Chris Hayes: Trump's attacks on Harvard are part of the administration's wider war on knowledge
This is an adapted excerpt from the May 27 episode of 'All In with Chris Hayes.'
The Trump administration is trying to put Harvard University, the nation's oldest college, out of business. On Tuesday, NBC News reported that the White House intends to order all government agencies to cut ties with the school, canceling federal contracts totaling an estimated $100 million.
That is in addition to the billions of dollars in research funding that the administration has already frozen at the university. Last week, the White House also halted Harvard's ability to enroll international students, which The New York Times reports could affect more than a quarter of the student body. (A federal judge has since temporarily paused Trump's order.)
People desperately want to come to the U.S. to study because we offer the gold standard in terms of higher education. It's one area of genuine American exceptionalism. International students are a huge boon to American universities. According to NAFSA: Association of International Educators, during the 2023–2024 academic year, 1.1 million international students at American colleges and universities contributed more than $43 billion to the U.S. economy.
For all the complaints about our trade deficit with other countries, one place where we have an enormous trade surplus with the rest of the world is in higher education. But no one in this administration actually cares about that. This is all just punishment for Harvard after it rejected the White House's demands, including an order to install a third party to audit 'programs and departments that most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.'
To be clear, antisemitism is a real and pernicious problem in America, but by now, it is painfully obvious that it is just a convenient rhetorical weapon for Donald Trump and his allies to use to gain full control of universities. They want to rewrite the school's curriculum in a way that is favorable and deferential to Trump and his worldview, and the president wants the most powerful and legendary institution in higher education to bend the knee to his whims.
It can be difficult to root for an elite institution like Harvard with a $53 billion endowment, but this attack on the university isn't happening in a vacuum. It is the latest escalation in the administration's battle to destroy all independent sources of knowledge and fact-finding in our free and open society.
As the writer Adam Serwer put it in his latest piece for The Atlantic, 'By destroying knowledge, Trumpists seek to make the country more amenable to their political domination, and to prevent meaningful democratic checks on their behavior. Their victory, though, would do much more than that.'
'It would annihilate some of the most effective systems for aggregating, accumulating, and applying human knowledge that have ever existed,' Serwer wrote. 'Without those systems, America could find itself plunged into a new Dark Age.'
To that end, we are seeing the administration run this playbook toward any independent source of authority. For example, the White House threatened to pull $400 million in federal grants for Columbia University. The university caved to the pressure, but last week the administration announced new trumped-up charges of civil rights violations against the school stemming from campus protests against Israel's war in Gaza.
In a new piece for the New Yorker, Jelani Cobb, the dean of the Columbia Journalism School, quotes one expert who taught at both Columbia and Harvard as saying, 'I've studied McCarthyism's impact on higher education for fifty years … What's happening now is worse.'
Cobb adds, 'The biggest mistake that some universities have made in responding to the White House has been to presume that it is operating in good faith. It is not.'
But it is not just attacks on higher education. Everywhere you look, this administration is targeting independent sources of authority that could challenge Trump.
In addition to eviscerating the U.S.' best-in-the-world biomedical research, the administration is also undermining existing knowledge about public health. On Tuesday, without citing any new evidence or studies, Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. overrode typical procedure and announced that the government would no longer recommend annual Covid boosters for pregnant women and healthy children.
In a podcast released on Tuesday, Kennedy also threatened to block government scientists from publishing their research in top medical journals, such as The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine.
In addition to the moves against public health and schools, we are also seeing an escalation of Trump's attacks on news media, probably best exemplified by the president's $20 billion lawsuit against CBS News over an interview '60 Minutes' held with then-presidential candidate Kamala Harris.
First Amendment experts have called the lawsuit meritless, but Paramount, which owns CBS, is already appearing to prepare to settle. Earlier this month, the president and CEO of CBS News, Wendy McMahon, resigned, telling staff in a memo that 'it's become clear the company and I do not agree on the path forward.' The executive producer of '60 Minutes,' Bill Owens, also resigned, citing a loss of independence at the network.
During a recent commencement address at Wake Forest University in North Carolina, journalist Scott Pelley, who has been at '60 Minutes' for more than two decades, delivered a warning to graduating students:
Why attack universities? Why attack journalism? Because ignorance works for power. First, make the truth-seekers live in fear. Sue the journalists and their companies for nothing. Then send masked agents to abduct a college student who wrote an editorial in her college paper defending Palestinian rights, and send her to a prison in Louisiana, charged with nothing. Then, move to destroy law firms that stand up for the rights of others. With that done, power can rewrite history.
Not every outlet is capitulating to Trump. On Tuesday, National Public Radio announced it is suing Trump over his attempts to gut funding for the independent outlet through an executive order.
We are seeing this type of resistance everywhere. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who was initially elevated to that job by Trump, is fighting the president's pressure campaign to remove him from his position. In a commencement speech at Princeton University on Sunday, Powell called on the next generation to preserve our democratic institutions.
The most important thing for everyone to understand about the ongoing existential battle to preserve our American birthright of a free and open society is that all these institutions — and the vast sources of independent knowledge contained within them — are more powerful than one petty, addled man.
That's the real silver lining here: Trump's attacks are so reckless and transparent that they've left our independent institutions with no choice but to fight back.
This article was originally published on MSNBC.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles

Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Federal officials identify two 'sanctuary cities' in NH
A federal Department of Homeland Security report identified the city of Lebanon and adjacent town of Hanover as the only communities in New Hampshire it identifies as being 'sanctuary' communities for immigrants in the country illegally. The report comes less than two weeks after Gov. Kelly Ayotte signed two bills (SB 62 and HB 511) to outlaw sanctuary city policies in the state and to block local officials from preventing police departments or county jail administrations from reaching cooperative agreements with federal immigration authorities. DHS officials said its report complies with President Donald Trump's executive order titled, 'Protecting American Communities from Criminal Aliens.' The report listed the 35 states and the District of Columbia where at least one community had an ordinance blocking or altering cooperation with federal officials about suspected, illegal immigrants. Maine and New Hampshire are the only states in New England not identified as sanctuary states. In Maine, the sanctuary status exists in two counties and the city of Portland, according to the report. A federal court order created the sanctuary treatment in Rhode Island while officials in Massachusetts, Connecticut and Vermont adopted their own language, DHS officials said. The Franconia Board of Selectmen earlier last month endorsed a sanctuary community ordinance. Ayotte said the bills she signed would nullify that town's actions. Legislative critics charged the legislation would worsen the relationship local law enforcement has with legal immigration advocates in their hometowns and was an unfunded mandate as it could impose unreimbursed costs on communities. The new laws the governor signed take effect Jan. 1 except for one anti-sanctuary city provision that would apply starting in late July. Legislative leaders sent out letters last Friday thanking the sheriffs in Rockingham and Hillsborough Counties for signing so-called Section 287G agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Two other counties, six towns and New Hampshire State Police have applied for their own agreements. klandrigan@
Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss
The Trump administration is fighting to pause a second court ruling that blocked President Donald Trump's sweeping and so-called reciprocal tariffs, the signature economic policy of his second term. The administration's new appeal, filed Monday in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, comes less than a week after a very similar court challenge played out in the U.S. Court of International Trade (CIT) in New York, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Washington. At issue in both cases is Trump's use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act to enact his sweeping "Liberation Day" tariff plan. The plan, which Trump announced on April 2, invokes IEEPA for both his 10% baseline tariff on most U.S. trading partners and a so-called "reciprocal tariff" against other countries. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify Trump's use of the emergency law to invoke widespread tariffs was struck down unanimously last week by the three-judge CIT panel, which said the statute does not give Trump "unbounded" power to implement tariffs. However, the decision was almost immediately stayed by the U.S. Court of Appeals, allowing Trump's tariffs to continue. But in a lesser-discussed ruling on the very same day, U.S. District Judge Rudolph Contreras, an Obama appointee, determined that Trump's tariffs were unlawful under IEEPA. Read On The Fox News App Since the case before him had more limited reach than the case heard by the CIT – plaintiffs in the suit focused on harm to two small businesses, versus harm from the broader tariff plan – it went almost unnoticed in news headlines. But that changed on Monday. Trump Denounces Court's 'Political' Tariff Decision, Calls On Supreme Court To Act Quickly Lawyers for the Justice Department asked the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit – a Washington-based but still separate court than the Federal Court of Appeals – to immediately stay the judge's ruling. They argued in their appeal that the judge's ruling against Trump's use of IEEPA undercuts his ability to use tariffs as a "credible threat" in trade talks, at a time when such negotiations "currently stand at a delicate juncture." "By holding the tariffs invalid, the district court's ruling usurps the President's authority and threatens to disrupt sensitive, ongoing negotiations with virtually every trading partner by undercutting the premise of those negotiations – that the tariffs are a credible threat," Trump lawyers said in the filing. Economists also seemed to share this view that the steep tariffs were more a negotiating tactic than an espousal of actual policy, which they noted in a series of interviews last week with Fox News Digital. Trump Tariff Plan Faces Uncertain Future As Court Battles Intensify The bottom line for the Trump administration "is that they need to get back to a place [where] they are using these huge reciprocal tariffs and all of that as a negotiating tactic," William Cline, an economist and senior fellow emeritus at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, said in an interview. Cline noted that this was the framework previously laid out by Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who had embraced the tariffs as more of an opening salvo for future trade talks, including between the U.S. and China. "I think the thing to keep in mind there is that Trump and Vance have this view that tariffs are beautiful because they will restore America's Rust Belt jobs and that they'll collect money while they're doing it, which will contribute to fiscal growth," said Cline, the former deputy managing director and chief economist of the Institute of International Finance. "Those are both fantasies." What comes next in the case remains to be seen. The White House said it will take its tariff fight to the Supreme Court if necessary. Counsel for the plaintiffs echoed that view in an interview with Fox News. But it's unclear if the Supreme Court would choose to take up the case, which comes at a time when Trump's relationship with the judiciary has come under increasing strain. In the 20 weeks since the start of his second White House term, lawyers for the Trump administration have filed 18 emergency appeals to the high court, indicating both the pace and breadth of the tense court article source: Tariff fight escalates as Trump appeals second court loss

Yahoo
34 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Romanian pleads guilty to 'swatting' US lawmakers and top officials
By Raphael Satter WASHINGTON (Reuters) -A Romanian man has pleaded guilty to participating in a years-long series of dangerous hoax phone calls and bomb threats targeting American legislators, law enforcement leaders, and government officials, the U.S. Justice Department said Monday. In a statement, the department said that Thomasz Szabo, 26, who was extradited to the United States last year, admitted targeting more than 75 officials, four religious institutions, and multiple journalists in his campaign of intimidation. Officials said Szabo targeted private residences, including the homes and families of senior government officials. Authorities say Szabo routinely phoned in bomb threats and reports of ongoing violence or hostage situations at his targets' homes or places of work, a technique called 'swatting' because it is meant to elicit the emergency deployment of heavily armed police officers. Emails seeking comment from Szabo's lawyers were not immediately returned. Justice officials described Szabo as the leader of a group that made a series of false reports to U.S. law enforcement, including a December 2020 threat to commit a mass-shooting at New York City synagogues and a January 2021 threat to detonate explosives at the U.S. Capitol and kill then-President-elect Joe Biden. The department said that, in a two-month period alone, members of Szabo's gang targeted at least 25 members of Congress or their family members, six then-current or former senior U.S. federal officials, "including multiple cabinet-level officials," at least 13 then-current or former senior federal law enforcement officials, including the heads of multiple federal law enforcement agencies. Others targeted included members of the federal judiciary, state government officials, and members of the media. It was during that time that one of Szabo's subordinates boasted of "creating massive havoc" in the United States, the department said.