Latest news with #FirstAm
Epoch Times
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Trump Admin's Battle With Harvard Heats Up: 5 Takeaways
The Trump administration this week ramped up its battle with Harvard University by revoking the Ivy League college's capacity to enroll foreign students, prompting a lawsuit from the school and a subsequent court order on Friday. In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) said Thursday that the school's foreign enrollment should be shut down for now due to it having allegedly coordinated with the Chinese Communist Party and for the alleged fostering of anti-Semitism and violence. That triggered a lawsuit on Friday from Harvard in a federal court that accused the administration of violating its constitutional rights and asked for an injunction. A U.S. district judge hours later ruled to temporarily block DHS from enforcing its directive. DHS Says It's a 'Warning' to Others The DHS order specifically terminated Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, meaning Harvard cannot enroll foreign students, and the foreign students who are enrolled at the college must transfer to another one. 'It is a privilege, not a right, for universities to enroll foreign students and benefit from their higher tuition payments to help pad their multibillion-dollar endowments. Harvard had plenty of opportunity to do the right thing,' DHS Secretary Kristi Noem said in the Thursday The DHS had demanded that Harvard hand over information about whether there was any 'criminality and misconduct of foreign students on its campus,' and it warned that failure to comply would result in that certification being terminated. 'Let this serve as a warning to all universities and academic institutions across the country,' Noem said. Trump Admin Already Targeted Harvard's Funding In April, the Trump administration moved to cancel more than $2.2 billion in federal grants to Harvard. A federal anti-Semitism task force said in mid-May that Harvard would lose an additional $450 million in grants from eight federal agencies. Related Stories 5/23/2025 5/22/2025 The May 13 letter said Harvard has become a 'breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination' and faces a 'steep, uphill battle' to reclaim its legacy as a place of academic excellence. 'There is a dark problem on Harvard's campus, and by prioritizing appeasement over accountability, institutional leaders have forfeited the school's claim to taxpayer support,' the letter said. Hours after those cuts were announced, Harvard 'All told, the tradeoff put to Harvard and other universities is clear. Allow the government to micromanage your academic institution or jeopardize the institution's ability to pursue medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and innovative solutions,' the university said in its complaint. Separately, the DHS said that it has terminated $2.7 million in Homeland Security grants to Harvard. Harvard Says It Will Fight Back In the latest lawsuit filed by Harvard in a federal court in Massachusetts, the university's lawyers said the government's action violates the First Amendment and will have an 'immediate and devastating effect for Harvard and more than 7,000 visa holders.' 'With the stroke of a pen, the government has sought to erase a quarter of Harvard's student body, international students who contribute significantly to the University and its mission,' Harvard said in its lawsuit. 'Without its international students, Harvard is not Harvard.' A temporary restraining order was granted by U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs hours later. The block on foreign enrollment immediately puts the school at a disadvantage as it competes for the world's top students, Harvard said in the legal challenge. Even if it regains the ability to host students, 'future applicants may shy away from applying out of fear of further reprisals from the government,' the suit said. In a 'I have also spoken out about the need for greater intellectual diversity on campus and have commenced initiatives to make Harvard a more pluralistic and welcoming place,' the letter said. 'Knowing that Harvard, like many universities, has more work to do on this front, we intend to implement and expand these initiatives in the coming months.' But Garber said he is refuting claims that the school is a 'partisan institution.' In April, the university head The funding freeze, he said, would lead to a diminishing in research in improving 'the prospects of children who survive cancer, to understand at the molecular level how cancer spreads throughout the body,' preventing the spread of diseases, and 'to ease the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield.' Republicans Cheer, Democrats Push Back In the midst of the legal wrangling, several Democrats have criticized the recent DHS decision, while some of President Donald Trump's supporters have backed the move. Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), the former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, 'This decision will now throw thousands of students' lives into limbo as they face an uncertain future in a foreign land that had previously welcomed them and their talents,' she said. Weeks before, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and several other Democrats, in a Meanwhile, Rep. Randy Fine (R-Fla.), a Harvard alum, told Fox News on Friday that he backs the Homeland Security decision targeting the university's enrollment. 'We should not be bringing people into America to get an education who hate us. They should be coming here to get an education,' he said. Fine also said he agreed with comments made earlier by Noem. 'Harvard brought these consequences upon themselves. Harvard has a history of allowing not just protests, but violent protests where students were assaulted, they were discriminated against, they were verbally abused, and they've even facilitated a training for a paramilitary group affiliated with the CCP,' she said, referring to the Chinese Communist Party. 'So it's not just pro-Hamas activities that they have allowed to happen on their campus. They've also allowed participation with Communist China.' Task Force Faults Harvard A joint presidential task force on May 13 As examples, it cited a report that the Harvard Law Review engaged in a pattern of race-based discrimination when it looked at articles for inclusion in the journal, and it at one point awarded a $65,000 fellowship to a 'protester who faced criminal charges for assaulting a Jewish student on campus,' it said 'The decision was reviewed and approved by a faculty committee, demonstrating just how radical Harvard has become,' the task force said. Separately, it The Epoch Times contacted Harvard for comment on Friday. The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Yahoo
05-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Legislation would protect Nebraska veterans' benefits from ‘predatory claim sharks'
A veteran attends a county fair. () LINCOLN — For-profit consultants make millions each year charging veterans for help in filing benefits claims. Nebraska is moving to crack down on what some call 'predatory claim sharks.' It is already against federal law for companies not accredited with the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to charge veterans fees for help in claiming benefits. But in 2006, a 'clear enforcement method' vanished from federal law, State Sen. Dan McKeon of Amherst told the Nebraska Legislature's Government, Military and Veterans Affairs Committee in March. New York, New Jersey and Maine are among states that recently passed protections against 'claim sharks,' who McKeon said use 'aggressive tactics and false promises.' 'Our veterans who have sacrificed so much for our nation deserve better than this,' McKeon, a veteran, said at the hearing for his Legislative Bill 693. 'We owe them a duty to protect them from being defrauded.' LB 693 would change state law so that anyone receiving compensation for preparing, advising or consulting someone for earned veterans' benefits or making referrals for such services would commit a 'deceptive trade practice' unless otherwise allowed by state or federal law. Attorneys, agents or companies properly accredited by the federal VA, for instance, would not be impacted by LB 693, according to the Nebraska chapter of Veterans of Foreign Wars. A previous version of the bill was introduced in 2024 by former State Sen. Tom Brewer of north-central Nebraska, a decorated veteran and former Government Committee chair. Brewer's bill did not move forward. This time, McKeon's LB 693 has advanced unanimously from the Government Committee but hasn't yet been scheduled for debate. It is McKeon's personal 2025 priority bill, increasing the likelihood it could be scheduled. Attempts to regulate the for-profit industry have stalled in Congress. Among those supporting the Nebraska legislation are major veterans service offices that offer free services, including: AMVETS. The American Legion. Marine Corps League. Veterans of Foreign Wars. Nebraska Veterans Council. Disabled American Veterans. Paralyzed Veterans of America. Military Order of the Purple Heart. County Veterans Service Officers Association of Nebraska (including those from Lancaster, Dawes and Sioux Counties). At the bill's hearing, Ray Colas of Veterans Benefits Guide and John Blomstrom of Veterans Guardian opposed LB 693. Neither service is accredited with the VA. Colas said LB 693 could create unintended consequences. He said many veterans are unaware of free services that exist but Veterans Benefits Guide tries to publicize those options. 'They still sign on the dotted line because they know they need help or, for purposes of convenience, prefer to use our services fully,' Colas testified. Blomstrom, a Marine Corps veteran for Veterans Guardian, said he was concerned LB 693 would limit an 'option' that he said should be protected under the First Amendment. He said his organization ensures veterans 'have an option' amid the VA's 'very archaic, broken system.' Colas said his organization could support LB 693 if it more closely mirrored federal law for accreditation. Blomstrom said consumer protections were a better route than accreditation. Ken Yount, state commander for the Nebraska chapter of Veterans of Foreign Wars, said in a statement to the Nebraska Examiner that organizations like his have met with lobbyists for the out-of-state companies in 'good faith.' However, such companies have refused 'to be held to the same ethical standards' of VA accreditation or accept a reasonable fee cap, he said. 'They claim to give veterans 'another choice,' but what they're really offering is exploitation,' Yount said. 'Veterans deserve better — and Nebraska has the chance to stand up for them.' Mike Sheets, on behalf of the Military Order of the Purple Heart in Nebraska and the Great Plains Chapter of the Paralyzed Veterans of America, said his organizations provide services at no charge while still advocating for veterans beyond one-on-one services Sheets said veterans swear their oath to protect the country, 'knowing that we would be protected by lawmakers, ensuring that we are not preyed upon by for-profit companies.' Spike Jordan, a county veterans service officer in Dawes and Sioux Counties, said veterans 'who put life and limb on the line' for the county often exit with physical and mental wounds that will follow them for the rest of their lives. 'We owe our heroes more than the symbolic debt of our gratitude,' Jordan said in a statement. McKeon, one of three veterans on the Government Committee, said the status quo is unacceptable and that LB 693 is about doing 'the right thing.' 'Protecting our veterans must be our top priority that shouldn't be delayed,' McKeon said last month. 'Our heroes deserve better than to be continued to be taken advantage of by the scammers.' SUPPORT: YOU MAKE OUR WORK POSSIBLE
