Trump claims American campus 'agitators' will be permanently expelled for 'illegal' protests
Trump made the claim in a post on his Truth Social platform, adding that any education institution that "allows illegal protests" on its campus will no longer receive federal funding.
"All Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests," Trump wrote. "Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on on the crime, arrested. NO MASKS! Thank you for your attention to this matter."
Trump did not detail any specifics about how the federal government could expel or force universities to expel students.
The post comes as anti-Israel protests have popped up throughout the U.S. and on its university campuses amid Israel's war in Gaza following the Oct. 7, 2023, Hamas-led terrorist attacks, which killed around 1,200 people.
Multiple students at Barnard College in New York City have faced disciplinary action in recent days for breaking into Hamilton Hall on Columbia University's campus last year.
Barnard, which is part of Columbia University's education system and is located next to Columbia's main campus, expelled one student and suspended the other, according to the Columbia University Apartheid Divest group.
Barnard also recently expelled two other students for disrupting a class on the History of Modern Israel. The duo were wearing headscarves to hide their faces when students say they ran into the classroom and threw antisemitic pamphlets around the room.
The school says they cannot comment on the disciplinary action but a statement from the school's president reads in part, "…at Barnard we always do what is right, not what is easy."
Jewish students at Barnard have called out the school for lacking urgency in its response to the incidents.
"The university condemned the incident," Barnard freshman Shoshana Aufzien said Friday on "America's Newsroom." "I thought their words were a little lackluster. I'm not looking for lip service. I want action."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Peace cannot be ‘imposed upon' Ukraine, Starmer says
Sir Keir Starmer has said peace 'must be built with Ukraine, not imposed upon it', amid concerns Kyiv will be excluded from talks between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. The US president and his Russian counterpart are set to meet in Alaska this week to discuss the future of the Kremlin's invasion. In a phone call on Monday with Mark Carney, the Prime Minister and Canada's leader agreed Ukraine's future 'must be one of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination'. It comes after Mr Trump signalled he thinks Ukraine might need to cede territory in order to end the conflict. A Downing Street spokesperson said: 'The Prime Minister spoke to the prime minister of Canada Mark Carney this afternoon. 'They discussed their unwavering support for Ukraine and ongoing work to stop the killing, and end Russia's war of aggression. 'Both leaders underscored that Ukraine's future must be one of freedom, sovereignty and self-determination. 'They welcomed continued international efforts, led by President Trump, to bring peace and agreed that this must be built with Ukraine, not imposed upon it. 'Both leaders agreed they would continue to work closely with President Trump and President Zelensky over the coming days. They agreed to stay in touch.' Earlier on Monday, No 10 had backed Mr Trump's interventions over the war but warned that Mr Putin cannot be trusted 'as far as you can throw him'. Asked whether Sir Keir believes the Russian president could be trusted in negotiations, the Prime Minister's official spokesman said the UK supported both Kyiv and the US president's push for peace, but not Moscow. 'Never trust President Putin as far as you could throw him, but we obviously will support Ukraine,' he said. 'We will obviously support President Trump and European nations as we enter these negotiations. 'But it is exactly why we've been leading this work on the coalition of the willing, because any ceasefire, as I say, cannot just be an opportunity for President Putin to go away, re-arm, restrengthen, and then go again. 'So we're not going to leave it to trust. We're going to ensure that we're prepared such that we achieve a ceasefire.' Planning for the so-called coalition of the willing, which would involve a European-led peacekeeping force sent to Ukraine to monitor any future truce, began in March. Downing Street said 'operational planning continues at a military level' despite no talks between leaders planned for this week, but indicated that there was little left to finalise. Asked whether work relating to the coalition had been put on hold to keep the road clear for Washington-led mediation this week, the Prime Minister's spokesman said: 'No… if anything, the next step really is reaching that ceasefire, such that we're then able to implement the security guarantees.' European leaders including Sir Keir said the path to peace for Kyiv 'cannot be decided without Ukraine' and the current line of contact between Russia and Ukraine could only be a 'starting point of negotiations'. In a joint statement, the leaders of Britain, France, Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland and the European Commission said: 'Ukraine has the freedom of choice over its own destiny. 'Meaningful negotiations can only take place in the context of a ceasefire or reduction of hostilities. 'The path to peace in Ukraine cannot be decided without Ukraine. 'We remain committed to the principle that international borders must not be changed by force.' The statement comes a day after Mr Trump announced that he would meet Mr Putin in Alaska on Friday, as he seeks an end to a conflict he had promised he could finish on his first day in office. The US president had earlier suggested that any peace deal was likely to involve 'some swapping of territories', with reports suggesting this could involve Ukraine giving up its Donetsk region. But President Volodymyr Zelensky has already rejected any proposal that would compromise Ukraine's territorial integrity, something that is forbidden by Ukraine's constitution. He said Mr Putin wanted to 'exchange a pause in the war, in the killing, for the legalisation of the occupation of our land – he wants to get territorial spoils for the second time'. Mr Zelensky added: 'We will not allow this second attempt to partition Ukraine. 'Knowing Russia, where there is a second, there will be a third.'
Yahoo
15 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The state-sponsored killing of journalists is another way to limit freedom of speech
The life of journalist Anas al-Sharif is worth no more and no less than any other life lost during the war in Gaza, or in the terrorist atrocities, perpetrated by Hamas, that preceded it. But his targeted killing – alongside that of the four other Al Jazeera staff members who died with him – does raise further significant questions about the way in which Israel has conducted the war. That an accredited journalist who worked for Al Jazeera (and previously for Reuters) was specifically targeted by the Israel Defense Forces is a development that can only be looked upon with a degree of horror. His death was not the kind of inevitable collateral damage that can take place in any war; for want of a better word, Sharif was the subject of a state-sponsored assassination. The Israeli authorities say he was a terrorist, belonged to Hamas, and served as the leader of a cell. They've produced some documentary evidence, but this has not impressed the independent observers who've examined it, and it raises the question of why, if it was so compelling, it was not released sooner. It certainly does not give any lawful reason for his killing, still less that of his Al Jazeera colleagues – correspondent Mohammed Qreiqeh, cameramen Moamen Aliwa and Ibrahim Zaher, and their assistant Mohammed Noufal – none of whom has been claimed by the Israelis to have had any links to Hamas. Truth, as the old cliche goes, is the first casualty of war, and the fact is that Israel – unusually – has banned international journalists from covering the conflict. The Israeli authorities say it is not safe to do so, a grim irony given Sharif's fate. That, though, is not a matter for them to judge: it is one that should be left to the many news organisations, including The Independent, that have proudly dispatched brave journalists into even more hazardous environments over the course of many decades. Moreover, the Israeli policy has meant that the actions of the Israel Defense Forces cannot be independently monitored and reported on in the traditional manner. The images captured during recent aid flights and first reported by The Independent, of a moonscape where once were bustling neighbourhoods and olive groves, have, alongside the reportage of Sharif and his colleagues, given the world some idea of the disproportionate way in which Israel has acted. The result is that Israel stands accused of war crimes by the International Criminal Court, and the term 'genocide' is increasingly being used in connection with the denial of food and medicines to the people of Gaza. Absent the full measure of international scrutiny, journalists from Gaza itself have had to take on the responsibility of providing this essential function. They have willingly placed themselves in the line of fire to tell the world about the destruction of the Gaza Strip, and its human cost; to assess the extent of terrorist activity; and to draw attention to the plight of the hostages still cruelly held by Hamas. Wearing 'PRESS' flak jackets and helmets, they should have received the normal protections afforded to all journalists, and they might well have if they'd been, say, American or Saudi. The vast majority of the 232 or so journalists who have died in the war in Gaza have been Palestinian – a statistic that almost speaks for itself. According to the Watson Institute for International and Public Affairs' Costs of War project, more journalists have been killed in Gaza than in both world wars, the Vietnam war, the wars in Yugoslavia, and the United States' war in Afghanistan combined. As the exiled Palestinian writer Ahmed Najad has written in this newspaper, the death of Sharif is an attack on truth itself – and such attacks on freedom of speech and thought are sadly not confined to war zones. The arrest of hundreds of passive, peaceful protesters in London over the weekend shows how the effects of the war in Gaza, and the bitter arguments surrounding it, have spread across the world – or at least, to those parts where dissent is still possible and the press remains relatively uncontrolled by the state. It may well be the case, as ministers darkly hint, that Palestine Action is intent on carrying out activities that its supporters do not know about, but that still does not justify detaining elderly people whose only crime is to hold up a piece of cardboard with a message on it and exercise their right to free expression. A nation that seeks the support of its allies the world over will not succeed in drawing others to its cause by denying international reporters – and indeed, other countries' governments, and citizens – access to the truth. If Israel feels its actions are justified, then it must allow proper scrutiny of them, including coverage of the war it seems intent on perpetrating. The killing of journalists will never elicit anything other than shock from the international community. Benjamin Netanyahu would do well to remember this.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Budget office says GOP's ‘big beautiful bill' will make rich richer, poor poorer
The Republicans' 'big, beautiful bill' will make the poorest Americans even poorer, while padding the wallets of the highest earners the most, according to a new analysis released Monday by Congress's budget arm. The assessment, conducted by the Congressional Budget Office at the request of top Democrats, found that the top 10 percent of earners in the country will see an average boost of $13,600 per year over the next decade as a direct result of provisions in the law, while the bottom 10 percent will see an average annual decrease of $1,200. The report challenges the arguments made by President Trump and other Republicans that the massive domestic policy package would benefit workers at all levels of wealth and income. And it's given fuel to the attacks from Democrats that the legislation was, all along, designed to help the wealthiest people at the expense of the working poor. 'They just confirmed Trump is enriching his billionaire friends at the expense of American families,' Rep. Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.), the senior Democrat on the House Budget Committee, posted Monday on X after the CBO report was released. 'It is the largest transfer of wealth from working Americans to the ultra-rich in history.' Enacted last month, the 'big, beautiful bill' was a compilation of virtually all of the major domestic policy items Trump had promised on his way to a presidential victory in November. It features an extension of the sweeping tax cuts Republicans had adopted in 2017, during Trump's first term, which were slated to expire at the end of the year, and provides a big boost in spending for border security, the military and domestic energy production. A portion of those new federal costs were offset by steep cuts in federal programs, including Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), previously known as food stamps, which benefit lower-income people. The law also puts new limits on ObamaCare subsidies and adopts new caps on federal student loans, which also affect lower-income people disproportionately. The CBO's analysis aims to gauge the cumulative effect of the various components of the law, as applied to households at differing income levels. Most workers will benefit from the law to some degree, largely due to the extension of the 2017 tax cuts, CBO found. High earners benefit the most — $13,600 for the top 10 percent, $3,200 for the next 10 percent below them — because they make the most money and tend not to receive benefits from the federal programs set to be cut. The 20 percent of workers in the middle of the income spectrum will also see a bump: between $800 and $1,200 per year over the next decade, CBO estimated. The lowest earners, however, will see a reduction in overall resources under the new law, largely because the cuts in federal programs like Medicaid and SNAP will eclipse any benefits, including the tax cuts, elsewhere in the bill. That negative trend is expected to hit those in the bottom 20 percent of earners, CBO said, resulting in a $1,200 reduction for the lowest 10 percent of incomes, and a $400 reduction for the 10 percent directly above them. Republicans have dismissed the CBO's projections in the past, arguing that they fail to take into account the broad economic boost provided by the tax cuts — a 'dynamic' benefit the Republicans say benefits people of all income levels.
