Trump's settlement with Columbia could become a model for his campaign to reshape higher education
And at colleges around the country, the deal clarifies the stakes for anyone weighing whether to fight the administration's demands or concede.
Columbia agreed Wednesday to pay more than $220 million to the federal government to restore federal research money that was canceled in the name of combating antisemitism on campus. That decision offers a contrast to the path taken by Harvard University, which has lost billions of dollars in government funding as its legal battle escalates with no end in sight.
Yet the Columbia deal also raises questions about university independence as the school submits to closer federal oversight.
No sooner had Trump announced the deal than he sent a warning: Numerous other universities, he said, 'are upcoming.'
The deal is the first to settle a federal investigation into allegations of campus antisemitism since Trump returned to office. It's also the first agreement with a university touching on so many elements of the president's agenda, including diversity, equity and inclusion programs and admissions to women's sports and campus protests.
Columbia agreed to some provisions similar to those that Harvard rejected and called a dangerous precedent. The settlement requires the hiring of new faculty in Jewish studies and a review of academics to ensure 'balance.' Additionally, Columbia will be placed under the watch of an independent monitor and ordered to disclose hiring, admission and discipline data to be audited for compliance.
In what Columbia described as a victory for university autonomy, the agreement includes a clause saying the government has no authority to dictate hiring, admissions decisions or the content of academic speech. Acting University President Claire Shipman said it was 'carefully crafted to protect the values that define us' while restoring the university's federal research funding.
Where some see pragmatism, others see capitulation
Some at Columbia called it the best feasible outcome. Some called it capitulation. Rep. Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., a Columbia graduate whose district includes the Manhattan campus, called it a 'cowardly' agreement that won't improve the campus.
Columbia has effectively waved 'the white flag of surrender in its battle at the heart of the Trump Administration's war on higher education and academic freedom,' Nadler said.
Columbia had been threatened with the potential loss of billions of dollars in government support, including more than $400 million in research grants canceled earlier this year.
David Pozen, a law professor at Columbia, said the settlement raises legal questions about Trump's strategy of regulation by dealmaking. Instead of applying a single standard across all of higher education, Pozen said, Trump is relying on one-off deals with individual universities as a condition to regain federal funding. It mirrors his hardball approach with trade partners and prominent law firms.
'In short, the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme,' he said.
Lawrence Summers, a former Treasury secretary and former president of Harvard, called the settlement an 'excellent template' for agreements with Harvard and other universities. He said it preserves Columbia's independence while addressing antisemitism and renewing a focus on merit.
'This may be the best day higher education has had in the last year,' Summers wrote on the social media platform X.
Dozens of colleges are facing federal investigations
With the deal, Trump has new momentum in his expanding campaign to bring the nation's universities in line with his vision. Dozens of campuses are under federal investigation for allegations related to antisemitism, DEI and transgender athletes in women's sports. Trump has saved his strongest rebuke for elite private universities, yet his administration has also recently turned attention to big public universities including George Mason University.
Among Trump's backers, the Columbia agreement is seen as a first step to counteract the liberal bias they say has permeated college campuses.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon called Columbia's reforms a roadmap for universities looking to regain public trust. 'I believe they will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come,' McMahon said in a statement.
The settlement follows smaller wins for the administration, including a recent deal with the University of Pennsylvania over transgender swimmer Lia Thomas. Penn agreed to modify school records held by Thomas and to apologize to female athletes 'disadvantaged' by Thomas' participation.
Just days earlier, the president of the University of Virginia agreed to resign amid a Justice Department investigation over DEI policies.
Dozens of university presidents have rallied behind Harvard in its fight against the Trump administration, seeing their own independence jeopardized by the government's sanctions against the Ivy League school. Harvard, the nation's oldest and wealthiest university, is often seen as a bellwether for other institutions, and some regard it as the best hope to repel the Trump administration's pressure campaign.
Now even more rides on Harvard's case. Earlier this month, Trump said a deal with Harvard appeared imminent, only to lash out at the university this week following a court hearing in one of Harvard's legal battles.
'A big part of it is going to be how much Harvard gets in the future,' Trump told reporters this week. 'And they're not going to get very much.'
Even before Trump took office, more universities had been pulling back on DEI and taking other steps to backtrack on what some see as a leftward political drift. Yet if the Columbia agreement becomes a model, it could force an even deeper reckoning.
The agreement requires full compliance with the administration's interpretation of Title IX, the federal law barring sex discrimination in education. Trump officials have used the law to force the removal of transgender athletes from women's sports. The deal also requires regular reports to ensure Columbia does not 'promote unlawful DEI goals.'
On admissions, the settlement pushes Columbia to limit the consideration of race even beyond the Supreme Court's 2023 decision ending affirmative action. That decision left open the possibility that universities could consider an applicant's discussion of how their race affected their life, including in college application essays. The Columbia deal appears to bar such considerations.
It also requires Columbia to heighten scrutiny of international students and ask questions about their reasons for wanting to study in the United States. It orders the school to take steps to 'decrease financial independence' on international students. Columbia has one of the largest international student populations in the nation, making up about 40% of its enrollment.
How much Columbia ceded in exchange may not be clear for years. There's also no guarantee that the school is fully in the clear — the agreement leaves open the possibility of future 'compliance reviews, investigations, defunding or litigation' by the government.
Still, Trump commended the university for doing 'what is right.'
'I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!' he said on his social media platform.
___
The Associated Press' education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP's standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
A MAGA Voter's Reddit Post Breaking Down 5 Reasons They'll Be Voting "All Blue" In The Midterms Is Going Viral
As of late, Donald Trump's MAGA base has NOT been happy with him. From his mishandling of the Epstein files to bombing Iran, Trump seems to be backtracking on many of his campaign promises, and his support, even from high-profile names, is slipping. A Reddit post by a MAGA voter has recently gone viral for breaking down five reasons why they are abandoning Trump and planning to vote blue in the 2026 midterms. Related: At the start of the post, the MAGA voter explained their last-minute decision to vote for Trump on Election Day... They described feeling that Trump "got his ass beat" by Kamala Harris in the presidential debate, but did not like that the DNC was "open to big corporations and corporate donors." Their decision to vote for Trump also was inspired by Trump joining forces with RFK Jr., which they felt could improve nutrition policies. "Nutrition is a huge thing for me..." Related: The MAGA voter also assumed that Trump could end the Ukraine/Russia war due to his close relationship with Vladimir Putin. "I felt Trump would calm down the Ukraine/Russia basically say 'stop this shit' and create a calmer world for us." But, according to the MAGA voter, everything went south with the Trump administration's handling of the Epstein files. "Guy thinks we're stupid. He campaigns on the Epstein files, realizes he's on there and now is telling us to stop worrying about it." The White House has called the Wall Street Journal's claim that Trump was notified by the Attorney General that his name was in the Epstein files a "fake news story." Related: The MAGA voter also called out Trump's attempts to get rid of the Department of Education. "I know he brought this up during his campaign, but I thought he'd be sensible enough to work across the aisle with Democrats on this matter, but this is insane." They also called out Trump's "Big, Beautiful, Bill" that they described as "abhorrently terrible." As well as Trump's tariffs increasing costs for young people. "Wtf is this guy thinking other countries will pay more. We're the ones having to foot the cost." They took issue with Trump's immigration and deportation policies call them "messed up," because Trump has given ICE "free will to do whatever." Related: And finally, the post ended with a promise to abandon Trump in the midterms. "I will absolutely be voting all blue come the midterms and will be voting for a sensible democrat next election." After reading the post, most people in the comments were not exactly applauding the MAGA voter for their switch-up. "Wow, this is someone who even seems to have paid more attention than most, but also somehow discounted 99% of things Trump said he'd do. I just can't with that level of cognitive dissonance," one user said. "'She didn't have any ideas that I considered fresh and new, so I figured I may as well vote for the guy who babbled utter nonsense instead,'" another user wrote sarcastically, referencing the voter's comments on the presidential debate. "This sounds like a lot of people in my family's rationale for voting Trump, who should have had enough common sense to think things through. They'll never admit they're wrong and vote democrat though. At least this person realized they were wrong, albeit way too late," this user wrote. "They really give him too much credit thinking these pie in the sky thoughts that'd he abolish everything he said he would, and replace it all with something way better, which he never had a plan to do." What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds:
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
U.S. slaps 20.56% anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood lumber
The U.S. Commerce Department has decided to hike anti-dumping duties on Canadian softwood to 20.56 per cent, with B.C. lumber organizations calling them unjustified, punitive and protectionist. The hiked softwood lumber duties come amid the growing trade war between Canada and the U.S., and represent the latest blow to B.C.'s beleaguered forestry industry. B.C. Forests Minister Ravi Parmar described the long-awaited rate hike as a "gut punch" for B.C.'s forestry industry which has seen thousands of workers laid off over the last few years. "U.S. President Donald Trump has made it his mission to destroy Canada's economy, and there is no sector that has faced more of that than the forestry sector," he told CBC News. "This is a big deal for our workers. This is going to have a significant impact. It will lead to curtailments," he added. The B.C. government has been urging the federal government to prioritize the softwood lumber industry in trade discussions with the U.S., and Parmar said the hiked duties would also impact U.S. homeowners needing lumber to rebuild or renovate their homes. "This is going to mean that Americans, in particular middle-class Americans, are going to be paying more to the tune of $15,000 to $20,000 more USD to purchase or to build a home." The B.C. Lumber Trade Council says in a statement that if the U.S. department's pending review on countervailing duties is in line with its preliminary results, the combined rate against Canadian softwood shipped to the United States will be well over 30 per cent. In April, the preliminary combined rate on Canadian softwood lumber was reported to be 34.45 per cent, up from the previous 14.54 per cent. Friday's decision is a final determination, with Parmar saying it would go into effect in the U.S. Federal Register shortly.U.S. lumber producers have long maintained that Canadian stumpage fees, for harvesting on Crown land, are an unfair government subsidy. B.C.'s Independent Wood Processors Association says in a statement that the U.S. Commerce Department's decision this week to raise duties also includes a requirement for Canadian companies to retroactively remit duties for products shipped to the United States since Jan.1, 2023. WATCH | B.C. premier urges feds to prioritze lumber deal: Association chair Andy Rielly says in a statement that the requirement to pay duties on products shipped in the last 31 months could not only force small B.C. producers to shut down, but may also threaten operators' personal assets as they may have to risk using their homes as collateral to secure bonds to pay. Prime Minister Mark Carney said earlier this month that a future trade agreement with the United States could include quotas on softwood lumber, an area that has caused friction between the two countries for years before the latest trade war. Producer urges province to change conditions The United States has long been the single largest market for B.C. lumber exports, representing over half the market for the approximately $10-billion industry. But amid a series of challenges for the province's forestry industry — including a mountain pine beetle infestation that has killed hundreds of thousands of trees — mills have been closing around the province in recent years, and major forestry companies are opening up new mills in the United States. In 2023, numbers from Statistics Canada showed B.C. had lost more than 40,000 forest-sector jobs since the early 1990s. Kim Haakstad, the CEO of the B.C. Council of Forest Industries, said the B.C. government should work to improve the production environment in the province to prevent future mill closures. In a statement, the council said that by activating timber sales, fast-tracking permits and cutting through regulatory gridlock, the province could send a signal that it is serious about rebuilding a sustainable forest argued that if the industry could get production levels back to historic levels, it could help keep forestry-dependent communities vibrant into the future. "That will bring more than $300 million to the provincial government, as well, to help address the deficit situation we're in," Haakstad said. Kurt Niquidet, the president of the B.C. Lumber Trade Council, highlighted that Trump also has initiated a federal investigation into the U.S. imports of lumber and timber citing "national security," which could further impact B.C.'s forestry industry when combined with the tariffs. "Softwood lumber is quite important for the United States. They can only supply about 70 per cent of their softwood lumber demand, and they're importing 30 per cent from elsewhere," he told CBC News. "25 per cent of that's really coming from Canada, and British Columbia is the largest softwood lumber producer within Canada."
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
'That kind of thing really dings Trump hard,' former Congressman Joe Walsh quipped of the opening episode to the show's 27th season.
A top former member of the Republican Party has explained why the opening episode of South Park's 27th season hit President Donald Trump where it hurts. 'Remember, a lot of Trump's base, they're not Republicans. They're just men—they're guys who typically don't belong to a party, they don't vote all the time, and they watch South Park,' former Illinois Congressman Joe Walsh, who's since defected to the Democrats, told MSNBC. 'They watched an episode this week where Trump looked really silly and stupid—a big fat man with a teeny, tiny penis. I think that kind of thing really dings Trump hard, too,' he added. 'No pun intended.'