logo
What to Know About Trump Officials' Latest Move Against Columbia

What to Know About Trump Officials' Latest Move Against Columbia

New York Times23-05-2025

In the latest act in its monthslong targeting of Columbia University, the Trump administration has formally accused the Ivy League institution of violating federal civil rights law by failing to protect Jewish students.
The move, announced late Thursday, came as the White House intensified its crackdown on colleges that refuse to follow its agenda. Hours before releasing its accusations against Columbia, the administration told Harvard that its ability to enroll international students was being suspended, a remarkable step that a federal judge blocked swiftly on Friday.
In the case of Columbia, where pro-Palestinian demonstrations against the war in Gaza ignited a national protest movement last year, the administration accused the university of breaching Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits the recipients of federal funds from engaging in discriminatory behavior.
The potential fallout remained unclear on Friday.
The administration, which previously suspended more than $400 million in research funding to Columbia, did not announce new penalties on Thursday. Earlier this month, administration officials praised the university's acting president, Claire Shipman, for quelling a demonstration at the main library on the Morningside Heights campus in Manhattan.
Here's what we know:
Columbia has already been accused of failings. How is this different?
The move on Thursday appeared to reflect the administration's unusual approach to slashing federal funding to colleges.
Historically, such cancellations would follow a lengthy review process. But, legal experts said, the Trump administration has not always adhered to standard procedure, taking swift action against universities' finances and sometimes notifying news outlets before campus leaders.
The administration has not reached an agreement with Columbia about whether the funds will be restored and discussions are continuing. But the federal government would typically need to release the findings of an investigation before arriving at a resolution with a university, according to a person with knowledge of the discussions who spoke on the condition of anonymity.
The announcement on Thursday was considered a step by the administration to formalize its previous accusations against Columbia, rather than a signal of a new, heightened stage of the campaign against the university.
The administration had already accused Columbia of 'ongoing inaction in the face of relentless harassment of Jewish students' when it slashed the federal grants and contracts in March.
And when Columbia was ordered to drastically alter its admissions and disciplinary rules, the administration wrote that the university had failed to protect its campus from 'antisemitic violence and harassment in addition to other alleged violations of Title VI and Title VII.' (Title VII prevents private employers from discriminating based on race, religion or sex.)
In response, Columbia announced changes to campus protest and security policies and new oversight of its Middle Eastern studies department.
Are Columbia and President Trump on rocky terms?
For more than a year, Republicans have clashed with Columbia's leadership over its response to antisemitic episodes on campus. Two university presidents have resigned abruptly, including Katrina Armstrong, who was replaced in March shortly after an appearance at a faculty meeting, where she seemed to downplay the effects of changes that the university had said it would make.
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has largely shifted its attention to Harvard.
Harvard's president, Alan Garber, has more fought back more forcefully against Mr. Trump and his administration, and federal officials have cut more than $2.6 billion in federal grants and contracts to the university.
At Columbia, students mounted several large demonstrations toward the end of the spring semester and booed Ms. Shipman during the main commencement ceremony this week. Still, the Trump administration has not complained recently about Columbia's handling of campus protests or antisemitic episodes.
A Columbia spokesman said on Friday that 'we understand this finding is part of our ongoing discussions with the government,' adding that the university was 'deeply committed to combating antisemitism and all forms of harassment and discrimination on our campus.'
Anthony Archeval, the acting director of the Office for Civil Rights at H.H.S., said in a statement that Columbia 'cannot continue to act with deliberate indifference to the hostile environment created by its own students and faculty.' He added that the administration would continue to push for a 'meaningful and enforceable' plan to root out campus discrimination.
Does Title VI apply to religious discrimination?
Title VI prohibits discrimination based on race, color or national origin.
In 2004, Kenneth L. Marcus, the interim leader of the Education Department's Office for Civil Rights at the time, expanded federal enforcement of Title VI to include ancestry, meaning students who are harassed because of their 'membership in groups that exhibit both ethnic and religious characteristics' such as Arab Muslims or Sikhs.
The Obama administration later endorsed and clarified that interpretation of Title VI. And the Trump administration said on Thursday that Columbia's violations centered on failures to safeguard students 'based on their actual or perceived Israeli or Jewish identity or ancestry.'
The administration said it had released the finding on Thursday after interviews with witnesses, an examination of news reports about antisemitic episodes on campus and a review of Columbia's policies and reports by a university task force on antisemitism.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat
CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat

Fox News

time35 minutes ago

  • Fox News

CHUCK DEVORE: Trump moves fast to save LA from a 1992 repeat

Los Angeles is rioting again. Mobs, amped up by professional agitators and implicit support from Democratic elected officials, have attacked federal law enforcement officers with deadly intent. This violence, which includes hurling rocks, torching cars, launching fireworks, and assaulting federal law enforcement officers, aims to prevent U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement's (ICE) from carrying out lawful deportation efforts. Missing the irony, the rioters enthusiastically waved the flags of nations to which they are fighting against being returned. In response, federal and some local law enforcement deployed tear gas and flash bangs to disperse the crowd in the LA suburb of Paramount. But with law enforcement lives clearly threatened and the local law enforcement response less than robust, President Donald Trump ordered up 2,000 members of the National Guard to restore order. Additional active duty troops are said to be on standby. Predictably, California Gov. Gavin Newsom and LA Mayor Karen Bass clutch their pearls, whining about "cruel" immigration enforcement while the city spirals into anarchy. Newsom labeled Trump's federalization of the National Guard "purposefully inflammatory." He said it would escalate tensions—one supposes the future presidential candidate sees the ruckus as "mostly peaceful." The pro-immigration without limits group, the League of United Latin American Citizens, predictably condemned Trump's order, claiming it "marks a deeply troubling escalation in the administration's approach to immigration and civilian reaction to the use of military-style tactics." Trump isn't moved by the criticism. He doesn't want to see federal law enforcement officers killed or injured by anarchists and would-be revolutionaries for simply doing their jobs. I saw this movie before. In 1992, as a California Army National Guard captain, I patrolled LA's scorched Crenshaw District during the Rodney King riots. Looters ran wild, businesses burned, and chaos reigned until Gov. Pete Wilson called up the National Guard and President George H.W. Bush invoked the Insurrection Act, sending 3,500 federal troops—active duty Army and Marines—to back 10,000 federalized Guardsmen. Order swiftly returned. It worked. There's a big difference—so far—between today's unrest and that of 1992. The Rodney King riot was initially sparked by resentment over what was seen as excessive police force. Due to LA's chronically under-staffed police department and a tactical error—pulling back law enforcement from an intersection that had been taken over by a violent mob—the riot quickly spiraled out of control. By the end, some 63 people were dead, 2,383 injured, 12,111 arrested, and more than $2.3 billion in inflation-adjusted property damage was inflicted. In comparison, the 1992 LA riot equaled all the death, injuries, arrests, and damage of the 2020 George Floyd-Antifa-BLM riots of 2020 combined. In 1992, once law and order broke down, opportunistic looting and arson quickly followed. Today's riots are fueled by open-borders radicals and their enablers, not anger over police using excessive force. ICE is enforcing federal law, rounding up illegal immigrant criminals and those with final deportation orders. And the danger, so far, is more focused on federal law enforcement officers, not private property per se. Thus, there's a subtle difference in the call-up of troops, both in the size of the deployment—13,500 in 1992 vs. 2,000 today—and in their purpose. Normally, National Guard personnel, when operating on a state mission for a governor, can enforce civilian law. The post-Civil War Posse Comitatus Act which generally prohibits the use of the military to enforce civilian laws doesn't apply. But when the Guard is federalized—that is, called up to federal service—the Posse Comitatus Act's restrictions apply to the Guard, just as they do to active-duty service members. But there's a big exception: The Insurrection Act. Through 1992, presidents have invoked the Insurrection Act 31 times. Essentially, when local law and order break down, the president is authorized to use the military to enforce civilian law. But Trump has not yet invoked the Insurrection Act. What he did instead was to call up the California National Guard and potentially some Marines to protect federal law enforcement officers. Thus, these military personnel will not be allowed to arrest agitators and rioters or conduct immigration enforcement operations, but they will be allowed to perform force protection missions and provide logistical support. Of course, if that's not enough. Trump can always invoke the Insurrection Act, federalize more National Guard soldiers—even from other states—and send in additional active-duty forces, just as Eisenhower and Kennedy did to smash segregationist resistance in the 1950s and 60s. Newsom and Bass are at fault here. Their failure is glaring. Californians have been voting with their feet for years, fleeing Newsom's wrong-headed policies. Now, his mismanagement of LA's violence will torch what is left of his presidential ambitions. These rioters aren't protesters—they're insurgents. Like Antifa in 2020, they're attacking federal authority, targeting ICE agents enforcing laws Congress passed. Newsom and Bass coddle them. Since they won't act, Trump must. The left will scream "tyranny," and some retired generals will fret about "politicizing" the military. But anarchy is a brutal tyranny of its own kind.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store