Latest news with #EdwardMartin
Yahoo
19-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Is Right to Target Colleges. He's Doing It the Completely Wrong Way.
The credibility of elite universities has fallen far, and not without reason. For decades, admissions offices singled out Asian American applicants for unfairly high admissions standards while pretending to care about fairness and 'equity.' Academic journals, blinded by ideology, fell victim to obvious hoax papers on topics such as rape culture in dog parks. Diversity, equity and inclusion statements became mandatory loyalty oaths to progressive causes during faculty hiring. And after the Oct. 7, 2023 Hamas terrorist attacks, many university administrators allowed protesting students to disrupt classes, set up unauthorized encampments and destroy university property. But in its conflict with elite universities, the Trump administration's urge to 'move fast and break things,' often without regard for the law, threatens to blow the first real chance for substantive higher education reform in decades. Left-wing intolerance is what made universities incapable of adequately protecting basic principles of free inquiry and tolerating racial preferences for groups perceived as oppressed. But right-wing authoritarianism risks politicizing the university even further — and that would eliminate the prospect of durable, long-lasting change that so many reformers like me are hungry for. The Trump administration's latest action against Harvard is a perfect case study of the problems with the White House's approach. Federal officials sent a letter threatening to revoke federal funds unless the university made sweeping changes, like reforming its governance structure and admitting students and faculty based on political views. The administration now says these demands were sent by mistake — even blaming Harvard for taking the letter seriously — but Harvard has now sued the government, pointing out among other complaints that the government did not follow the process set out by Congress for revoking funds due to alleged violations of the Civil Rights Act. If the school wins, which by all accounts they are likely to, the credibility of the administration's funding leverage over other universities will be permanently damaged. But the letter was only the latest in a series of troubling instances of unnecessary overreach and disregard for the law when dealing with universities. In February, Trump's interim U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia Edward Martin demanded Georgetown University's law school eliminate DEI from its curriculum or lose Department of Justice career opportunities for students. Not only was the threat of a hiring boycott legally questionable, but Martin's demands also clearly infringed on the university's academic freedom, which is protected by the First Amendment. It's hard to imagine a more short-sighted and needlessly provocative approach: Such an infringement is unnecessary when countering censorious DEI programs at universities since those programs are administrative rather than academic; it is only the classroom that the government must stay out of. Trump, meanwhile, was forced to pull Martin's nomination for the post amid lack of Republican support for his confirmation. The administration has also haphazardly frozen research funding to many universities, with stated motivations that range from countering antisemitism to keeping men out of women's sports. On the one hand, it is clearly justifiable to scrutinize federal grantmaking institutions like the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health for ideologically biased projects such as social justice training for engineers, hiring scientists by race and training high school teachers in social justice math. But the administration's indiscriminate approach has also halted countless important projects like the use of artificial intelligence to detect early signs of breast cancer. There are simple alternative policy changes that would both curb politically biased research and protect crucial scientific research that benefits the public. For instance, the administration could change the criteria by which future grants are evaluated to avoid funding projects that are political in nature. If researchers or universities are unwilling to comply, the administration could let existing grants expire and decline further renewal. Some higher education critics might consider this nitpicking — after all, when the federal government holds the leverage, what does it matter if the changes are implemented with the proper decorum? But they neglect the decentralized nature of universities and the buy-in from faculty required to make long-term changes. The Trump administration's current approach alienates exactly those influential allies within universities who would help facilitate and maintain long-term changes, forcing them to choose between left-wing intolerance and right-wing authoritarianism. It's worth remembering that while conservatives were the first to ring the alarm on the excesses, even moderate liberals have since found themselves marginalized as they failed to keep up with the latest progressive ideological demands. These people include trustees, who can set policies like stopping mandatory DEI statements; donors who can pull funds when universities go severely wrong; and politically moderate professors who can make their own classrooms bastions for open debate. Although we were already heading in a direction of deradicalization, the Trump administration's actions have put those sympathetic actors in a difficult position. Take former Harvard president and Obama appointee Larry Summers, who last year condemned DEI statements as not 'reasonable or appropriate.' But now he believes the Trump administration's approach with Harvard 'will backfire as even those most critical of the university pull together against dictatorial overreach.' Steven Pinker, co-chair of Harvard's Council on Academic Freedom, is a longtime critic of left-wing attacks on academic freedom and open debate. But Pinker now worries that Trump is 'following the playbook of totalitarian dictatorships.' Even among university leadership, which has been historically unfriendly to reform, the Trump administration's approach evokes unnecessary resistance. Consider the case of Columbia University, one of the first universities whose funding was frozen by the administration. Even though Columbia conceded to demands from the administration to ban masks during protests and increase security, its funding still hasn't been unfrozen. Other schools like Harvard see this and think they are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Fighting, rather than negotiating, becomes the only option for university leadership. The unpredictable actions of the Trump administration could still chill unwanted activities at universities through sheer intimidation for the remainder of his term. But these 'wins' would be illusory. Any appeasement would only last until Democrats are back in charge. Democrats would likely then use legislation to close any future opportunities for the executive branch to leverage funding in the way that the Trump administration is doing now. Many advocates for higher education reform may even support these efforts, especially where it pertains to ensuring stable funding for basic scientific research. Then the current batch of left-wing university administrators would be left with almost complete autonomy. Even the more moderate reformers in higher education will be shut down, and a return to aggressive speech policing and political litmus tests will be all but inevitable. It's still early enough that the Trump administration can turn the ship around and effectively confront the very real issue of ideological capture in universities. But it needs to do so with precision, respect for the law and a long-term vision. Right now is the time to lay the groundwork. Some of the latest executive orders, such as those on repudiating disparate impact theory and investigating accreditors that violate civil rights law, are an encouraging start and should be followed through with congressional action. Whatever the administration tries to pursue, de-escalation needs to be part of this strategy. That means credible commitments to restore funding when expectations are met. Universities need to be given a chance to work with the administration, not backed into a corner where their only option is to circle the wagons and fight back. Some will argue that restraint and adherence to the law have been ineffective at holding universities accountable. If reformers were more aggressive and disruptive, maybe they would have achieved tangible changes earlier. But this misdiagnoses the problem. Lack of willpower, not principle, was the problem with past efforts in higher education reform. Although the Trump administration has willpower, the lack of consistent adherence to principles leads to reckless actions. If the goal is restoring, not destroying, universities, we need strategic clarity and consistent application of the law. For instance, just as imposing viewpoints on faculty through mandatory diversity statements are wrong, we shouldn't impose our own political litmus tests. The path forward doesn't require abandoning our ideals in order to pursue maximalist tactics. We must wield the tools at our disposal legally and in a way that shows we respect the educational and research missions of universities. If the Trump administration continues to treat power as a blunt instrument — wielded for spectacle rather than strategy — he won't just lose the fight to reform higher education. He'll ensure it can't be won.
CBS News
12-05-2025
- Politics
- CBS News
After Jeanine Pirro picked to replace Edward Martin, a potential pivotal change looms for Justice Department post in Washington
The collapse of the nomination of Edward Martin as U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia — and the surprise announcement of FOX News personality Jeanine Pirro as his replacement — has triggered a unique and mixed wave of reaction from former prosecutors, President Trump's critics and people involved in the U.S. Capitol riot prosecutions. The selection of Pirro, an ardent loyalist of Mr. Trump and a cable news fixture who spread claims of a rigged 2020 election, has triggered a wave of criticism from some Democrats. But the implosion of Martin's nomination for the top D.C. prosecutor post has drawn celebratory statements from Mr. Trump's other critics and potentially softened some of the backlash against the choice of Pirro. Martin, a "Stop the Steal" advocate and MAGA political activist, was among the crowd outside the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021. He defended Capitol riot cases, including the case of an accused Nazi-sympathizer, and made frequent appearances on Russian-linked media outlets and conspiracy theorist Alex Jones's program. Named acting U.S. Attorney on Inauguration Day 2025 by Mr. Trump, Martin promptly fired prosecutors who handled some of the Jan. 6 criminal cases. In the weeks before it became clear his confirmation was blocked by at least one Republican Senator, Martin frequently posted on social media, including one X post in which he controversially referred to U.S. Attorneys as "Trump's lawyers." "Ed Martin's appointment was about rewriting the history of January 6, so having him specifically gone is a huge step forward, even if he's replaced by another TV lawyer," said Brendan Ballou, a former Justice Department attorney who handled Jan. 6 criminal cases. Ballou, who a year ago was immersed in the Capitol riot case of a group from Lakeland, Florida, who'd gone on the run from authorities shortly after their charges were filed, told CBS News that Martin is better suited for a position where, instead, "He can just tweet." Ballou resigned from his position shortly after Martin was named acting U.S. Attorney in January. As for Martin's would-be successor, Pirro — who is a former judge and prosecutor — Ballou said, "I think these TV lawyers will struggle to get the respect of the judges." Although Congressional Democrats issued waves of statements and comments criticizing Martin, the response to Pirro's selection was more muted in its first 48 hours. Sen. Adam Schiff, a California Democrat who led opposition against Martin's nomination, responded tersely to Pirro's selection, posting on social media, "Because the other Fox News host in this administration is doing such a stellar job." Judge Jeanine Pirro in New York City. / Getty Images One former assistant U.S. Attorney who worked in the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of Columbia told CBS News there were no immediate red flags about Pirro that compared to concerns about Martin. Another former assistant U.S. Attorney said Pirro would have to shift from her provocative TV pronouncements to abide by the Justice Department's tradition of not "tarnishing someone's name in public until we can prove it in court beyond a reasonable doubt, they committed a crime. Yet on her show, Pirro has time and time again amplified truly wild conspiracy theories." Sen. Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican who publicly declared his opposition to Martin's nomination, promptly posted a statement of support for Pirro, an indication that GOP opposition might be non-existent for her service as U.S. Attorney. Michael Caputo, an aide to Martin, told CBS News, "Many of us are angry that Senator Tillis broke faith with President Trump, but Jeanine Pirro is a tremendous pick as successor to Ed Martin. I'm also excited for Ed's next role with the Justice Department. I'm definitely buying more popcorn." Martin will instead be assigned to a Justice Department task force and will serve as a pardon attorney. Edward Martin in Washington, DC, on March 25, 2025. Photo by Valerie Plesch/For The Washington Post via Getty The U.S. Attorney for Washington D.C. has a unique portfolio, including federal corruption cases, high-profile defendants and a large set of local criminal prosecutions in the D.C. Superior Court. Pirro will be handling a distinctively broad set of cases, ranging from government fraud to local burglaries and domestic violence. In the days after the announcement, the response to Pirro's nomination fell along party lines. Patrick Mara, a Republican party leader in Washington, D.C., told CBS News: "I am optimistic on her nomination and hope she uses her prosecutorial experience to the fullest extend to crackdown on violent crime in D.C." "We look forward to working with her on this. The D.C. Council has created an environment where violent crime is able to flourish," Mara said. Rep. Glenn Ivey, a Maryland Democrat who once served as a federal prosecutor, told CBS News that the U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia is a very important posting. "From local violent crimes and community intervention programs to national security matters and the January 6th insurrectionists, this prosecutor's job needs serious courtroom skills, managerial experience and sound judgement not just looking good on a TV talk show, salacious soundbite or worse yet – uttering of outright falsehoods on voting machines or other issues important to the American people," he said. For Jan. 6 victims and police responders, the collapse of Martin's nomination outweighed concerns about Pirro. "I'm glad that Mr. Martin won't be serving the people of Washington, D.C," Harry Dunn, a former Capitol Police officer who testified at a public hearing of the Jan. 6 Select Committee, told CBS News. "For him to even have been nominated is disgusting considering how he feels about January 6th." Rep. Jamie Raskin, a Maryland Democrat who was a member of the Jan. 6 committee, was critical of Martin, but also has blasted the selection of Pirro. "The U.S. Attorney in D.C. should have unquestioned commitment to justice, public integrity and the truth," he said. "Jeanine Pirro has used her platform at Fox News to promote dangerous conspiracy theories and to traffic in election lies so outlandish they landed her network in court and cost it hundreds of millions of dollars. America deserves a serious public lawyer of the highest scruples, not another election-denying Fox Corporation propagandist." The Justice Department did respond to requests for information about the timing of a transition from Martin to Pirro at the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington, D.C.
Epoch Times
21-04-2025
- Health
- Epoch Times
US Prosecutor Sends Letter to Medical Journal, Alleging Bias
A federal prosecutor sent a letter to a medical journal, asking for answers on how it chooses articles, the journal's publishers have confirmed. 'The American College of Chest Physicians, publishers of the journal CHEST, can confirm that we received a letter from the U.S. Department of Justice, and its content was posted online without our knowledge,' a spokeswoman for the college told The Epoch Times in an email on April 21. 'Legal counsel is currently reviewing the DOJ request. Beyond our statement, we have no additional comment at this time.' The missive, dated April 14, came from Edward Martin, the U.S. attorney for the District of Columbia. Martin He asked Dr. Peter Mazzone, editor-in-chief of CHEST, to answer five questions, including whether the journal accepts articles or essays of competing viewpoints. Related Stories 4/9/2025 3/4/2025 'I am also interested to know if publishers, journals, and organizations with which you work are adjusting their method of acceptance of competing viewpoints,' Martin wrote. 'Are there new norms being developed and offered?' He asked for a response by May 2. Martin's office did not respond to a request for comment by publication time. The American College of Chest Physicians The college also said that the journal complies with ethical guidelines and that it respects the journal's editorial independence. It's not clear if similar letters were sent to any other journals. A spokesperson for PLOS told The Epoch Times in an email that it has not received one. Other journals did not return inquiries. Several free speech groups decried the letter, including the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. 'The First Amendment couldn't be clearer: A publication's editorial decisions are none of the government's business. Newspaper, blog, medical journal—it doesn't matter. Back off,' the organization 'When a U.S. Attorney wields the power of his office to target medical journals over their content, he isn't doing his job, let alone upholding his constitutional oath. He's abusing his authority to try to chill protected speech.'
Khaleej Times
17-02-2025
- Politics
- Khaleej Times
Trump nominates his top prosecutor in DC for permanent term
Republican US President Donald Trump nominated his top prosecutor in Washington, Edward Martin, for a full and permanent term of US Attorney for the District of Columbia, Trump said on social media on Monday. Martin is already in the role in an interim capacity.
Reuters
17-02-2025
- Politics
- Reuters
Trump nominates his top prosecutor in DC for permanent term
WASHINGTON, Feb 17 (Reuters) - Republican U.S. President Donald Trump nominated his top prosecutor in Washington, Edward Martin, for a full and permanent term of U.S. Attorney for the District of Columbia, Trump said on social media on Monday. Martin is already in the role in an interim capacity. Get weekly news and analysis on U.S. politics and how it matters to the world with the Reuters Politics U.S. newsletter. Sign up here.
