 |
|
|
|||||
Harvard University is the latest in a growing list of higher education institutions that had its federal funding targeted by the government in order to comply with the Trump administration’s political agenda. The series of threats and subsequent pauses in funding to some of the top U.S. universities have become an unprecedented tool for the administration to exert influence on college campuses. Six of the seven universities impacted are Ivy League schools. President Donald Trump vowed to pursue these federal cuts on the campaign trail last year, saying he would focus on schools that push critical race theory, transgender insanity, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content. Public school systems are targets for cuts too. Here’s a look at which universities have been pressured by the administration’s funding cuts so far. Harvard University The administration announced its antisemitism task force would conduct a comprehensive review of the Massachusetts university on March 31. The government was set to review nearly $9 billion of federal grants and contracts. Harvard is among universities across the country where pro-Palestinian protests erupted on campus amid the war in Gaza last year. Republican officials have since heavily scrutinized those universities, and several Ivy League presidents testified before Congress to discuss antisemitism allegations. The administration issued its list of demands to Harvard in a letter on April 3. The demands included a ban on face masks, limitations on campus protests and a review of academic departments biases. About a week later, those demands were expanded to include leadership reforms, admission policy changes and stopping the university’s recognition of certain student organizations. Then, on Monday, Harvard President Alan Gerber refused to comply, saying in a letter that the university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Hours later, the administration announced it froze more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to the university. Cornell University The White House announced last week that it froze more than $1 billion of Cornell’s federal funding. The administration said the freeze came as it investigated alleged civil rights violations at the university. The New York university was among a group of more than 60 universities that received a letter from the Education Department on March 10 urging them to take steps to protect Jewish students or else face potential enforcement actions. The Defense Department issued more than 75 stop-work orders for research, Cornell said in a statement, but that the federal government hadn’t confirmed if the total funding freeze totaled $1 billion. Northwestern University Like Cornell, Northwestern also saw a halt in some of its federal funding last week. The amount was about $790 million, according to the Trump administration. The Illinois university did not receive an official message from the White House on the freeze despite its cooperation with civil rights investigations, according to Northwestern officials at the time. University spokesperson Jon Yates said Northwestern’s scientific research was at jeopardy because of the freeze a widespread issue for universities facing research cuts from the National Institutes of Health. Brown University The Trump administration was anticipated to pause federal grants and contracts at Brown University because of the Rhode Island school’s response to alleged antisemitism on campus, according to a White House official on April 3. The total was expected to be about $510 million in funding, according to the official. Princeton University Dozens of research grants were suspended at Princeton University without a clear rationale, according to an April 1 campus message from university president Christopher Eisgruber. The grants came from federal agencies such as the Department of Energy, NASA and the Defense Department. Before the funding pause, Eisgruber had expressed his opposition to Trump’s threatened cuts at Columbia University in an essay in The Atlantic magazine. He called the administration’s move a radical threat to scholarly excellence and to America’s leadership in research.” University of Pennsylvania Unlike the other targeted universities, the University of Pennsylvania saw funding cuts because of a transgender athlete who competed in Penn’s swimming program, according to the Trump administration. After a Feb. 5 executive order barring transgender athletes from participating in women’s and girls’ sports, the Education Department launched an investigation a day later into athletics programs at Penn and San Jose State University. The Penn investigation centered on Lia Thomas, who is the first openly transgender thlete to win an NCAA Division I title and graduated from the university in 2022. Over a month later, the White House announced the suspension of about $175 million in federal funding from the Defense Department and the Department of Health and Human Services. The administration said the halt in funding on March 19 came after a separate discretionary federal money review. The university said at the time that it wasn’t directly notified of the action. Columbia University Columbia University was the first major institution that had its funding singled out by the Trump administration. At first, federal agencies declared they were considering stop-work orders for about $51 million of contracts with Columbia on March 3. Trump had also said on social media that schools that allow illegal protests would see funding cuts. Last year, Columbia student protesters started a wave of campus demonstrations against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. The protests led to tense faceoffs with police at the New York City university and the arrests of more than 100 demonstrators. University leadership faced scathing condemnations from Republicans on the protests’ proliferation, leading former president Minouche Shafik to step down. Columbia also began investigating pro-Palestinian student activists, such as Mahmoud Khalil, who was later arrested and is at threat of deportation. On March 7, the Trump administration cancelled about $400 million of Columbia’s federal funding. Columbia took some action afterward, such as expelling and suspending some student protesters who occupied a campus building during demonstrations. The university announced March 21 that it had agreed to make even more sweeping policy changes that the Trump administration had demanded. The changes included placing the Middle East studies department under supervision, hiring new safety personnel who can make arrests, and banning face masks for the purposes of concealing one’s identity. The university also agreed to appoint a senior provost tasked with reviewing several international studies departments’ leadership and curriculum. Armstrong resigned from her post the following week. The decision was met with dissatisfaction among some faculty members and a lawsuit against the cuts. But following Harvard’s defiance of the Trump administration’s demands, Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, had a new message Monday. She said that while she agrees with some of the administration’s requests, the university would reject heavy-handed orchestration that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution. Discussions were still ongoing between the federal government and Columbia as of Monday, according to Shipman’s campus letter. Makiya Seminera, Associated Press
Category:
E-Commerce
Harvard is the first university to reject President Donald Trumps demands, which require the university to make sweeping changes in order to keep its $2.2 billion in federal funding, and is subsequently now facing a freeze of those funds, which the university has called both unlawful and unconstitutional. The governments demands follow a review of nearly $9 billion in federal funding to Harvard, and come amid a broad crackdown on college campuses aimed at axing DEI and limiting free speech, under the guise of eliminating so-called left-wing ideology and antisemitism. Harvard faculty have sued to block Trump from pulling their funding, and filed a temporary restraining order labeling the threats a “gun to the head.” Harvard’s act of resistance brings up two very different but important questions, one political, and one financial: Will this set a precedent for other universities to follow, and where does Harvard get its funding, anyway? What does Harvard’s decision mean for other universities? First things first: Harvard University didn’t just quietly reject Trump’s overreach. President Alan Garber made a bold show of resistance, in a letter to the campus community, stating that the government’s demands “violate Harvards First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the governments authority under Title VI,” and that “no governmentregardless of which party is in powershould dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” Some commentators have said Harvard learned from Columbia University’s mistake. In caving to Trump‘s demands, Columbia will be forced to acquiesce in a number of ways, including hiring three dozen campus officers “who will have the ability to remove individuals from campus and/or arrest them when appropriate.” The administration also has paused federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, Brown University, Princeton University, Cornell University, and Northwestern University, according to the AP. Former President Barack Obama praised Harvard’s decision and encouraged other institutions to do the same. As The New York Times noted, Harvard’s stance could set a precedent for other universities, and empower law firms, the media and courts, and other targets to also push back. (In fact, on Tuesday, Columbia’s president released a statement seemingly backtracking and perhaps following Harvard’s lead: “We have not reached any agreement with the government at this point [. . .] We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire.”) Where does Harvard get its money? This leads us to our second point, where does Harvard get its funding? It might come as a surprise, but while Harvard has a vast endowment of $53.2 billion, it relies on several other sources beyond that for its funding. These include federal and non-federal research grants, tuition and fees, and gifts from alumni and others. Harvard received approximately $2.4 billion from its endowment in fiscal 2024, which made up only 37.5% of its overall operating budget of $6.4 billion. The university’s $686 million in federal funding representing roughly 16% of its operating revenue. However, Harvard can only tap 20% of its endowment for discretionary spending, to go toward the money lost by Trump’s freezes. A majority of the endowment distributions are restricted by donors, both legally and from stipulations from donors, in regard to how Harvard can spend that money. Another way Harvard is able to cover its high costs is that it does not pay federal or state taxes. Many people don’t know that Harvard, and most major colleges and universities, are tax-exempt organizations. On Tuesday, Trump threatened to eliminate Harvard’s tax-exempt status in a post on Truth Social, saying, “Perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting Sickness?'”According to its website, Harvard is exempt from federal income tax as an educational institution under Section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. As an educational institution, Harvard is also exempt from state income tax in Massachusetts, where it is located.
Category:
E-Commerce
President Donald Trump‘s administration has ordered U.S. Justice Department employees not to post anything on social media related to their government work, after a wave of new political appointees took to cheering Trump and castigating his opponents online. The directive, which was emailed to U.S. Attorneys’ offices late on Monday, appears to prohibit the types of social media posts that Trump’s political appointees routinely make on their official government accounts. The change was made by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche, who has become frustrated by some of the rhetoric being posted by political appointees, according to one person familiar with the matter. A Justice Department spokesperson declined to comment. While the department has always placed restrictions on social media use by employees, such as prohibiting them from discussing non-public investigations or making politically-charged statements that could damage the department’s impartiality, the new policy is much broader. It restricts employees from including their department titles on any social media activity or reposting official government information such as press releases. Employees must not use any social media “in a way that damages the efficiency of the department,” the policy says. Stacey Young, a former department civil rights attorney who recently left to create a DOJ employee advocacy organization called Justice Connection, said the policy could chill employees’ speech. “The new policy represents another unwarranted attack on DOJ employees – one that stifles their free speech in their private lives and creates new ways for the administration to oust career public servants who don’t toe the party line,” said Young. Many of the department’s top Trump-appointed leaders in recent weeks have posted messages that would have run afoul of the policy, which tells them to avoid “injecting their political views into the work they perform” and refrain from making comments “in reckless disregard for the truth” about any person the department engages with, including judges. It also says they cannot post anything that might prejudice a proceeding or “heighten condemnation of an accused.” Leo Terrell, a senior counsel in the Civil Rights Division who is leading its antisemitism task force, for instance, makes near-daily posts on X about his support for Trump. “Democrats are jealous of President Trump!” he wrote on X on Saturday. Last month, Terrell shared a post on his X account from Patrick Casey, a white nationalist who ran the now-defunct Identity Evropa, that said Trump could “revoke someone’s Jew card.” Aaron Reitz, the department’s head of the Office of Legal Policy, in an April 8 post on social media accused “Dem-appointed judges” of siding with cartels to usurp Trump’s “authority to conduct foreign policy.” Attorney General Pam Bondi, in a March 27 post on X, claimed that law enforcement had arrested a “top MS-13 national leader,” referring to the street gang MS-13. The criminal complaint against the suspect, 24-year-old Henrry Josue Villatoro Santos, made no such claim, stating instead that investigators had found only “indicia of MS-13 association.” The department has since moved to drop the charges and have him deported. Ari Cohn, the tech policy lead counsel with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, said while government has some authority to restrict the use of personal social media accounts to conduct official business, the new policy is so broad that it places employees at risk of being targeted for their views as private citizens. “The risk that these rules will be wielded in a partisan way to purge the DOJ of anyone who expresses a political view out of step with the leadership or administration is deeply concerning,” he told Reuters in a statement. Sarah N. Lynch, Reuters
Category:
E-Commerce
The 4chan website is down, and continues not to load for many users, according to Downdetector. (Downdetector is a platform that monitors online services and internet-related issues, and is essentially a crowd-sourced outage reporting tool.) This outage comes amid unconfirmed reports on social media, including on Reddit, that the internet message board was hacked. Fast Company has reached out to 4chan for comment and did not hear back immediately. The outage was first reported on Downdetector at around 9:57 p.m. ET on Monday night, and peaked soon after around 10:12 p.m. ET, when 1,265 users reported the problem. Since then, users have taken to monitoring the platform, turning Downdetector’s comments section into a virtual 4chan chat forum with some 7,464 comments already. 4chan can best be described as an image board or bulletin board site similar to Reddit, and is known for controversial, right-wing content, which some critics argue often contains hate speech. Founded in 2003 by then-15-year-old Christopher Poole, it started as a website to share anime and manga among its mostly young male audience, but has been called “a breeding ground for the far right.” A breach could potentially reveal the identities and opinions of moderators and users, which could be highly compromising, given the nature of the site’s content. As of this writing, most of the reported problems had to do with 4chan’s website (71%). Another 24% of users reported problems with the server connection, and another 5% said they could not post. Outages were registered across the country in a heat map on Downdetector. Here is a list of the cities included: Seattle Los Angeles Phoenix San Francisco Dallas Houston Minneapolis Chicago St. Louis Detroit Atlanta Tampa Boston New York Washington Users also submitted problem reports in Canada in Montreal, Toronto, and Vancouver.
Category:
E-Commerce
Several of the largest U.S. banks are reportedly pausing or reassessing how they send sensitive information to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) following a major cyberattack on the regulator. JPMorgan Chase and Bank of New York Mellon have halted electronic information-sharing with the OCC, Bloomberg reported. Bank of America is working to transmit data through what it considers more secure electronic channels, according to the report. The moves come after hackers reportedly accessed more than 100 accounts within the OCCs email system over the course of a yeara breach the OCC and U.S. Treasury have labeled a major incident. The attackers are believed to have obtained highly sensitive information about financial firms, though the identity of the hackers remains unknown. Banks have expressed growing concern over the breach and the OCCs handling of its disclosure, The Wall Street Journal reported. Many institutions are still unclear about the specific information that may have been compromised. The OCC, an independent bureau within the Treasury Department, regulates and supervises more than 1,000 national banks, federal savings associations, and the U.S. branches of foreign banks. The agency is currently being led on an acting basis by Rodney Hood, a former member of the National Credit Union Administration Board. Among the types of sensitive information banks send to the OCC are reports on cybersecurity practices and National Security Letters, which can include classified details related to terrorism and espionage, according to Bloomberg.
Category:
E-Commerce
Sites : [68] [69] [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] [75] [76] [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86] [87] next »