Columbia settles with Trump: 5 things to know
Columbia will pay $221 million to restore the more than $400 million in federal funding that was cut off by the administration, which had originally cited alleged inaction on antisemitism, though Education Secretary Linda McMahon pointed to more ideological motives.
'This is a monumental victory for conservatives who wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time because we had such far left-leaning professors,' McMahon said on Fox Business Network.
The university, which saw some of the nation's most active pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations amid the war in Gaza, did not have to admit to wrongdoing in the deal, which is certain to put the higher education world on high alert.
Columbia, Trump both tout deal as a win
Both Columbia and the Trump administration positioned the deal as a victory from their perspective.
'This agreement marks an important step forward after a period of sustained federal scrutiny and institutional uncertainty,' acting university President Claire Shipman said in a statement.
'The settlement was carefully crafted to protect the values that define us and allow our essential research partnership with the federal government to get back on track,' she added.
Columbia did avoid some earlier reported provisions that would have given the administration more control over its business.
But with significant reforms still agreed upon, the president went to Truth Social to declare victory.
'It's a great honor to have been involved, and I want to thank and congratulate Secretary Linda McMahon, and all those who worked with us on this important deal,' he wrote. 'I also want to thank and commend Columbia University for agreeing to do what is right. I look forward to watching them have a great future in our Country, maybe greater than ever before!'
Columbia agrees to multiple reforms
Along with the more than $200 million Columbia will pay over three years, an additional $21 million will go to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) to resolve all federal investigations against the university.
Columbia also said it would implement reforms announced back in March such reviewing its Middle East curriculum and ending programs that 'promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotes, diversity targets or similar efforts,' with a report to monitor that progress.
The university also agreed to ask incoming foreign students 'questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States' and said it would provide information to the federal government regarding international students who are expelled.
The school and the federal government will agree on an independent monitor to ensure the resolution is followed.
Columbia did not try to fight in court
Columbia's strategy with the Trump administration has appeared to be one of full cooperation, in contrast with other schools, particularly Harvard University, that have dug in their heels in opposition, filing multiple lawsuits against Trump's moves.
While Columbia's faculty went through with its own lawsuit, a judge ruled only the university itself had the standing to bring a legal challenge to the Trump administration's actions.
But Columbia decided, to a chagrin of staff and others in higher education, to try to come to an agreement.
'Columbia's longstanding research partnership with the federal government is vital to advancing our nation's progress in key areas of science, technology, and medicine,' Board of Trustees Co-Chairs David Greenwald and Jeh Johnson said in a statement on the matter.
'We are proud of the role we play in advancing this public service and preparing the next generations of students to meet complex challenges around the world,' they added.
Trump sees this as roadmap for other universities
One of the biggest concerns of higher education was Columbia's cooperation would lead the Trump administration to expect similar responses from other universities.
'Numerous other Higher Education Institutions that have hurt so many, and been so unfair and unjust, and have wrongly spent federal money, much of it from our government, are upcoming,' Trump wrote in his post announcing Columbia's settlement.
McMahon, in her Fox Business interview, said, 'Our campuses are now what they should be. They're places for debate, they're places for education. They're not places for left-leaning riots and antisemitism.'
Higher education looks to Harvard for hope
From the start, Harvard and Columbia took opposite approaches in handling pressure from the administration.
While Columbia worked on a deal with no retaliation, Harvard has sued multiple times, once for funding cuts and the other over attempts to take away its foreign students.
The attempts to stop Harvard from enrolling foreign students were struck down by a judge, and a ruling over the funding pause is likely forthcoming.
While Trump had indicated in June that a deal with Harvard could be forthcoming, such an announcement never came.
Those in higher education are hoping Harvard keeps the fight going as a win against the oldest and richest nation in the country would pour even more gasoline on the Trump administration's fire to go after universities.
'Research that the government has put in jeopardy includes efforts to improve the prospects of children who survive cancer, to understand at the molecular level how cancer spreads throughout the body, to predict the spread of infectious disease outbreaks, and to ease the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield. As opportunities to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer's disease, and Parkinson's disease are on the horizon, the government is slamming on the brakes,' Harvard President Alan Garber said when Trump cut funding.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
UPI
a few seconds ago
- UPI
Lawmakers clash on potential Maxwell pardon but work together on bill
Lawmakers are disagreeing about whether convicted sex trafficker Ghislaine Maxwell should be granted a pardon by President Donald Trump. But Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., are working together on a bill to force the president to release the files on the Jeffrey Epstein case. File photo by Rick Bajornas/UN photo handout July 27 (UPI) -- United States Speaker of the House of Representatives Mike Johnson said on Sunday that he would have "great pause" if President Donald Trump pardoned Ghislaine Maxwell, but said it was Trump's decision. But Rep. Thomas Massie, R-Ky., said that "whatever they need to do to compel [Maxwell's] testimony, as long as it's truthful, I would be in favor of," on Meet the Press Sunday. Maxwell is the convicted associate of the late child sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, who died in jail. Maxwell, with her attorney, met with Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche for two days last week, which sparked the conversation around a potential pardon. She has served five years of a 20-year sentence. There have been growing calls from Democrats and Republicans for Trump to release files on the Epstein case. "If you're asking my opinion, I think 20 years was a pittance. I think she should have a life sentence at least. I mean, think of all these unspeakable crimes," Johnson told Meet the Press moderator Kristen Welker. "It's hard to put into words how evil this was, and that she orchestrated it and was a big part of it, at least under the criminal sanction, I think is an unforgivable thing. So again, not my decision, but I have great pause about that, as any reasonable person would." When Welker pushed directly on whether Johnson favored a pardon, Johnson deferred to Trump. "Obviously that's a decision of the president. I won't get it in front of him. That's not my lane," he said. Welker conducted a joint interview with Massie and Rep. Ro Khanna, D-Calif., who are working together to push Trump to release the files. Khanna disagreed. "No, I don't" believe that Maxwell should be pardoned or have her sentence commuted. He said he is "concerned" about her meeting with Blanche. "Look, I agree with Congressman Massie that she should testify, but she's been indicted twice on perjury. This is why we need the files," Khanna added. Khanna and Massie are co-sponsoring a bill that would force the Trump administration to publish "all unclassified records" on Epstein. "Politics is the art of the doable," Massie said Sunday. "There's enough public pressure right now that we can get 218 votes and force this to a vote on the floor." Nearly a dozen House Republicans have signed on to back Massie's joint measure with Khanna. Some Democrats, including Reps. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., also signed on. Massie also went on ABC News' This Week, and said "Well, I think we should get a lot more than just the (birthday) book. Let's get the financial records of the estate. Where is it - follow the money, as they say up here," Massie told co-anchor Jonathan Karl. "We should look at the plea bargain. Open that up. See what was the deal? What was the deal that was cut? I think there's a lot more than just that letter." He told Karl about the bill. "It would force a full release of the files. It has the force of law," Massie said on This Week. "It's not a subpoena. It's not a 'Pretty please, would you release the files?' It's the force of law and it's got protections to redact victims' names and to prevent, you know, release of child pornography." Khanna added that Democrats' interest in the case is not new. "We have been pushing for transparency during the Biden administration, both in 2021 and 2024, the court ordered release of documents, but Donald Trump raised the stakes and he did it in a way in the campaign that was justified. He said, 'Look, when I get there, I'm going to release the files,'" Khanna said.
Forbes
a few seconds ago
- Forbes
The Risk Of Rushing: Details Murky On Trump, Van Der Leyen Trade Deal
President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen shakes hands with President during a ... More meeting at Trump Turnberry golf club on Sunday in Scotland. (Photo by) President Trump and European Union President Ursula von der Leyen shook hands on a deal Sunday to stave off 30% tariffs on U.S. imports from the E.U., which could have been effective on Friday, though it remains unclear what the deal is. Perhaps what they really agreed to is to stall for more time. Historically, trade agreements take a great deal of time and review before being announced. That said, it appears that most if not all U.S. imports from the European Union will face a 15% tariff. That's one area of disagreement if not among the two parties, then at least among the first reporting on the limited 'details.' It also appears that most U.S. exports to the 27 nations of the European Union will not have a tariff. That's another area of disagreement, at least in the early reporting. That 15% tariff on U.S. imports is up slightly from the 10% 'baseline' tariff already in place with all countries of the world since Trump began the global trade war to reduce the U.S. deficit, which is still increasing. It is, of course, significantly higher than the 1.2% tariff rate on U.S. imports from the European Union that preceded it. (The 'deal' would seem to lower the 25% tariff in place on passenger vehicle imports into the United States.) On the U.S. export side, the zero tariff rate would replace a rate of 2.8%, so not a big change. But a spokesperson for the European Union would not respond to a 'request for comment about Trump's claim." Here's where it gets really important: Does the 15% tariff on E.U. imports include critical medicines and the compounds used to make those medicines, imports into the United States that Ireland and other European nations dominate? President Trump says no, according to one news source. 'We have 15% for pharmaceuticals,' Von der Leyen said, according to another. I wrote last week about the risk of the trade war on Americans' access to important medicines because of the United States' reliance on Europe for so many medicines and a great deal of the chemical compounds used to produce drugs here. Regardless of whether pharmaceuticals are hit with 15% tariffs or not, it is not hard to imagine that whatever tariffs are ultimately imposed will put pressure on prices as the U.S. government collects revenues from the European Union and a host of other nations. One thing on which Trump and van der Leyen did agree was that making a deal was important to both sides, given the strength of the trading relationship. The United States' top 15 trade partners, which account for 44.40% of all U.S. trade, including 44.22% of all U.S. exports and 44.51% of all imports, includes the following seven European Union nations: Overall, the trade with just these European Union nations is relatively balanced, with those seven accounting for 21.38% of all U.S. trade, including 20.27% of all exports and 22.05% of all U.S. imports. The overall deficit with these five nations is $149.61 billion. The percentages for all 27 European nations is similar on total trade and U.S. exports but it drops on imports, since many of the other countries are without the same buying power. Overall, the European Union is accounting for 20.22% of all U.S. imports and 18.57% of all U.S. exports through May, the latest data available from the U.S. Census Bureau. Gaining clarity on the issues will be important. Six of the 10 U.S. imports from the European Union where the E.U. was a dominant source were in the area of pharmaceuticals and with chemical compounds used to make medicines in this country. The same six in 10 statistic is true of U.S. exports to the 27-nation European Union. For example, 99.22% of $42.95 billion in U.S. imports in the insulin, hormone and steroid category (HS code 2937) through May were from the European Union, with 98.48% coming from Ireland, according to my analysis of the latest U.S. Census Bureau data. It is the top U.S. import from the European Union this year. The same category is a top U.S. export to the European Union, accounting for 53.85% of the $4.94 billion in U.S. exports to the world, ranking fourth overall to the European Union. But the 15% tariffs would affect a broad range of exports and imports. The European Union is responsible for 79.77% of the $2.97 billion in wine imports into the United States through May and 80.78% of $2.15 billion in perfumes. While these are the U.S. import categories that the European Union dominates by global market share, they are not the largest by value. Among those not mentioned above for market share that are among the top 10 by value from the European Union are: It is, of course, not clear whether those last two would face tariffs or not. Switching over to the U.S. export side, the European Union has an appetite for the broad nut category (HS code 0802) that is dominated by shelled almonds and pistachios in the shell, with 37.49% of the $4.09 billion total in U.S. exports through May headed to the European Union. In addition, the E.U. has a thirst for the alcoholic spirits category (HS code 2208) that is dominated by bourbon and whiskey, with 46.66% of the total $1.08 billion sent to the world. Any decrease in tariffs on these would certainly be welcome. During the press conference announcing the framework for a deal, Trump emphasized that the European Union would be increasing its purchase of U.S. energy and, he hoped, cars. The European Union, Trump said, would be buying $750 billion in U.S. energy products, though it was not clear over what period of time or even which ones, specifically. In 2024, U.S. exports to the world of oil, gasoline and other refined petroleum products, and natural gas such as LNG – the dominant categories – was less than $300 billion. And most refined petroleum exports stay in the Western Hemisphere. But the European Union is a big market for U.S. exports of oil, petroleum gas and cars. One thing is clear: There is more work to be done before it is clear what the deal on which Trump and van der Leyen shook hands actually is.
Bloomberg
a few seconds ago
- Bloomberg
Trump's Tariffs Are Already Stunting World Growth While Markets Shrug
As Donald Trump barrels toward his latest tariff deadline, the damage to the global economy from American protectionism is becoming increasingly evident, even if financial markets seem to have decided they can live with it. The US president has announced preliminary agreements with the European Union, Japan and a handful of others that raise tariff rates, and he's promising to impose even higher duties on Aug. 1 for countries that haven't cut deals. It all amounts to another step change in the trade barrier that Trump has erected around America, which is starting to reshape trade and investment patterns worldwide.
