of countries with no deals face higher tariffs as trade deadline nears
Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up For those countries without an agreement, they could face duties of as much as 50 percent, including on large economies such as Brazil, Canada, Taiwan, and India. Many smaller countries are also on track to pay more, including South Africa, Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, and even Advertisement The duties originated from Trump's Advertisement As of Thursday afternoon, White House representatives — and Trump himself — insisted that no more delays were possible. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Thursday that Trump 'at some point this afternoon or later this evening' will sign an order to impose new tariff rates starting midnight on Friday. Countries that have not received a prior letter on tariffs from Trump or negotiated a trade framework will be notified of their likely tariff rates, Leavitt said, either in the form of a letter or Trump's executive order. At least two dozen On Wednesday, Trump said on his social media platform Truth Social, 'THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE IS THE AUGUST FIRST DEADLINE — IT STANDS STRONG, AND WILL NOT BE EXTENDED.' In a flurry of last minute deal-making, the Trump has been announcing agreements as late as Thursday, but they are largely short on details. On Thursday, the United States and Pakistan And on Wednesday, Trump announced a deal with South Korea that would impose 15 percent tariffs on goods from that country. That is below the 25 percent duties that Trump threatened in April. Agreements have also been reached with the European Union, Indonesia, Vietnam, Advertisement The exact number of countries facing higher duties isn't clear, but the majority of the 200 have not made a deal. Trump has already slapped large duties on Brazil and India even before the deadline was reached. In the case of Brazil, Trump signed an executive order late Wednesday imposing a 50 percent duty on imports, though he exempted several large categories, including aircraft, aluminum, and energy products. Trump is While Trump has sought to justify the widespread tariffs as an effort to combat the United States' chronic trade deficits, the United States actually has a trade surplus with Brazil — meaning it sells more goods and services to Brazil than it buys from that country. Late Wednesday, Trump said that India would On Thursday, the White House said it had extended the deadline to reach a deal with Mexico for another 90 days, citing the complexity of the trade relationship, which is governed by the trade agreement Trump reached when he updated NAFTA in his first term.
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Appellate judges question Trump's authority to impose tariffs without Congress
Brett Schumate, the attorney representing the Trump administration, acknowledged in the 99-minute hearing 'no president has ever read IEEPA this way' but contended it was nonetheless lawful. The 1977 law, signed by President Jimmy Carter, allows the president to seize assets and block transactions during a national emergency. It was first used during the Iran hostage crisis and has since been invoked for a range of global unrest, from the 9/11 attacks to the Syrian civil war. Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up Trump says the country's trade deficit is so serious that it likewise qualifies for the law's protection. Advertisement In sharp exchanges with Schumate, appellate judges questioned that contention, asking whether the law extended to tariffs at all and, if so, whether the levies matched the threat the administration identified. 'If the president says there's a problem with our military readiness,' Chief Circuit Judge Kimberly Moore posited, 'and he puts a 20 percent tax on coffee, that doesn't seem to necessarily deal with (it).' Schumate said Congress' passage of IEEPA gave the president 'broad and flexible' power to respond to an emergency, but that 'the president is not asking for unbounded authority.' Advertisement But an attorney for the plaintiffs, Neal Katyal, characterized Trump's maneuver as a 'breathtaking' power grab that amounted to saying 'the president can do whatever he wants, whenever he wants, for as long as he wants so long as he declares an emergency.' No ruling was issued from the bench. Regardless of what decision the judges' deliberations bring, the case is widely expected to reach the US Supreme Court. Trump weighed in on the case on his Truth Social platform, posting: 'To all of my great lawyers who have fought so hard to save our Country, good luck in America's big case today. If our Country was not able to protect itself by using TARIFFS AGAINST TARIFFS, WE WOULD BE 'DEAD,' WITH NO CHANCE OF SURVIVAL OR SUCCESS. Thank you for your attention to this matter!' In filings in the case, the Trump administration insists that 'a national emergency exists' necessitating its trade policy. A three-judge panel of the The issue now rests with the appeals judges. The challenge strikes at just one batch of import taxes from an administration that has unleashed a bevy of them and could be poised to unveil more on Friday. The case centers on Trump's so-called 'Liberation Day' tariffs of April 2 that imposed new levies on nearly every country. But it doesn't cover other tariffs, including those on Advertisement The case is one of at least seven lawsuits charging that Trump overstepped his authority through the use of tariffs on other nations. The plaintiffs include 12 US states and five businesses, including a wine importer, a company selling pipes and plumbing goods, and a maker of fishing gear. The US Constitution gives Congress the authority to impose taxes — including tariffs — but over decades lawmakers have ceded power over trade policy to the White House. Trump has made the most of the power vacuum, raising the average US tariff to more than 18 percent, the highest rate since 1934, according to the Budget Lab at Yale University. The attorney general for one of the states suing Trump sounded confident after the hearing, arguing that the judges 'didn't buy' the Trump administration's arguments. 'You would definitely rather be in our shoes going forward,' Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield said. Rayfield said that Trump's tariffs — which are paid by importers in the United States who often try to pass along the higher costs to their customers — amount to one of the largest tax increases in American history. 'This was done all by one human being sitting in the Oval Office,' he said.
