Trump administration threatens Harvard's accreditation, seeks records on foreign students
U.S. President Donald Trump's administration escalated its feud with Harvard University on Wednesday, declaring the Ivy League school may no longer meet the standards for accreditation and that it would subpoena it for records about its international students.
The move is the latest in a series of actions the administration has taken against Harvard, which sued the federal government after officials terminated billions of dollars in grants awarded to the school and moved to bar it from admitting international students.
The administration has said it is trying to force change at Harvard and other top-level universities across the U.S., contending they have become bastions of leftist "woke" thought and antisemitism.
Trump on June 20 said that talks with Harvard were under way that could soon produce a settlement. But as of Wednesday, when the latest actions by the administration were announced, talks had stalled, and the parties were "far from an agreement," a person familiar with the matter said.
"Harvard remains unwavering in its efforts to protect its community and its core principles against unfounded retribution by the federal government," Harvard said in a statement.
The U.S. Department of Education and the Department of Health and Human Services said on Wednesday that they formally notified Harvard's accreditor, the New England Commission of Higher Education, that Harvard had violated a federal antidiscrimination law by failing to protect Jewish and Israeli students on campus.
The agencies said there was "strong evidence to suggest the school may no longer meet the commission's accreditation standards," after the Department of Health and Human Services' Office of Civil Rights last month concluded that Harvard had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon in a statement said her agency expects the commission to "keep the department fully informed of its efforts to ensure that Harvard is in compliance with federal law and accreditor standards."
The commission, a nonprofit accreditor, is not slated to comprehensively evaluate Harvard again until mid-2027. It confirmed it received a letter from the departments and said the federal government cannot direct it to revoke a school's accreditation and that a university found to run afoul of its standards can have up to four years to come into compliance.
The departments' announcement came shortly after the Homeland Security Department said it would issue administrative subpoenas seeking records concerning the "criminality and misconduct" of student visa holders on Harvard's campus.
Harvard argues the Trump administration is retaliating against it and trampling on its free-speech rights under the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment after it refused to meet the Trump administration's demands to cede control over the school's curriculum and admissions. It also says it has been unfairly targeted based on what officials view as the university's left-leaning orientation.
A federal judge last month blocked the administration from implementing a proclamation Trump signed that sought to bar foreign nationals from entering the United States to study at Harvard University.
The administration has appealed that ruling, and the Homeland Security Department is pursuing through an administrative process a possible revocation of Harvard's ability to enroll international students.
Such an action would significantly hit Harvard's tuition base. Almost 6,800 international students attended the 388-year-old university in its most recent school year, making up about 27% of its student population.
U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs, the same judge as in the case involving international students, is set to hear arguments on July 21 in a separate lawsuit Harvard has filed, which seeks to unfreeze around $2.5 billion in grant funding that has been blocked by the Trump administration.
© Thomson Reuters 2025.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Kyodo News
4 hours ago
- Kyodo News
Increasing the danger: Journalist killing in Gaza sends a chilling message
Israel's targeted killing of an Al Jazeera correspondent in Gaza over the weekend was noteworthy even for a conflict remarkably blood-soaked for journalists, leaving some experts to marvel that any news at all emerges from the territory. An Al Jazeera executive said Monday that it won't back down from covering what is going on there and called for news organizations to step up and recruit more journalists. A total of 184 Palestinian journalists and media workers have been killed by Israel in the Gaza war since its start in October 2023, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists. That compares to the 18 journalists and media workers killed so far in the Russia-Ukraine war, CPJ said. Aside from rare guided tours, Israel has barred international media from covering the 22-month war in Gaza. News organizations instead rely largely on Palestinian Gaza residents and ingenuity to show the world what is happening there. Israel often questions the affiliations and biases of Palestinian journalists but doesn't permit others in. 'You simply are in awe when stories show up,' said Jane Ferguson, a veteran war correspondent and founder of Noosphere, an independent platform for journalists. She can't recall a conflict that has been more difficult for reporters to cover, and she's reported from South Sudan, Syria and Afghanistan. Correspondent Anas al-Sharif knew he was a target, and left behind a message to be delivered upon his death. He and seven other people — six of them journalists — were killed in an air strike outside of Gaza City's largest hospital complex on Sunday. Israel swiftly claimed responsibility, saying without producing evidence that al-Sharif had led a Hamas cell. It was a claim the news organization and al-Sharif had denied. The toll of journalists in Gaza has been high Agence France-Presse, The Associated Press, BBC News and Reuters are among the organizations regularly reporting from Gaza. An Aug. 7 AP dispatch vividly described the hunger faced by many in Gaza: 'A single bowl of eggplant stewed in watery tomato juice must sustain Sally Muzhed's family of six for the day. She calls it moussaka, but it's a pale echo of the fragrant, lawyered, meat-and-vegetable dish that once filled Gaza's kitchens with its aroma.' Other recent AP reports carried images and text reporting from the aftermath of an Israeli strike on Gaza's only Catholic church, and a profile of an 18-year-old aspiring doctor now trying to survive sheltered in a tent. Journalists from The Washington Post and the Guardian recently accompanied a Jordanian relief mission and took images of Gaza from the air, despite some restrictions from Israel. The Guardian's Lorenzo Tondo wrote: 'Seen from the air, Gaza looks like the ruins of an ancient civilization, brought to light after centuries of darkness.' None of the organizations match the power and immediacy of Al Jazeera, however, in part because their correspondents have been in front of cameras. They've also paid the heaviest price: CPJ estimates that 11 journalists and media workers affiliated with AJ have been killed in the Gaza conflict, more than any other single organization. In a social media post written in June to be sent if he was killed, al-Sharif wrote that 'I have lived through pain in all its details, tasted suffering and loss many times, yet I never once hesitated to convey the truth as it is, without distortion or falsification — so that Allah may bear witness against those who stayed silent.' In another posting on X on Aug. 10, the day that he was killed, al-Sharif wrote of the challenges covering the aftermath of one attack. He said he lost his strength and ability to express himself when he arrived at the scene. 'Body parts and blood were all around us, and corpses were scattered on top of each other,' he wrote. 'Tell me what words and phrases could help any journalist describe this horrific image. When I told you on air that it was an 'indescribable scene,' I was truly helpless in the face of this horrific sight.' Al Jazeera calls for other news organizations to come forward Salah Negm, news director at Al Jazeera English, said Monday it is very difficult to get people in to Gaza. But it is full of educated people and those with training in journalism who can help get stories out. He called on other news organizations to step up. 'We get the news from several sources on the ground in Gaza — not only journalists but also doctors, hospitals, civil servants, aid workers,' Negm said. 'A lot of people in Gaza talk to us.' Many of the journalists working in Gaza are facing the same struggles to find food, for themselves and their families, as the people they are covering. Noosphere's Ferguson said she's never before had to ask a reporter whether she had enough food for herself and her child. In an interview in May on 'Democracy Now!,' 22-year-old journalist Abubaker Abed described the difficult decision he made to leave Gaza to pursue his education in Ireland. Not only was he suffering from malnutrition, he said, but his mother was concerned that his work as a journalist would make him and his family targets. 'If I stayed, I would die,' he said. Jodie Ginsberg, CEO of the Committee to Protect Journalists, said she's concerned about the implications for journalists in future conflicts if what is happening in Gaza is allowed to continue without international condemnation that has real teeth. 'They're essentially admitting in public to what amounts to a war crime,' Ginsberg said, 'and they can do that because none of the other attacks on journalists have had any consequences. not in this war and not prior. It's not surprising that it can act with this level of impunity because no international government has really taken it to task.' Given all that they face, 'to me, the most remarkable thing is that journalists are continuing to cover (Gaza) at all,' she said.
The Mainichi
5 hours ago
- The Mainichi
US, China extend 90-day tariff truce as Trump keeps up pressure
WASHINGTON (Kyodo) -- U.S. President Donald Trump on Monday signed an executive order extending a tariff truce with China for 90 days until Nov. 10, the White House said, with the Chinese government also announcing the extension. Without Trump's move, an additional tariff rate of 24 percent on Chinese goods coming into the United States would have taken effect early Tuesday, raising trade tensions between the world's two largest economies. Coupled with a separate 20 percent tariff in place over the flow of fentanyl into the United States, the Trump administration has imposed 30 percent levies on imports from China since he became president for a second time. After high-level trade talks in Stockholm in late July, officials had said the United States and China planned to extend the pause. In the executive order, Trump said China "continues to take significant steps toward remedying non-reciprocal trade arrangements and addressing the concerns of the United States relating to economic and national security matters." "Based on this additional information and recommendations from various senior officials, among other things, I have determined that it is necessary and appropriate to continue the suspension," he said. The two countries also released a joint statement on the Stockholm meeting that showed both sides had agreed to refrain from applying a 24 percent tariff rate on imports from each other for an additional 90 days from Tuesday. The document also said Beijing will adopt or maintain all necessary measures to suspend or remove the nontariff countermeasures taken against the United States. Those steps include China's export controls on critical rare-earth minerals used in high-tech products. Earlier Monday, when asked about extending the truce struck in May, Trump told reporters, "We'll see what happens," adding he and Chinese President Xi Jinping have a "very good" relationship. In mid-May, the United States and China backed away from their respective triple-digit tariff rates imposed during a trade war launched by Trump, months after he took office for a nonconsecutive second term in January. Since then, the truce in a tit-for-tat tariff war that both countries agreed to in Geneva during their first round of trade talks has been in place. Currently, the Trump administration is enforcing a 10 percent tariff as part of a planned 34 percent levy on all Chinese imports. The 10 percent rate was introduced in early April under the "reciprocal" U.S. tariff scheme, with the remainder to be negotiated during the pause. Separately, Trump has imposed 20 percent extra duties on Chinese goods, accusing Beijing of its failure to curb shipments to North America of precursors used to make fentanyl, the leading cause of overdose deaths in the United States. China has also retained a 10 percent tariff as part of a 34 percent retaliatory duty on all U.S. goods, with the remaining 24 percent likewise subject to negotiation. While signaling a conciliatory stance toward Xi, Trump suggested last week that the United States could impose a new tariff on China for continuing to purchase Russian oil, after ordering such a levy on India. Washington has repeatedly expressed its concern over Beijing's purchase of Russian oil and shipments of dual-use items to Russia, saying they support Moscow in its war against Ukraine. In a social media post Sunday, the president also demanded that China increase soybean imports from the United States fourfold, continuing to put pressure on the Asian powerhouse. Bilateral high-level trade talks that have taken place in Europe since May involved U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Trade Representative Jamieson Greer as well as Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng, who oversees economic matters.
Yomiuri Shimbun
8 hours ago
- Yomiuri Shimbun
Inside Science Labs Trying to Survive in the Trump Era
WORCESTER, Mass. – Anastasia Khvorova is perched at the edge of a massive scientific opportunity. Her laboratory at the University of Massachusetts Chan Medical School deploys cutting-edge RNA biology with one aim: to solve diseases – the ones that rob people of their memories or endanger pregnant women. Lately, she sees peril all around her. In the hallway, she bumps into one world-class chemist, then another, whose salaries are supported by federal funding the Trump administration has proposed to drastically slash. Many are immigrants like herself, who can no longer be sure America is the best country in the world to do science – or that they are welcome. Khvorova built her career by thinking boldly, but if slowdowns and cuts to federal science funding continue, she'll be forced to winnow her ambitions. 'What is happening right now is absolutely suicidal,' said Khvorova, speaking softly in Russian-accented English. 'I will stop making drugs. I will reduce my lab from 30 people to five. I will stop training scientists.' With stunning speed, the Trump administration has over the past six months cut research dollars, terminated grants and hit the brakes on federal funding, destabilizing an 80-year-old partnership between the government and universities that has made the United States a scientific superpower. The policy twists may sound arcane, but to researchers, everything is at stake. Day-to-day, Khvorova's lab is bright and buzzing. Scientists are trying to develop cures for Huntington's disease or halt the muscle loss that comes with aging. Longer term? 'I have no clue,' Khvorova said. The Trump administration portrays its changes as a targeted correction. Officials say grants are being terminated because they touch on topics with which the administration disagrees, such as increasing diversity in science. Funding to specific universities has been frozen because they haven't protected Jewish students, according to the administration. Fundamental research, Trump officials vow, will thrive. 'The money that goes to basic and blue-sky science must be used for that purpose, not to feed the red tape that so often goes along with funded research,' Michael Kratsios, director of the White House Office of Science Technology and Policy, said in a speech at the National Academy of Sciences in May. In contrast, a recent report from the American Association for the Advancement of Science found that President Donald Trump's budget request for 2026 – including a 40 percent cut to the National Institutes of Health – would cut the nation's basic research portfolio by about a third. A new report from the Congressional Budget Office found that a 10 percent cut to the NIH budget would result in two fewer drugs invented per year, a gradual decline that would go into full effect in 30 years. The Trump administration's science agenda is getting pushback in courts, in Congress and at the state level, but the impacts are being felt in research institutions across the country. As of Aug. 1, the Chan Medical School had a $37 million shortfall in funding due to long delays at the National Institutes of Health. Khvorova is no stranger to doing science under challenging conditions. She trained at Moscow State University in the waning days of the Soviet Union, when there was sometimes no hot water, no reagents for experiments, no salaries. But even that has not prepared her for the abrupt policy swings that threaten the unique American research system. 'We are working on developing cures, which are not politically oriented,' Khvorova said. 'Democrats age, and Republicans age.' Disruptions will ripple over decades, since no one can predict what science breakthroughs in the lab will turn into world-changing innovations. Khvorova's work built off years of federally funded research into soil-dwelling microscopic roundworms that revealed short strands of RNA perform like symphony conductors, controlling the activity of genes and turning their volume down. Worcester, a gritty former mill city in Central Massachusetts, is home to two Nobel laureates and an RNA Therapeutics Institute that has spawned 12 start-ups. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, a company based on the phenomenon originally discovered in roundworms in labs at Chan Medical School and the Carnegie Institution of Washington, has discovered six drugs now approved for diseases that include rare genetic conditions and high cholesterol. The company's market capitalization has soared to more than $50 billion, and it has 2,200 employees. Basic research 'is almost like the starter when you bake sourdough bread. You can't make the bread without it,' said John Maraganore, who led Alnylam for nearly two decades before he stepped down in 2021. 'Girls just wanna have (NIH) funding' In the labyrinthine, slightly cluttered labs at Chan Medical School, scientists tend to high-end instruments with geeky names like 'Dr. Oligo,' using them to synthesize strands of RNA aimed at treating fatal forms of dementia or diseases that cause muscles to waste away. Under sterile hoods, they grow millions of mouse liver cells for experiments. In a small room called the 'wormhole,' decorated with colorful worms hanging from the door jamb like icicles, Victor Ambros, a Nobel Prize-winning worm biologist, zooms in on mutant roundworms wriggling across a yellowish agar gel. Unlike Harvard University, which has had billions of dollars in funding choked off by the Trump administration, Chan hasn't been targeted. But it is not untouched. Like hundreds of other institutions across America, it has been thrown off stride day-to-day and week-to-week by the Trump administration's unprecedented efforts to downsize and reshape the agencies that support science. Uncertainty looms over nearly every experiment and conversation. Slogans, not scientific sketches, are scrawled on the frosted glass wall of one office: 'We want scientific data, not alternative facts!' 'Girls just wanna have (NIH) funding' 'Science Not Silence!' More than a dozen NIH grants, out of several hundred, have been terminated, though they are tangled up in lawsuits challenging the Trump administration's actions. About 200 employees have been laid off or furloughed, about 3 percent of the medical school's 6,500 employees. A hiring freeze has been in place since March. Graduate school offers to nearly 90 young biomedical scientists were rescinded, though 13 spots were salvaged for next year's class. 'We have this feeling of extreme uncertainty, in a context where, previously, we could depend upon a robust system, a merit-based system that was predictable for the right reasons – the best science will get funded,' said Ambros, who shared the Nobel in medicine last year. Jesse Lehman, a graduate student who focuses on understanding the speed and dynamics of immune defenses against pathogens, became hooked on science when he first felt the rush of discovering things no one else knew. There are no guarantees in this career – the contest for federal funding is exceptionally competitive. But what has fueled the system is its reliability. The federal government funds the best research, year after year, and scientists chase grants without worrying that the funder may lose interest in neuroscience or immunology and decide instead to buy a sports team. But now, federal funding may be there one moment and gone the next. 'I have this fear that the career that I've worked 10 years on developing just may not be viable,' Lehman said. – The 20-year path to success In textbooks, science is a steady march of progress. In the lab, it's an iterative process – filled with detours and dead ends that sometimes turn out to be surprises that push the field forward. In 2006, Chan biologist Craig Mello shared the Nobel Prize with Stanford University biologist Andrew Fire for the discovery of a phenomenon called RNA interference: Short double strands of RNA could silence genes. It is a profound biological mechanism shared not just by tiny worms, but by humans. Other scientists built on the work, capturing the interest of venture capitalists and pharma companies. Many human diseases are caused by errant genes. What if, instead of treating patients' symptoms, doctors could give their patients drugs that just shut off the problematic ones? More than a billion dollars flowed into start-ups, but biology turned out to be a bit more complicated. Investor ebullience evaporated. Alnylam, an RNAi company, began trading below the amount of cash it had on hand, meaning investors thought its stock was less valuable than the money it had in the bank. Years of science – including a lot of chemistry – eventually turned a profound biological mechanism into a new class of safe effective drugs. 'Sickness doesn't have political boundaries,' said Phillip Zamore, a co-founder of Alnylam and a professor of biomedical sciences. 'Everyone deserves a better treatment for their disease, and I just want to make that possible. And I can't do that if my lab, my university, my colleagues' ability to do science is destroyed.' In the past few years, several biotech companies have spun out of Chan, including Comanche Biopharma, which is focused on a treatment for preeclampsia – a complication of pregnancy – and Atalanta Therapeutics, which is searching for cures for neurodegenerative diseases. Khvorova, a co-founder of both companies, came to the United States with very little money in the mid-1990s, intending to check a box on her résumé and stay a year or two. Instead, she became a 'typical example of the American Dream,' as she puts it. She's an inventor named on nearly 250 patents. She just scooped up one of the most prestigious prizes in biomedical research, with a $2.7 million award. She should be on top of the world. But as she walked to her lab on a recent Tuesday, she gestured sadly at a collection of empty champagne bottles sitting high up above the cabinets in the lounge outside. Each bottle, she noted, is a trained graduate student – a reminder that most of next year's class was turned away.
