logo
Trump's Education Secretary dramatically clashes with top Democrat over Harvard funding in stunning moment

Trump's Education Secretary dramatically clashes with top Democrat over Harvard funding in stunning moment

Daily Mail​3 days ago

Donald Trump 's Education Secretary had a fiery clash with a top Democrat over funding for Harvard.
Linda McMahon was on Capitol Hill Tuesday to testify before the U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on her department's budget for next year.
During an exchange with Connecticut Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), McMahon passionately defended the Trump administration's targeting of diversity programs at elite Ivy League institutions including Harvard and Columbia.
'How do you ask them to end diversity programs while instituting viewpoint diversity? This seems to be totally contradictory, ' Murphy pressed McMahon, kicking off the heated exchange.
'You know, the diversity programs that we've asked and demanded to be eliminated, were the DEI, where they were. Those programs actually were pitting one group against another,' McMahon responded.
'Is viewpoint diversity a diversity program?' Murphy asked.
'A viewpoint diversity is exchange of ideas. It's actually better, absolutely. We're now here because Harvard only has 3 percent by its own numbers, 3 percent conservative faculty. Do you think they are allowing enough of viewpoint diversity through that teaching?' McMahon argued.
Murphy said: 'Where in the statute, where in the statute, does it give you the ability to cut off federal funding for a university based upon your decision, your determination, that they don't have viewpoint diversity?'
'Can you cite to a statute an authority the Congress has given you to micromanage the viewpoint diversity of a college.'
'Can you cite a statute? If you can't cut off your funding for universities, unless you have a statutory authorization to do so. So what statute gives you the right to tell any university that they have to have a certain mixture of viewpoints...I think you have to say the statute,' Murphy continued.
'The statute is Title VI , these are civil rights violations. That is why we filed a case and defunded or stopped the funding for a while for Harvard, as well as we did Columbia … under federal funding if you are breaking the law, which they did under Title VI,' McMahon responded.
'These are civil rights violations. That is why we filed a case and defunded or stopped the funding for a while for Harvard,' McMahon told the Senate Committee on Appropriations on June 3rd, 2025.
'I don't understand any conception of civil rights law to give you the authorization to micromanage viewpoint diversity on campus. That's, that's not authorized under the Civil Rights title provided to you by the United States Congress,' Murphy concluded.
Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race, color, and national origin in programs and activities receiving federal financial assistance.
In April, the Trump Administration froze over $2 billion in research grants at Harvard. Federal funding made up over two-thirds of research funding received by the university in fiscal year 2024, to the tune of $686 million.
The Trump administration has also moved to bar Harvard from enrolling foreign students in May, but the action was blocked by a U.S. District Judge in Boston on May 29.
Columbia University, also called out by McMahon in her testimony on Capitol Hill, relies on the federal government for 22 percent of its funding, which amounted to over $1.2 billion during the 2022–23 academic year, according to a report from the Urban Institute.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

S&P Global 'positive' on Wells Fargo as regulatory burden lifts
S&P Global 'positive' on Wells Fargo as regulatory burden lifts

Reuters

time14 minutes ago

  • Reuters

S&P Global 'positive' on Wells Fargo as regulatory burden lifts

June 6 (Reuters) - S&P Global (SPGI.N), opens new tab upgraded its outlook on Wells Fargo (WFC.N), opens new tab to "positive" from "stable", the ratings provider said on Friday, after the U.S. bank was released from a $1.95 trillion asset cap earlier this week. The U.S. Federal Reserve's unprecedented, seven-year long punitive measure was imposed on Wells in 2018 and restricted balance sheet growth so the bank could address rampant governance and compliance concerns that had been brought to light in a fake accounts scandal in 2016. The Fed's unanimous decision on Tuesday capped years of efforts by the bank to repair the damage and pay off billions of dollars in fines, sending Wells Fargo shares to a three-month high a day later. The stock has gained nearly 8.3% in a year where the benchmark S&P 500 (.SPX), opens new tab has remained flat. "The positive outlook on the holding company reflects our view that Wells Fargo has substantially improved its underlying governance, risk, and control profile, allowing for the removal of the Fed's asset cap," said S&P. S&P also expects Wells to expand its commercial and investment banking business, "the unit most affected by the asset cap and one that had to turn away some nonoperational deposits from customers." While the fourth-largest U.S. lender was forced to carefully manage wholesale deposits and its markets business, assets of peer JPMorgan Chase (JPM.N), opens new tab swelled by nearly $2 trillion since the start of 2018, while those of Bank of America (BAC.N), opens new tab and PNC Financial (PNC.N), opens new tab added about $1 trillion and nearly $200 billion, respectively.

Trump vs Musk is the final battle before economic catastrophe
Trump vs Musk is the final battle before economic catastrophe

Telegraph

time20 minutes ago

  • Telegraph

Trump vs Musk is the final battle before economic catastrophe

Who needs reality TV when there's the psychodrama of Trump's White House to keep us all entertained? As plot lines go, the falling out between Elon Musk and Donald Trump was perhaps about as predictable as they come, but the sheer venom, speed and combustibility of the divorce has nevertheless proved utterly captivating. Even the best of Hollywood scriptwriters would have struggled to do better. The stench of betrayal hangs heavy in the air, a veritable revenger's tragedy of a drama. Beneath it all, however, lies a rather more serious matter than the sight of two of the world's richest and most powerful men breaking up and exchanging insults. And it's one which afflicts nearly all major, high income economies. Slowly but surely – and at varying speeds – they are all going bust. Yet few of them even seem capable of recognising it, let alone doing anything to correct it. None more so than the United States, where the Congressional Budget Office last week estimated that Trump's 'one big, beautiful bill' would add a further $2.4 trillion to the national debt by 2034. Let's not take sides, but Musk was absolutely right when he described the bill as 'a disgusting abomination'. It taxes far too little, and it spends far too much. It is hard to imagine a more reckless piece of make-believe. Musk had backed Trump not just out of self-interest – more government contracts, protection of the electric vehicle mandate, personal aggrandisement and so on – but because he genuinely believed he could help stop the US from bankrupting itself. This has proved a monumental conceit. The $2 trillion of savings in federal spending he initially promised has turned out to be at most $200bn, and probably substantially less once double accounting and wishful thinking is factored in. In any case, against total federal spending last year of nearly £7 trillion, it is but a drop in the ocean, and only goes to show just how difficult it is to find serious savings in government administration even when given a free hand with the headcount.

Breakingviews - Elon Musk picks a losing fight with Donald Trump
Breakingviews - Elon Musk picks a losing fight with Donald Trump

Reuters

time28 minutes ago

  • Reuters

Breakingviews - Elon Musk picks a losing fight with Donald Trump

NEW YORK, June 6 (Reuters Breakingviews) - Money can buy power, but Elon Musk paid for someone else to have it. After spending more than $250 million backing Donald Trump's presidential campaign, an acrimonious schism erupted between the two and swiftly vaporized $150 billion of Tesla's (TSLA.O), opens new tab market value. By picking a losing fight, the carmaker's boss is putting even more at risk for himself and his investors. A cozy alliance between the world's richest man and its most powerful one pointed to a troubling oligarchy. Musk joined Team Trump to lead a controversial effort to slash costs from the U.S. bureaucracy. Tesla sales sank internationally, protests at showrooms escalated and concerns about the CEO's focus intensified. He left his Department of Government Efficiency post last week, with an amicable White House sendoff. The tone abruptly changed on Thursday. Musk's criticism of Trump's signature budget legislation and the president's retorts about government contracts with Musk's companies spiraled into a deeply personal social-media war of words. Musk is a formidable force, with a net worth approaching $400 billion, according, opens new tab to Forbes. His rocket company SpaceX accounted for 85% of orbit-bound cargo in early 2024 by one estimate. After paying $44 billion to buy Twitter, he remade it into a friendlier forum for the president's followers. Any tinkering with the algorithms might swing the tone, as could Musk's bulging wallet if used to support anti-Trump candidates. A threat, opens new tab from Trump to cut U.S. government purse strings from Musk's businesses flaunts the real balance of power, however. About $22 billion of contracts hang in the balance at SpaceX alone, Reuters reported. Tesla's deep ties in China, where it generated a fifth of revenue last year, also may tempt the president's ire as he wages a highly combative trade war with Beijing. Reprisals from President Xi Jinping also could be painful. Musk is doing his companies no favors either. He pivoted Tesla away from mass-market dominance to pursue autonomous driving instead. National regulators have nagging questions about robotic taxi services. A more hostile regulatory environment would undermine the moonshot, leaving a shrinking car business falling behind Chinese rivals. If Musk doesn't back down, as he hinted was a possibility, the costs are bound to escalate. Having already alienated pro-renewable-energy Democrats, he may scare off pro-Trump Republicans, too. An adversarial relationship with SpaceX is probably untenable for NASA. Raising money for his artificial intelligence venture may get harder, as would securing U.S. government contracts for his tunneling company. Musk achieved success by defying perceived scientific constraints, but he is now pushing up against the limits of money. Follow Jonathan Guilford on X, opens new tab and Linkedin, opens new tab.

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