Republicans

Subterms

    Latest story

    175 Shares12 Views

    ‘From all sides’: universities in red states face attacks from DC and at home

    by

    Days after the University of Michigan president, Santa Ono, announced that he was leaving his post to lead the University of Florida, his name was quietly removed on Wednesday from a letter signed by more than 600 university presidents denouncing the Trump administration’s “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” with academic institutions.As Ono is set to become the highest-paid public university president in the country, in a state that has often been at the forefront of the rightwing battle against higher education, the reversal, first reported on by Talking Points Memo, underscored the challenges of standing up against the government’s sweeping attacks on education in solidly red states.Many private colleges and universities have begun to push back against Donald Trump’s federal funding cuts, bans on diversity initiatives, and targeting of foreign students, while faculty at more than 30 universities, most of them public, have passed resolutions calling for a “mutual defence compact” – a largely symbolic pledge to support one another in the face of the government’s repressive measures. But in conservative states, where local attacks on higher education were in vogue before the US president took office, faculty trying to fight back find themselves fighting on multiple fronts: against state legislators as well as against Trump.Some have persevered, although for now that resistance has been limited to statements and resolutions calling on the universities themselves to put up a more muscular response. The faculty senate at Indiana University, Bloomington, voted in favor of a defence compact last month, days before Republican legislators passed a sweeping overhaul of the state school’s governance. In Georgia, Kennesaw State University became the first – and so far only – school in the US south to join the call for the solidarity pact, in part to protest the state scrapping a decades-old initiative to increase the college enrollment of Black men, which was pulled as part of the broader Trump-led crackdown on diversity initiatives. This week, faculty at the University of Miami in Ohio and at the University of Arizona – both states with Republican-majority legislatures – also passed resolutions in favor of mutual alliances among universities.The resolutions are nonbinding, as faculty senates play an advisory role at most universities, and so far no administrations have responded to the call. But the idea, those behind it say, is to send a message.“All universities in all states are under threat,” said Jim Sherman, a retired psychology professor at Indiana University, Bloomington, who proposed the resolution passed by faculty there. “If we don’t stand together and talk about what each of us is experiencing, how we’re dealing with it, and what the options are, then we’re standing alone, and that’s much more difficult.”Paul Boxer, a psychology professor at Rutgers University in New Jersey, first came up with the plan to organize faculty in the “Big Ten” conference, a group of 18 large, mostly public universities, to put up a united front against the Trump administration. But schools outside the conference showed an interest, and the solidarity effort quickly outgrew the consortium to include other, mostly public colleges and universities across the country. Boxer also praised other collective initiatives that have since emerged, including by a group of “elite” universities quietly strategizing to counter the Trump administration policies, but called on more universities to publicly unite in their resistance.“A lot of the attention has been on Harvard, and the Ivy Leagues, and the universities that Trump has name-dropped, and I’m glad that Harvard did what they did, obviously, but they’re sitting on a $50bn endowment, and they can do things that we can’t in a public university,” Boxer said, referring to the university’s public defiance of Trump’s demands and a lawsuit it filed against the administration.Large state universities – particularly those in blue states with sympathetic legislators – had other advantages, Boxer noted, including strong connections to alumni in local government and the broader community.That is a harder case to make in Republican-controlled states – some of which, like Florida, Texas, Iowa and Utah – had essentially drawn up a blueprint for attacking diversity initiatives and academic freedom in the years leading up to Trump’s election. In Indiana, the recently passed measures, which legislators attached to a budget bill at the last minute, would establish “productivity” quotas for tenured faculty and end alumnis’ ability to vote for the university’s board of trustees, which would fall under the full control of the state’s governor, Mike Braun.“There is a lot of anxiety,” said Sherman. “If Indiana is any indication, red states might even be more under threat from their state legislatures than they are from the federal government.”Taking a public stance in a climate of growing repression is not easy, faculty say. In Florida, where Ono is headed, the state’s Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, was an early champion of the battle against diversity initiatives and said this week that he expects the incoming president to abide by the state’s mission to “reject woke indoctrination”.In Georgia, at a statewide faculty leadership meeting this week, scholars from across the state’s universities debated how to defend programmes supporting Black students, help international students facing visa revocations, and prepare to fight proposed state legislation that would impose further restrictions on diversity initiatives and criminalize the distribution of some library materials.“Faculty want to do something, they want to respond, but they also see the inevitability of their university system and their lawmakers doing it. There’s no stopping that train here in Georgia,” said Matthew Boedy, a professor at the University of North Georgia who also leads the state’s American Association of University Professors conference.“There are state-level attacks, there are federal attacks,” he said. “We are taking it from all sides.” More

    More stories

    • 138 Shares17 Views

      in US Politics

      Lawyer who prosecuted Trump hauled in front of House judiciary committee

      by

      The former special counsel prosecutor Jay Bratt is scheduled to appear before the Republican-led House judiciary committee next week as it attempts to find instances of politicization in the federal criminal cases brought against Donald Trump, according to three people familiar with the matter.The deposition of Bratt, who led the criminal case over Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified documents as a top deputy to the former special counsel Jack Smith, has been scheduled for 10am ET next Wednesday, according to a notice reviewed by the Guardian.Bratt’s appearance is the first known instance of a special counsel prosecutor being hauled before the judiciary committee since Trump took office vowing revenge and personally directing the firings of more than a dozen prosecutors who worked for Smith within days of his inauguration.It was not clear how long the deposition might last and whether Bratt planned to invoke any privileges to avoid testifying. A spokesperson for the judiciary committee did not immediately respond to questions about the deposition.Smith charged Trump in two cases: in Florida, for mishandling classified documents at his Mar-a-Lago club and defying a subpoena commanding their return; and in Washington, for attempting to overturn the results of the 2020 election.The classified documents case was dismissed before it went to trial by the US district judge Aileen Cannon, who ruled that Smith had been unlawfully appointed because he was acting with the powers of a “principal officer” at the justice department, which requires confirmation by the US Senate.The topics that House investigators have prepared for Bratt were also not clear. But the judiciary committee, led by Republican chair Jim Jordan, has long believed that the special counsel cases were the result of political animus against Trump at the justice department.In repeated letters to the former special counsel last year, House investigators demanded information from Smith about contacts between the Biden White House and the justice department about the criminal cases, including when Bratt once travelled to the White House.They also sought documents and communications about meetings between FBI and justice department officials before the decision was made to ask a magistrate judge for a search warrant for Mar-a-Lago. Bratt is widely understood to have encouraged FBI leaders to obtain a warrant.The warrant later proved to be the basis for the Espionage Act and obstruction of justice charges against Trump; the FBI retrieved 101 classified documents despite Trump’s lawyers having previously claimed that they had complied with an earlier subpoena to return all classified materials.The House judiciary committee has also taken a special interest in a fraught and disputed meeting between then-Trump legal team attorney Stanley Woodward and Bratt at justice department headquarters during the height of the classified documents case in November 2022.The Guardian previously reported on the complaint that Woodward filed in federal district court in Washington about the meeting, where he alleged Bratt discussed Woodward’s application to be a judge while trying to get the cooperation of Walt Nauta, Trump’s valet and Woodward’s client.In the filing, Woodward alleged that Bratt told him he did not think Woodward was a “Trump guy” and that “he would do the right thing” and get Nauta to testify against Trump in the classified documents case.The allegation was that Bratt had engaged in possible misconduct by suggesting Woodward’s judgeship application might be considered more favorably if he convinced his client to flip. The matter was referred to the justice department’s office of professional responsibility but it does not appear as though any action was taken.The extent of any potential impact on the case was unclear, since the meeting did not appear to have directly affected any testimony Nauta gave to prosecutors, and Bratt would not have had the ability to influence such an application, which is handled by the White House counsel’s office. More

    • 188 Shares27 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump ‘looking at’ suspending habeas corpus, top aide Stephen Miller says – US politics live

      by

      In response to a question from a blogger for the far-right Gateway Pundit about when the Trump administration could start “suspending the writ of habeas corpus to take care of the illegal immigration problem”, White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said the Trump administration is “actively looking at” doing so.Federal habeas corpus is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual’s incarceration.Miller told the blogger, Jordan Conradson, he had made a point of calling on first: “The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of invasion. So it’s an option we’re actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not”.Miller’s use of the word “invasion” reflects the Trump administration’s argument that the US is under invasion from undocumented migrants and so the president is justified in claiming the power to deport anyone the administration brands a suspected gang member, with little to no due process under the rarely-used, wartime Alien Enemies Act.A recently declassified intelligence assessment, however, shows that US agencies do not believe that the gang Tren de Aragua is operating on behalf of the government of Venezuela, as the administration has claimed as justification to use the Alien Enemies Act.Just last week a federal judge in Texas ruled that the law does not authorize the administration to deport such individuals. You can read more on that here:The Chronicle of Higher Education reports that scientists who get federal grants from the National Institutes of Health are being notified that funding for their work could be pulled if they boycott Israel or fail to follow Donald Trump’s executive orders decreeing that diversity is a form of anti-white racism and there are only two sexes, male and female.In one case, a researcher at a teaching hospital in the Boston area, who studies how genes are regulated in lung disease, discovered in the fine print of her grant renewal that she was expected to comply with Trump’s anti-trans order “Defending Women From Gender Ideology Extremism and Restoring Biological Truth”.The Chronicle has confirmed that at least two institutions have received grant notices ordering them to comply with Trump’s anti-transgender executive order.The fine print of grant awards even bans scientists from promoting “accessibility” for people with disabilities, making DEIA a prohibited term.According to new conditions for NIH grants released last month:By accepting the grant award, recipients are certifying that:(i) They do not, and will not during the term of this financial assistance award, operate any programs that advance or promote DEI, DEIA, or discriminatory equity ideology in violation of Federal anti-discrimination laws; and(ii) They do not engage in and will not during the term of this award engage in, a discriminatory prohibited boycott.The mayor of Newark, New Jersey, Ras Baraka, “was arrested and detained by Ice” on Friday at an federal immigration detention center where he was protesting, a spokesperson for his campaign to be the state’s governor confirmed.Alina Habba, a former personal lawyer for Donald Trump who is now interim US attorney for New Jersey, wrote on social media that Baraka “has been taken into custody” after, she alleged, he “committed trespass and ignored multiple warnings from Homeland Security Investigations to remove himself from the Ice detention center in Newark”.The mayor has been protesting the opening of Delaney Hall, an detention facility run by private prison operator GEO Group, all week, saying its operators did not get proper permits.Video of the mayor being led away in handcuffs was posted on social networks by a local news station.Witnesses told The Associated Press the arrest came after Baraka attempted to join a scheduled tour of the facility with three members of New Jersey’s congressional delegation, Representatives Robert Menendez, LaMonica McIver, and Bonnie Watson Coleman.When federal officials blocked his entry, a heated argument broke out, according to Viri Martinez, an activist with the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice. It continued even after Baraka returned to the public side of the gates.“The agents started intimidating and putting their hands on the congresswomen. There was yelling and pushing,” Martinez said. “Then the officers swarmed Baraka. They threw one of the organizers to the ground. They put Baraka handcuffs and put him in an unmarked car”.Video circulating on Bluesky showed the mayor being dragged inside the gates.“We’re at Delaney Hall, an ICE prison in Newark that opened without permission from the city & in violation of local ordinances” Coleman wrote on social media before the mayor’s arrest. “We’ve heard stories of what it’s like in other ICE prisons. We’re exercising our oversight authority to see for ourselves”.Our colleague Richard Luscombe has more on this developing story:In response to a question from a blogger for the far-right Gateway Pundit about when the Trump administration could start “suspending the writ of habeas corpus to take care of the illegal immigration problem”, White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller said the Trump administration is “actively looking at” doing so.Federal habeas corpus is a procedure under which a federal court may review the legality of an individual’s incarceration.Miller told the blogger, Jordan Conradson, he had made a point of calling on first: “The Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land, that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in time of invasion. So it’s an option we’re actively looking at. Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not”.Miller’s use of the word “invasion” reflects the Trump administration’s argument that the US is under invasion from undocumented migrants and so the president is justified in claiming the power to deport anyone the administration brands a suspected gang member, with little to no due process under the rarely-used, wartime Alien Enemies Act.A recently declassified intelligence assessment, however, shows that US agencies do not believe that the gang Tren de Aragua is operating on behalf of the government of Venezuela, as the administration has claimed as justification to use the Alien Enemies Act.Just last week a federal judge in Texas ruled that the law does not authorize the administration to deport such individuals. You can read more on that here:Exasperated by the turmoil that has dogged Pete Hegseth’s office in recent weeks, the White House will block the US defense secretary’s choice of chief of staff and select a candidate of its own, according to two people familiar with the matter.Hegseth had suggested giving the chief of staff position to Marine Col Ricky Buria after the first person in the role, Joe Kasper, left last month in the wake of a contentious leak investigation that brought the ouster of three other senior aides.But the White House has made clear to Hegseth that Buria will not be elevated to become his most senior aide at the Pentagon, the people said, casting Buria as a liability on account of his limited experience as a junior military assistant and his recurring role in internal office drama.“Ricky will not be getting the chief position,” one of the people directly familiar with deliberations said. “He doesn’t have adequate experience, lacks the political chops and is widely disliked by almost everyone in the White House who has been exposed to him.”The White House has always selected political appointees at agencies through the presidential personnel office, but the move to block Hegseth’s choice at this juncture is unusual and reflects Donald Trump’s intent to keep Hegseth by trying to insulate him from any more missteps.The intervention comes at a time when Hegseth’s ability to run the Pentagon has come under scrutiny. It also runs into the belief inside Trump’s orbit that even the president might struggle to justify Hegseth’s survival if the secretary does not have a scandal-free next few months.Donald Trump plans to sign an executive order later today discouraging criminal enforcement of regulatory offenses, in a bid to combat the overcriminalization of federal regulations, a White House official has told Reuters.Trump also plans to sign a proclamation to encourage migrants who are in the US illegally to voluntarily depart the country, according to a White House official.The “Project Homecoming” initiative will encourage migrants to leave voluntarily with the assistance of the federal government and financial support, or face enforcement and penalties, according to the official.

      A federal judge ordered the immediate release of Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student from Turkey, whose detention in March for writing an op-ed critical of Israel’s war in Gaza in her school newspaper judge William Sessions ruled “raised significant due process concerns”. Ordering her release, Sessions said her continued detention “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens”.

      People in Texas who were told they would be deported to Libya sat waiting on a military airfield tarmac for hours on Wednesday, unsure of what would happen next, Reuters reported. After several hours, they were bused back to the detention center around noon, an attorney for one of the men said. A US official told Reuters the flight never departed. As of Friday, it was unclear if the administration was still planning to proceed with the deportations.

      Pope Leo is “not happy with what’s going on with immigration”, his brother told the NYT, adding: “How far he’ll go with it is only one’s guess, but he won’t just sit back. I don’t think he’ll be the silent one.” Here’s our write-up.

      The major “earth-shattering” announcement Donald Trump teased earlier this week in the Oval Office is a “most favored nation” plan to cut Medicare drug prices, sources told CBS News, a policy he pursued unsuccessfully in his first term. The move would require Medicare to pay drug companies the lowest price paid in similar countries for some expensive, physician-administered drugs.

      Donald Trump said he would be “OK” if Republicans in Congress raised the tax rate on the wealthiest Americans, but warned of political consequences. He wrote on his Truth Social platform: “Republicans should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!” It comes after the president privately urged House speaker Mike Johnson to raise the tax rate, Reuters reported.

      But, in a sign of just how tricky it may be to get Republicans to vote for raising anyone’s taxes, the tax portion of the GOP mega-bill is at risk of unraveling, three people told Politico, after leaders failed to win enough support for deeper spending cuts. That means Republicans will have to leave out some of Trump’s tax priorities, according to the people.

      A majority of US adults disapprove of Trump’s handling of issues related to colleges and universities, as his Republican administration escalate threats to cut federal funding unless institutions align with his political agenda. According to a poll by the Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research, 56% of Americans said they disapproved of the US president’s approach to higher education, while about four in 10 expressed approval, which is broadly consistent with his overall job approval ratings.

      Large institutional investors massively increased their holdings of Trump Media and Technology Group (TMTG) in recent months according to SEC filings, with many enlarging their positions by hundreds of millions of dollars. The revelations raise further questions about big business’s desire to curry favor with Donald Trump and his administration via the enterprises he has maintained or commenced.

      Trump remains firm that the US is not going to unilaterally reduce tariffs on Chinese goods without concessions from China, the White House said, only hours after Trump floated the idea of reducing the current rate of 145% down to 80% as the two sides prepare for talks in Switzerland. “That was a number the president threw out there, and we’ll see what happens this weekend,” Karoline Leavitt told reporters.

      The US Postal Service named David Steiner as the next postmaster general after the Trump administration pressured the prior leader to resign in March. Steiner is a former Waste Management CEO and has served on the board of FedEx.
      Donald Trump has signed an executive order to establish a national center for homeless veterans with redirected funds previously spent on services for illegal aliens, according to Fox News Digital.The order directs the secretary of veterans affairs to establish the “National Center for Warrior Independence” on the veterans affairs campus in West Los Angeles, Fox reports.Fox quotes the White House: “The new National Center for Warrior Independence will help [LA’s unhoused veterans’] and other veterans like them rebuild their lives.”The center will allow veterans from around the nation to seek and receive care, benefits and services “to which they are entitled”, the White House said.The White House told Fox the goal is to house up to 6,000 homeless veterans at the center by 2028.A girl recovering from a rare brain tumor celebrated her 11th birthday on Sunday, hundreds of miles away from everything she’s known – her friends at school, her community at church, her home, NBC News reports.She is one of four US citizen children who were sent to Mexico from Texas three months ago when immigration authorities deported their undocumented parents.Hoping to find a way for her to resume medical treatment in the US, this morning her family traveled to Monterrey to meet with members of the congressional Hispanic caucus to urge “legislators to advocate for their return under humanitarian parole”.One such colleague is Senator Ed Markey, who called the order for Öztürk’s release “a victory for Rümeysa, for justice, and for our democracy”. He posted on X:
      Rümeysa Öztürk has finally been ordered released. She has been unlawfully detained for more than six weeks in an ICE facility in Louisiana, more than 1,500 miles away from Somerville. This is a victory for Rümeysa, for justice, and for our democracy.
      Senator Elizabeth Warren posted on X: “The Trump administration must release Rümeysa Öztürk right now.”Warren is one of the members of Congress who has been pushing for Öztürk’s release and the restoration of her visa. In March she called Öztürk’s arrest and detention without due process “deeply disturbing” and with colleagues has been demanding answers about the case from the Trump administration since.US district judge William Sessions also found that in addition to the violation of her constitutional rights, Öztürk faced significant risk in Ice custody for an exacerbation of her diagnosed chronic asthma.According to court filings, she suffered multiple asthma attacks in detention that she has struggled to get treated for, and has had her hijab forcibly removed.Öztürk appeared on video at the hearing earlier and told the judge she had suffered 12 asthma attacks since her detention, saying:
      Now they are between five to 45 minutes and they are more intense … longer and harder to stop.
      “We are not allowed to take fresh air when we need to take it … Also there is no divider between the showers,” Öztürk said.“Also the maximum capacity for the room is indicated … for 14 people but there are 24 people living in a small area, spanning … more than 22 hours inside of the same locked cell,” she added.Following Öztürk’s initial testimony, her doctor, Jessica McCannon, testified about her diagnosis of Öztürk’s asthma. At one point, Öztürk had an asthma attack during McCannon’s testimony, which her lawyers had to interrupt. The judge then excused Öztürk and allowed her to temporarily step out of the room to use the bathroom.Addressing the court, McCannon said:
      She is at significantly increased risk of developing an asthma exacerbation if not released, that would potentially require emergency evaluation.
      If not treated appropriately and quickly, patients can suffer morbidity and mortality related to asthma exacerbations.
      The Trump administration is attempting to deport Rümeysa Öztürk under a rarely used immigration statute giving the secretary of state the authority to remove immigrants deemed harmful to US foreign policy. Her lawyers say it is a flagrant violation of her constitutional right to free speech.US district judge William Sessions, in ordering her release, said her continued detention “potentially chills the speech of the millions and millions of individuals in this country who are not citizens. Any one of them may now avoid exercising their first amendment rights for fear of being whisked away to a detention center from their home. For all of those reasons, the court finds that her continued detention cannot stand, that bail is necessary to make the habeas [petition] … effective.”He added:
      This is a woman who’s just totally committed to her academic career … there is absolutely no evidence that that she has engaged in violence or advocated violence. She has no criminal record … therefore, the court finds that she does not pose a danger to the community.
      Monica Allard, staff attorney with the ACLU of Vermont, said of the order for the release of Rümeysa Öztürk.
      After today’s ruling, Rümeysa can return to her community at Tufts and sleep safely in her own bed. Tomorrow, she can wake up and begin the process of healing from this experience while she finishes her PhD in child development.
      Spending over six weeks in detention for writing an op-ed is a constitutional horror story. Her release is a victory for everyone committed to justice, free speech, and basic human rights.
      Mahsa Khanbabai of Khanbabai Immigration Law, who is representing Rümeysa Öztürk, said of the order for her release:
      I am relieved and ecstatic that Rümeysa has been ordered released. Unfortunately, it is 45 days too late. She has been imprisoned all these days for simply writing an op-ed that called for human rights and dignity for the people in Palestine. When did speaking up against oppression become a crime? When did speaking up against genocide become something to be imprisoned for?
      I am thankful that the courts have been ruling in favor of detained political prisoners like Rümeysa. The public plays an important role in upholding our constitutional rights. Please continue to speak up for democracy and civil rights in every space including our elected offices, our universities, and our halls of justice.
      Donald Trump remains firm that the United States is not going to unilaterally reduce tariffs on Chinese goods without concessions from China, Leavitt said, hours after Trump floated the idea of reducing the current rate of 145% down to 80% as the two sides prepare for talks in Switzerland.“That was a number the president threw out there, and we’ll see what happens this weekend,” she told reporters.At the White House press briefing, Karoline Leavitt says secretary of State Marco Rubio is in constant contact with the leaders of both India and Pakistan.With tensions continuing to escalate between the two neighboring countries, Leavitt reiterated that Donald Trump wants to see the conflict de-escalate.A federal judge ordered the Trump administration on Friday to release Rümeysa Öztürk, a Tufts University student from Turkey who has been held for over six weeks in a Louisiana immigration detention facility after she co-wrote an opinion piece criticizing her school’s response to Israel’s war in Gaza.US district judge William Sessions during a hearing in Burlington, Vermont, granted bail to Öztürk, who is at the center of one of the highest-profile cases to emerge from Donald Trump’s campaign to deport pro-Palestinian activists on American campuses.The judge ruled shortly after a federal appeals court rejected the Trump administration’s bid to re-detain Columbia University student Mohsen Mahdawi, a Palestinian campus activist who a different judge in Vermont ordered released last week after immigration authorities arrested him as well.Ozturk’s arrest on 25 March by masked, plainclothes law enforcement officers on a street in Somerville, Massachusetts, near her home was captured in a viral video and occurred after the state department revoked her student visa.The sole basis authorities have provided for revoking her visa was an opinion piece she co-authored in Tufts’ student newspaper criticizing the school’s response to calls by students to divest from companies with ties to Israel and to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide”.Her lawyers at the American Civil Liberties Union had argued that her arrest and detention were unlawfully designed to punish her for speech protected by the constitution’s first amendment and to chill the speech of others.Öztürk was moved to a detention center in Basile, Louisiana, even though her lawyer filed a lawsuit in Massachusetts the day she was arrested and a judge there barred her from being moved out of the state without 48 hours’ notice.By the time that order came down, Immigration and Customs Enforcement had already taken her to Vermont, where she was held briefly before being flown to Louisiana.Rather than dismiss her case as the administration wanted, a Massachusetts judge transferred the case to Vermont, saying it could be properly heard there.Sessions then ordered Öztürk transferred to Vermont so she could be available as he weighed ordering her release and considered the “significant constitutional concerns” she had raised.A federal appeals court on Wednesday ordered her transferred to Vermont by 14 May, but Sessions opted to proceed with a previously-scheduled bail hearing to go forward on Friday and allow Ozturk to appear remotely after her lawyers said she was suffering from worsening asthma attacks while in custody. More

    • 125 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump withdraws embattled candidate for top federal prosecutor in DC

      by

      Donald Trump on Thursday said he would look for a new candidate for the role of top federal prosecutor in Washington DC, after a key Republican senator said he would not support the loyalist initially selected for the job.The president had in January appointed Ed Martin, a former Missouri Republican party chair and ardent supporter of Trump’s baseless claims of fraud in the 2020 election, as interim US attorney in Washington DC, an office that oversees both felony prosecutions in the capital city as well as many national security cases.Martin had quickly made clear he intended to use the role to defend Trump, writing on social media that the office would act as “President Trumps’ [sic] lawyers” and saying he would not hire graduates of schools that practiced the diversity policies the president has vilified.Interim US attorneys must leave the role after 120 days unless they are confirmed by the Senate. Earlier this week, Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican who serves on the chamber’s judiciary committee, said he would not advance Martin’s nomination, denying the GOP the votes needed to get his nomination through the committee.Speaking at the White House on Thursday, Trump called Martin “a terrific person” but said “he wasn’t getting the support from people that I thought”.He added: “He wasn’t rejected, but we felt it would be very, it would be hard. And we have somebody else that we’ll be announcing over the next two days who’s going to be great.”Tillis, who will be a prime target of Democrats in next year’s midterm elections, cited Martin’s support for Trump’s pardon of January 6 insurrectionists on his first day in office.“I have no tolerance for anybody who entered the building on January the sixth, and that’s probably where most of the friction was,” Tillis told reporters at the Capitol.“If Mr Martin were being put forth as a US attorney for any district except the district where January 6 happened, the protest happened, I’d probably support him, but not in this district.”The top judiciary committee Democrat, Dick Durbin, welcomed Martin’s withdrawal.“Mr Martin’s record made it clear that he does not have the temperament or judgment to be entrusted with the power and responsibility of being US attorney for the District of Columbia. I’m relieved to see that his nomination will be withdrawn by the White House,” Durbin said in a statement.Earlier this month, National Public Radio reported on ties between Martin and Timothy Hale-Cusanelli, a January 6 rioter whom federal prosecutors called a “Nazi sympathizer”. Martin had told the Senate “I am not close with him”, despite appearing with Hale-Cusanelli at events and praising him.Martin is known for being active on X and, shortly after Trump announced the withdrawal of his nomination, posted what appears to be a doctored photo of himself dressed as the pope.

      This story was amended on 8 May 2025 to correct that Ed Martin was appointed in January, not February. More

    • 163 Shares25 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump nominates Dr Casey Means, influencer close to RFK Jr, for surgeon general

      by

      Donald Trump has tapped Dr Casey Means, a wellness influencer with close ties to Robert F Kennedy Jr, the US health secretary, as nominee for surgeon general after withdrawing his initial pick for the influential health post.The US president said in a social media post on Wednesday that Means has “impeccable ‘MAHA’ credentials” – referring to the “make America healthy again” slogan – and that she will work to eradicate chronic disease and improve the health and wellbeing of Americans.“Her academic achievements, together with her life’s work, are absolutely outstanding,” Trump said. “Dr Casey Means has the potential to be one of the finest Surgeon Generals in United States History.”The news signals Trump’s withdrawal of his original pick for the post: Janette Nesheiwat, a former Fox News medical contributor. It marks at least the second health-related pick from Trump to be pulled from Senate consideration. Nesheiwat had been scheduled to appear before the Senate health, education, labor and pensions committee on Thursday for her confirmation hearing.Means and her brother, former lobbyist Calley Means, served as key advisers to Kennedy’s longshot 2024 presidential bid and helped broker his endorsement of Trump last summer. The pair made appearances with some of Trump’s biggest supporters, winning praise from conservative pundit Tucker Carlson and podcaster Joe Rogan. Calley Means is currently a White House adviser who appears frequently on television to promote restrictions on Snap benefits, removing fluoride from drinking water and other Maha agenda items.Casey Means has no government experience and dropped out of her surgical residency program, saying she became disillusioned with traditional medicine. She founded a health tech company, Levels, that helps users track blood sugar and other metrics. She also makes money from dietary supplements, creams, teas and other products sponsored on her social media accounts.In interviews and articles, Means and her brother describe a dizzying web of influences to blame for the nation’s health problems, including corrupt food conglomerates that have hooked Americans on unhealthy diets, leaving them reliant on daily medications from the pharmaceutical industry to manage obesity, diabetes and other chronic conditions.Few health experts would dispute that the US diet – full of processed foods – is a contributor to obesity and related problems. But Means goes further, linking changes in diet and lifestyle to a raft of conditions including infertility, Alzheimer’s, depression and erectile dysfunction.“Almost every chronic health symptom that Western medicine addresses is the result of our cells being beleaguered by how we’ve come to live,” Means said in a 2024 book co-written with her brother.Food experts say it’s overly simplistic to declare that all processed foods are harmful, since the designation covers an estimated 60% of US foods, including products as diverse as granola, peanut butter and potato chips.“They are not all created equal,” said Gabby Headrick, a nutrition researcher at George Washington University’s school of public health. “It is much more complicated than just pointing the finger at ultra-processed foods as the driver of chronic disease in the United States.”Means has mostly steered clear of Kennedy’s debunked views on vaccines. But on her website, she has called for more investigation into their safety and recommends making it easier for patients to sue drugmakers in the event of vaccine injuries. Since the late 1980s, federal law has shielded those companies from legal liability to encourage development of vaccines without the threat of costly personal injury lawsuits.She trained as a surgeon at Stanford University but has built an online following by criticizing the medical establishment and promoting natural foods and lifestyle changes to reverse obesity, diabetes and other chronic diseases.If confirmed as surgeon general, Means would be tasked with helping promote Kennedy’s sprawling Maha agenda, which calls for removing thousands of additives and chemicals from US foods, rooting out conflicts of interest at federal agencies and incentivizing healthier foods in school lunches and other nutrition programs.Nesheiwat, Trump’s first pick, is a medical director for an urgent care company in New York and has appeared regularly on Fox News to offer medical expertise and insights. She is a vocal supporter of Trump and shares photos of them together on social media. Nesheiwat is also the sister-in-law of former national security adviser Mike Waltz, who has been nominated to be Trump’s ambassador to the United Nations.Nesheiwat also recently came under criticism from Laura Loomer, a far-right ally of Trump who was instrumental in ousting several members of Trump’s national security council. Loomer posted on Twitter/X earlier this week that “we can’t have a pro-COVID vaccine nepo appointee who is currently embroiled in a medical malpractice case and who didn’t go to medical school in the US” as the surgeon general.Independent freelance journalist Anthony Clark reported last month that Nesheiwat earned her medical degree from the American University of the Caribbean School of Medicine in St Maarten, despite saying that she has a degree from the University of Arkansas School of Medicine.The surgeon general, considered the nation’s doctor, oversees 6,000 US Public Health Service Corps members and can issue advisories that warn of public health threats.In March, the White House pulled from consideration the nomination of former Florida Republican Dave Weldon to lead the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. His skepticism on vaccines had raised concerns from key Republican senators, and he withdrew after being told by the White House that he did not have enough support to be confirmed.The withdrawal was first reported by Bloomberg News. More

    • 125 Shares38 Views

      in US Politics

      House panel on campus antisemitism likened to cold-war ‘un-American’ committee

      by

      A congressional panel investigating antisemitism on US college campuses on Wednesday was accused of trying to chill constitutionally protected free speech and likened to a cold-war era committee notorious for wrecking the lives of people suspected of communist sympathies.The comparison was made by David Cole, a professor at Georgetown University law centre, who told the House education and workforce committee that its proceedings resembled those staged by the House un-American Activities Committee (Huac) during and after the second world war.Cole, a former national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, accused the present-day committee of “broad-based charges of antisemitism without any factual predicate”.“These proceedings, with all due respect, have more in common with those of the House un-American Activities Committee,” he told committee members. “They are not an attempt to find out what happened, but an attempt to chill protected speech.”HUAC, originally formed in 1938 to investigate Nazi subversion, switched focus to communism after the war and grew infamous after its high-profile hearings – including into suspected communism in Hollywood – led to blacklists and people losing their jobs.Cole’s criticism came in the eighth hearing held by the committee, which has previously looked into antisemitism sparked by anti-Israel and pro-Palestinian protests at elite universities, including Harvard, Columbia and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.The Trump administration has demanded sweeping changes in the governance of some of the country’s leading universities, including Harvard – prompting a backlash from academics and administrators, who believe antisemitism is being used as a pretext to curtail academic freedom.Pervious hearings had led to the resignations of several university heads after they were deemed to have given legalistic responses to questions – mainly posed by Republicans – over whether certain anti-Israeli slogans were genocidal or protected by free speech.Wednesday’s hearing included presidents from Haverford College in Pennsylvania, DePaul University in Chicago and California Polytechnic State University in San Luis Obispo.Even before it began, questions were raised about how truly concerned some members of Congress were prejudiced against Jews.A memo signed by Haverford academics – most of them Jewish – and reported by the Guardian expressed concern that one had quoted Adolf Hitler, others had failed to condemn antisemitic activity in their districts, and Tim Walberg, the committee’s Republican chair, had links to a Christian group that “trains students to convert Jewish people to Christianity”.Jewish Voice for Peace, a leftwing group, took nine Jewish students from Columbia to Capitol Hill to meet members of Congress on Tuesday, while condemning the hearings as “McCarthyite” and more concerned with suppressing pro-Palestinian protest than antisemitism.Walberg told the hearing campus antisemitism “continues to traumatize students, faculty and staff”. He cited a letter from a group of Jewish students at Haverford who claimed to have been “marginalized, ostracized and at times, outright attacked. College officials reacted with “indifference”, he said.Cole, who had been called as a witness by the committee’s ranking Democrat, Bobby Scott, said the hearings were flawed on free speech grounds and for focusing on the 1964 Civil Rights Acts, which – under Title VI – outlaws discrimination in education on the grounds of race, colour or national origin in institutions receiving federal funding.“Antisemitic speech, while lamentable, is constitutionally protected, just like racist speech, sexist speech and homophobic speech,” he said, adding that the US supreme court had defended the rights of the Nazi party to march in a town where Holocaust survivors lived.On civil rights, he said: “Title VI does not prohibit antisemitic speech. An antisemitic slogan at a protest or online does not deny equal access to education any more than a sexist or a racist comment.”More broadly, Cole said, committee members had not conducted proper investigations into specific incidents.“Getting to the bottom of what happened requires fair hearings where both sides are heard about specific incidents,” he said. “This committee has not held a single hearing looking into a specific incident, having the perpetrator and the complainant testify.”Suzanne Bonamici, a Democratic representative from Oregon, who is Jewish, cited a letter from 100 Jewish faculty members at Northwestern University in Illinois expressing “serious concerns” about how the committee was addressing antisemitism.“We are united by the conviction that our Jewishness must not be used as a cudgel to silence the vigorous exchange of ideas that lies at the heart of university life,” she quoted them as saying.She added: “As an active member of my synagogue for more than 25 years, I can no longer pretend that this is a good-faith effort to root out antisemitism.”Elise Stefanik, a Republican representative from New York, who rose to prominence in December 2023 with a high-profile cross-examination that prompted the resignation of the former president of the University of Pennsylvania, Elizabeth Magill, tried a similar tack with Haverford’s head, Wendy Raymond.“Is calling for the genocide of Jews protected speech on your campus?” Stefanik asked.Raymond replied that it was not, but struggled to answer when asked if students or staff had been disciplined or investigated for using such language. Stefanik said: “Respectfully, president of Haverford, many people have sat in this position who are no longer in the positions as president of universities for their failure to answer straightforward questions.”She added: “For the American people watching, you still don’t get it. Haverford still doesn’t get it. It’s a very different testimony than the other presidents who are here today, who are coming with specifics. This is completely unacceptable. Higher education has failed to address this gorge of antisemitism, putting Jewish students at risk at Haverford and other campuses across the country.” More

    • 200 Shares33 Views

      in US Politics

      We can’t just be against Trump. It’s time for a bold, progressive populism | Robert Reich

      by

      Demonstrations against Donald Trump Trump are getting larger and louder. Good. This is absolutely essential.But at some point we’ll need to demonstrate not just against the president but also for the United States we want.Trump’s regressive populism – cruel, bigoted, tyrannical – must be met by a bold progressive populism that strengthens democracy and shares the wealth.We can’t simply return to the path we were on before Trump. Even then, big money was taking over our democracy and siphoning off most of the economy’s gains.Two of the country’s most respected political scientists – professors Martin Gilens of Princeton and Benjamin Page of Northwestern University – analyzed 1,799 policy issues decided between 1981 and 2002. They found that “the preferences of the average American appear to have only a miniscule, near-zero, statistically non-significant impact upon public policy.”Instead, lawmakers responded to the demands of wealthy individuals (typically corporate executives and Wall Street moguls) and big corporations – those with the most lobbying prowess and deepest pockets to bankroll campaigns. And “when a majority of citizens disagrees with economic elites or with organized interests, they generally lose.”Notably, Gilens and Page’s research data was gathered before the supreme court opened the floodgates to big money in Citizens United. After that, the voices of typical Americans were entirely drowned.In the election cycle of 2016, which first delivered the White House to Trump, the richest 100th of 1% of Americans accounted for a record-breaking 40% of all campaign donations. (By contrast, in 1980, the top 0.01% accounted for only 15% of all contributions.)The direction we were heading was unsustainable. Even before Trump’s first regime, trust in every major institution of society was plummeting – including Congress, the courts, corporations, Wall Street, universities, the legal establishment and the media.The entire system seemed rigged for the benefit of the establishment – and in many ways it was.The typical family’s inflation-adjusted income had barely risen for decades. Most of the economy’s gains had gone to the top.Wall Street got bailed out when its gambling addiction caused it humongous losses but homeowners who were underwater did not. Nor did people who lost their jobs and savings. And not a single top Wall Street executive went to jail.A populist – anti-establishment – revolution was inevitable. But it didn’t have to be a tyrannical one. It didn’t have to be regressive populism.Instead of putting the blame where it belonged – on big corporations, Wall Street and the billionaire class – Trump has blamed immigrants, the “deep state”, socialists, “coastal elites”, transgender people, “DEI” and “woke”.How has Trump gotten away with this while giving the super-rich large tax benefits and regulatory relief and surrounding himself (especially in his second term) with a record number of billionaires, including the richest person in the world?Largely because Democratic leaders – with the notable exceptions of Bernie Sanders (who is actually an independent), AOC and a handful of others – could not, and still cannot, bring themselves to enunciate a progressive version of populism that puts the blame squarely where it belongs.Too many have been eating from the same campaign buffet as the Republicans and dare not criticize the hands that feed them.This has left Trump’s regressive populism as the only version of anti-establishment politics available to Americans. It’s a tragedy. Anti-establishment fury remains at the heart of our politics, and for good reason.What would progressive populism entail?Strengthening democracy by busting up big corporations. Stopping Wall Street’s gambling (eg replicating the Glass-Steagall Act). Getting big money out of politics, even if this requires amending the constitution. Requiring big corporations to share their profits with their average workers. Strengthening unions. And raising taxes on the super-wealthy to finance a universal basic income, Medicare for all, and paid family leave.Hopefully, demonstrations against Trump’s regressive, tyrannical populism will continue to grow.But we must also be demonstrating for a better future beyond Trump – one that strengthens democracy and works on behalf of all Americans rather than a privileged few.

      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is a professor of public policy emeritus at the University of California, Berkeley. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com More

    • 150 Shares48 Views

      in US Politics

      Democrats make long-shot effort to stop Trump cuts to Medicaid and Snap

      by

      House Democrats are making a long-shot attempt to stop Republicans from downsizing federal safety net programs including Medicaid to offset the costs of Donald Trump’s immigration crackdown and tax cuts.The Democratic House minority leader, Hakeem Jeffries, on Tuesday announced that his lawmakers are circulating a petition which, should a majority of the chamber sign on to it, would force a vote on legislation preventing cuts to the Medicaid health insurance program and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (Snap).Known as a discharge petition, the effort faces long odds in the GOP-led chamber. Republican leaders have recently moved to stop such petitions, and while several Republican lawmakers have expressed concerns about some of the cuts being considered to pay for Trump’s agenda, they still generally support it.“House Republicans are determined to jam a reckless and extreme budget down the throats of the American people that will enact the largest cut to Medicaid and the largest cut to Snap in American history,” Jeffries told reporters.“All we need are four Republicans to do the right thing. Stand up for Medicaid and stand up for Snap, so they can stand up for the American people and we can stop the devastating cuts that Republicans are proposing.”Trump has called on Congress’s Republican majorities to send him what he has dubbed “one big, beautiful bill”, which is expected to extend tax cuts enacted during his first term, pay for the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants and potentially address other campaign promises, such as ending the taxation of tips, overtime and social security payments.The GOP plans to pass the bill using Congress’s reconciliation procedure, which requires only simple majorities in both the House and Senate.Some Republicans have blanched at the possibility of deep cuts to Medicaid and Snap. Under a budget framework that applies to the House, the former program could lose as much as $880bn, while the latter could lose $220bn, both major cuts that are expected to have far-reaching effects.Democrats are hoping to seize on their discontent to attract the small number of Republican signatures needed for their petition to succeed.“All of this poses a question for those House Republicans who like to call themselves moderate,” said Katherine Clark, the Democratic whip of the House of Representatives.“Here’s a chance for you, your friends, your fellow moderates, to show you actually care for your constituents. It only takes a handful of Republicans to stop this, just a few to protect Medicaid and save working families from losing their healthcare and going hungry.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionDischarge petitions rarely gather enough signatures, and when they do, House Republican leadership moves forcefully to render them moot.Last month, a small number of Republicans signed on with Democrats to a petition that forced a vote on a measure to allow new parents to vote by proxy in the House. Republican leaders inserted language into a must-pass procedural motion to stop the petition, prompting several GOP lawmakers to join with Democrats in voting down the motion, after which leadership recessed the chamber early. The matter was later resolved by a compromise between the House speaker, Mike Johnson, and Anna Paulina Luna, the Republican representative who was leading the petition.The discharge petition to protect Snap and Medicaid comes after the Democratic National Committee last week announced plans to hold town halls and rally voters in the districts of four Republican lawmakers, with the goal of encouraging them to vote against the forthcoming reconciliation bill.Seven of 11 House committees have written up their section of the bill, which Johnson said he hopes to pass through the chamber by the 26 May Memorial Day holiday. More

    • 200 Shares28 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘The universities are the enemy’: why the right detests the American campus | Lauren Lassabe Shepherd

      by

      In 2021, JD Vance, then a candidate for Ohio senate, gave a provocative keynote address at the National Conservatism Conference. Vance’s lecture was an indictment of American higher education: a “hostile institution” that “gives credibility to some of the most ridiculous ideas that exist in this country”. The aspiring politician did not mince words before his receptive rightwing audience: “If any of us wants to do the things we want to do … We have to honestly and aggressively attack the universities.” The title of Vance’s keynote was inspired by a quote from Richard Nixon: “The universities are the enemy.”The Maga movement, of which Vance, the vice-president, is now at the forefront, has been unabashedly on the attack against campuses, professors and students. Donald Trump characterizes colleges as “dominated by Marxist maniacs and lunatics”, and student protesters as “radicals”, “savages” and “jihadists” who have been indoctrinated by faculty “communists and terrorists”. He has already delivered swift vengeance against campus protesters and non-protesters alike with visa terminations and deportations. This administration has gleefully withheld hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funding to force colleges to crack down on student dissent.While Vance paid homage to Nixon and other forebears on the right, he failed to acknowledge that his political lineage had been fighting the university as an enemy for more than 100 years. In fact, reactionary backlash is a feature of two main milestones in the academy’s history: the democratization of admissions and the diversification of curriculum. Trump and Vance’s attacks are part of a longer history of rightwing backlash that follows each time college becomes more democratic.Before the universities were the enemyFor the first 300 years of US higher education, starting with the founding of Harvard College in the 1630s, the academy was a realm exclusive to the Christian elite. Only an extreme few attended the colonial and antebellum colleges, which were meant as sectarian educational clubs for the sons of the landed gentry. Boys of the Protestant ruling class attended college to socialize, form lifelong friendships and business partnerships, and even link their families legally through intermarriage of their sisters. Young men were exposed to the liberal arts and Christian theology, to be sure, but college was just as much a place to meet other boys like themselves and to be steeped in the cultural norms of their religious denomination and social class. This three-century tradition has been slow to change, and when it has, colleges have met fierce opposition from those who have benefited from the status quo.Throughout this time, the only people of color or women who appeared on campus were the wives and daughters of the faculty, maids, cooks, laundry workers, servants and enslaved people. By the 1830s and through the end of the century, segregated colleges were established for white women, and free men of color (until the founding of Bennett College and Spelman College, women of color had to “pass” as white to attend women’s colleges), but these institutions were not meant to rival or even resemble the standard colleges. The curriculums were vastly different from the liberal arts instruction of Harvard and Princeton – for girls, lessons were about homemaking and Christian motherhood; for children and adults of color, the practical vocations. Still, college-going by anyone was a privilege. Even at the turn of the 20th century, less than 5% of Americans went to college, and many fewer completed a degree.Backlash against who gets inThe right’s first rumblings about the college as enemy occurred during the 20th century, as the nature of the campus began to change for the modern era. The right’s grievance at the time was focused on who was admitted. By the 1920s, European immigrant students were starting to matriculate in east coast campuses, particularly in New York and Pennsylvania. The oldest and most prestigious colleges, such as Harvard, Yale and Princeton, sought to severely limit enrollment of the “socially undesirable”, especially Jews, to preserve the campus for old-stock Protestants. A combination of antisemitism and reactionary backlash to the era’s progressivism led rightwingers to cast a suspicious eye on the campus, where all of the decade’s new social science seemed to be emanating. Christian fundamentalists, terrified by the science of evolution, also decried the sinister academic classroom.By the 1930s, wealthy industrialists joined the chorus of college skeptics. The Franklin Roosevelt administration had assembled its famous “brain trust” of academics whose calculus was needed to pull the nation out of the Great Depression. But industry titans who refused to tolerate Roosevelt’s planned economy responded by creating free-market thinktanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) that produced rival economic white papers in defense of capitalism. Academic departments, AEI’s existence proved, were not the only place where experts could create knowledge. In fact, the right’s thinktanks would become their signature tool for churning out partisan disinformation such as climate crisis denial and race pseudoscience throughout the 20th century.By the time the second world war ended, Congress needed a way to ensure a smooth economic transition as a mass of veterans returned to the job market. The Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, AKA the GI Bill, allowed more than 1 million returning soldiers to delay workforce re-entry by a few years as they entered the classroom. To the horror of many free-marketeers and social elites, the GI Bill in effect doubled the national population of college students, thus diversifying the campus by class, age and in the case of wounded veterans, physical ability (though not by race or gender).Backlash against what gets taughtOn the heels of the democratizing GI Bill, the McCarthyite purge of more than 100 academics for their prewar affiliations with the Communist party has become legend. At the same time, Joseph McCarthy’s young admirer William F Buckley Jr produced his 1951 opus, God and Man at Yale: The Superstitions of Academic Freedom, arguing that socialist professors had run roughshod over the campus, indoctrinating students in Keynesian economics and atheism. The academy, to McCarthy, Buckley and their followers, had transformed into a hotbed of anti-Americanism. The right’s understanding that higher education could not be trusted was now well developed: too many people were entering college and learning the wrong lessons.Following the McCarthy attacks came the storied 1960s, when the campus continued democratizing its admissions and curriculum. Lyndon Johnson’s Higher Education Act of 1965 allowed for greater access to student loans and work-study programs. This allowed additional generations of working-class students to matriculate, especially more people of color, who demanded to see themselves in their lessons. The creation of Black studies, women’s studies, Chicano studies and similar disciplines throughout the 1970s followed militant strikes by student protesters. At the same time, anti-Vietnam war unrest challenged their institutions’ commitments to cold war weapons development. For the right, this was but more evidence of the college as a radicalizing institution.Increasingly, the liberal center began to agree with the notion that the campus had radicalizing potential. The 1980s and the 1990s marked the bipartisan obsession with culture wars, with the campus as its apparent locus. To the benefit of the right, popular debates about political correctness and identity politics in effect drew attention from austerity measures that had sucked resources away from higher education since the Reagan years. Through the 2000s and 2010, the right revved up its offensives against campus antiwar movements, attacking faculty and students who spoke out against the “war on terror” and protests to boycott, divest from and sanction Israel. By the 2010s, in the aftermath of the Great Recession’s deep cuts to higher education, conservative attacks shifted back to campus social crusades as the right railed against the Occupy Wall Street, Black Lives Matter and #MeToo movements, and ginned up moral panics over safe spaces, trigger warnings and cancel culture.Throughout the 20th century and into the 21st, conservative rhetoric cast colleges and universities as deeply politicized, inefficient and anti-American. From the 1920s to the 1980s, this generated popular notions that the college should be reformed back to its previous role as a selective space for class reproduction. Since the 1980s, the purpose has been to delegitimize the academy to get mass buy-in to defund, privatize and eventually abolish public higher education. The goal is to return colleges to a carefully constructed environment not to educate all, but to reproduce hierarchy (especially if it can be done for profit).This has not been an exclusively American process. Autocrats around the world have cracked down on the academy, journalism and venues of arts and culture for the last 100 years. These are places where ideas are shared and traditional conventions are challenged. Crushing them is central to consolidating authoritarian power. Today’s international rightwing leaders want to control higher education, just as they want dominion over all other social, cultural and political institutions. For the first time, a US president is finally willing to deliver the right’s century-old goal.

      Lauren Lassabe Shepherd, PhD, is a historian of US colleges and universities. She is the author of Resistance from the Right: Conservatives and the Campus Wars in Modern America and host of the weekly American Campus Podcast More