US news

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Over 100 US university presidents sign letter decrying Trump administration

      by

      More than 100 presidents of US colleges and universities have signed a statement denouncing the Trump administration’s “unprecedented government overreach and political interference” with higher education – the strongest sign yet that US educational institutions are forming a unified front against the government’s extraordinary attack on their independence.The statement, published early on Tuesday by the American Association of Colleges and Universities, comes weeks into the administration’s mounting campaign against higher education, and hours after Harvard University became the first school to sue the government over threats to its funding. Harvard is one of several institutions hit in recent weeks with huge funding cuts and demands they relinquish significant institutional autonomy.The signatories come from large state schools, small liberal arts colleges and Ivy League institutions, including the presidents of Harvard, Princeton and Brown.In the statement, the university presidents, as well as the leaders of several scholarly societies say they speak with “one voice” and call for “constructive engagement” with the administration.“We are open to constructive reform and do not oppose legitimate government oversight,” they write. “However, we must oppose undue government intrusion in the lives of those who learn, live, and work on our campuses.”Harvard’s lawsuit comes after the administration announced it would freeze $2.3bn in federal funds, and Donald Trump threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, over claims the university failed to protect Jewish students from pro-Palestinian protests. The suit and the statement, taken together, mark an increasingly muscular response from universities following what initially appeared to be a tepid approach.While some university leaders have in recent weeks criticised the administration and indicated they will not abide by its demands, the statement marks the first time presidents have spoken out collectively on the matter. The joint condemnation followed a convening of more than 100 university leaders called by the AAC&U and the American Academy of Arts and Sciences last week to “come together to speak out at this moment of enormity”, said Lynn Pasquarella, the president of the AAC&U.Pasquarella said that there was “widespread agreement” across a variety of academic institutions about the need to take a collective stand.“Much has been written about this flood-the-zone strategy that’s being used in the current attacks on higher education, and it’s a strategy designed to overwhelm campus leaders with a constant barrage of directives, executive orders, and policy announcements that make it impossible to respond to everything all at once,” she said, explaining why it has taken until now for a joint response. “Campus leaders have had a lot to deal with over the past few months, and I think that’s part of the reason, but it’s also the case that they are constrained by boards, by multiple constituencies who are often asking them to do things that are at odds with one another.”The Trump administration has issued a barrage of measures aimed at universities the right has described as “the enemy” – some under the guise of fighting alleged antisemitism on campuses and others in an explicit effort to eradicate diversity and inclusion initiatives. Billions in federal funds are under threat unless universities comply with extreme demands, such as removing academic departments from faculty control, “auditing” the viewpoints of students and faculty, and collaborating with federal authorities as they target international students for detention and deportation. Along with its actions against Harvard, it has threatened and in some cases withheld millions more from Cornell, Northwestern, Brown, Columbia, Princeton and the University of Pennsylvania.Columbia has largely accepted the administration’s requirements to restore funding, including placing an academic department under outside oversight. Its president did not sign the collective statement.The measures against the schools, which are already upending academic research, undermine longstanding partnerships between the federal government and universities, and are contributing to an atmosphere of repression, the statement’s signatories note.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Our colleges and universities share a commitment to serve as centers of open inquiry where, in their pursuit of truth, faculty, students, and staff are free to exchange ideas and opinions across a full range of viewpoints without fear of retribution, censorship, or deportation,” they write.Last week, Harvard University issued the strongest rebuke yet of the administration’s demands, with president Alan Garber setting off a showdown with the White House by saying that the university would not “surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights”.While Harvard’s lawsuit was the first by a university, higher education associations and organisations representing faculty have filed other legal challenges over the cuts.Faculty at some universities are also organising to protect one another, with several members of the Big Ten Academic Alliance, a consortium of some of the country’s largest state universities, signing on to a resolution to establish a “mutual defence compact”.At a second convening by the AAC&U on Monday some 120 university leaders also discussed what steps they may take next, including efforts to engage their broader communities and the business world to defend academic freedom.The joint statement, Pasquarella added, was just the beginning, and intended “to signal to the public and to affirm to ourselves what’s at stake here, what’s at risk if this continual infringement on the academy is allowed to continue”. More

    • 150 Shares62 Views

      in US Politics

      Harvard sues Trump administration over efforts to ‘gain control of academic decision-making’

      by

      Harvard University has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, alleging it is trying to “gain control of academic decision-making at Harvard”.The university is fighting back against the administration’s threat to review about $9bn in federal funding after Harvard officials refused to comply with a list of demands that included appointing an outside overseer to ensure that the viewpoints being taught at the university were “diverse”. Harvard is specifically looking to halt a freeze on $2.2bn in grants.The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has sought to force changes at multiple Ivy League institutions after months of student activism centered around the war in Gaza. The administration has painted the campus protests as anti-American, and the institutions as liberal and antisemitic, which Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, refuted.White House spokesperson Harrison Fields said in a statement that the “gravy train of federal assistance” to institutions like Harvard was coming to an end.“Taxpayer funds are a privilege, and Harvard fails to meet the basic conditions required to access that privilege,” Fields said.In a letter announcing the university’s decision to reject Trump’s demands, Garber wrote: “No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”Garber, in a statement published on Monday, reiterated that the Trump administration had doubled down on its response to the university’s refusal to comply with the administration’s demands, despite claims that the letter indicating Harvard’s federal research funding was at risk was sent by mistake.“The government has, in addition to the initial freeze of $2.2bn in funding, considered taking steps to freeze an additional $1bn in grants, initiated numerous investigations of Harvard’s operations, threatened the education of international students, and announced that it is considering a revocation of Harvard’s 501(c)(3) tax-exempt status,” Garber wrote.“These actions have stark real-life consequences for patients, students, faculty, staff, researchers, and the standing of American higher education in the world.”Harvard is the first university to file a lawsuit in response to Trump’s crackdown on top US universities that is says mishandled last year’s pro-Palestinian protests and allowed antisemitism to fester on campuses. But protesters, including some Jewish groups, say their criticism of Israel’s military actions in Gaza is wrongly conflated with antisemitism.Earlier this month, the Trump administration had sent a letter to Harvard with the list of demands, which included changes to its admissions policies, removing recognition of some student clubs, and hiring some new faculty.Last Tuesday, Trump had called for Harvard, the US’s oldest and wealthiest university and one of the most prestigious in the world, to lose its tax-exempt status, CNN first reported.“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?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is totally contingent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!” the US president said in a post on his Truth Social platform. More

    • 188 Shares66 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump news at a glance: Harvard sues White House; president backs Hegseth in Signal scandal

      by

      Harvard University has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration in a bid to halt a freeze of $2.2m in funding, as a battle between Trump and the Ivy League institution escalates.In a damning legal complaint filed with the Massachusetts district court, Harvard’s president, Alan M Garber, accused the Trump administration of trying to “gain control of academic decision making at Harvard”, adding that no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”.The Trump administration has sought to force changes at multiple Ivy League institutions after months of student activism centered around the war in Gaza. The administration has painted the campus protests as anti-American, and the institutions as liberal and antisemitic, a claim that Garber refutes.Here are the key stories at a glance:Harvard says Trump ‘slamming on the brakes’ to vital research In a statement accompanying the lawsuit, Harvard’s Garber said the funding freeze was putting health research into jeopardy, including improving the prospects for children who survive cancer, understanding how cancer spreads through the body, predicting the spread of infectious disease outbreaks and easing the pain of soldiers wounded on the battlefield.“As opportunities to reduce the risk of multiple sclerosis, Alzheimer’s disease, and Parkinson’s disease are on the horizon, the government is slamming on the brakes,” he wrote.Read the full story‘Full-blown meltdown’ at Pentagon over HegsethA former top Pentagon spokesperson has slammed Pete Hegseth’s leadership of the department of defense, as pressure mounts on the defense secretary after reports of a second Signal chatroom used to discuss sensitive military operations.Read the full storyTrump says Hegseth is ‘doing a great job’ Donald Trump offered public support for defense secretary Pete Hegseth a day after it emerged the defense secretary had shared information about US strikes in Yemen last month in a second Signal group chat that included family members, his personal lawyer and several top Pentagon aides.Read the full storyDemocrats land in El Salvador to push for Ábrego García’s releaseA delegation of four House Democrats has arrived in El Salvador to push for the release of Kilmar Ábrego García, part of a mission to challenge the Trump administration’s refusal to comply with a supreme court order to facilitate his returnto the United States.Read the full storyStock markets fall as Trump calls Fed chair ‘a major loser’US stock markets started falling again on Monday morning as Trump continued attacks against the Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, whom the president called “a major loser” for not lowering interest rates.Read the full storyTrump axes key STI lab amid dramatic rise in syphilisThe Trump administration’s cuts to a sexually transmitted infection lab at the Center for Disease Control and Prevention comes as some states announce enormous increases in syphilis. The Trump administration has made deep cuts to health programs, affecting expert leadership and programs that surveil, test and research STIs.Read the full storyFederal employees ‘improperly’ shared sensitive documentsUS government employees “improperly” shared sensitive documents, including White House blueprints, with thousands of federal workers, the Washington Post reported. Staff at an independent agency that oversees the construction and preservation of government buildings, shared a Google Drive folder contacting confidential files to all GSA staff members, totaling more than 11,200 people.Read the full storyWhat else happened today:

      The US supreme court heard arguments in a case that could threaten Americans’ access to free preventive healthcare services under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.

      British lawmakers and peers have called for Trump to be blocked from addressing parliament during his UK visit.

      Hundreds of marches, pickets and cleanup events took place across the US in the run-up to Earth Day as environmental and climate groups step up resistance to the Trump administration’s “war on the planet”.
      Catching up? Here’s what happened on 20 April 2025. More

    • 175 Shares56 Views

      in US Politics

      Mahmoud Khalil’s wife Noor Abdalla gives birth as Ice denies his request to attend

      by

      Noor Abdalla, the wife of detained Columbia university graduate and Palestinian activist Mahmoud Khalil, has announced the birth of their son.In a statement released on Monday evening, Abdalla wrote: “I welcomed our son into the world earlier today without Mahmoud by my side. Despite our request for ICE to allow Mahmoud to attend the birth, they denied his temporary release to meet our son. This was a purposeful decision by ICE to make me, Mahmoud, and our son suffer.”The Department of Homeland Security denied Khalil the opportunity to attend the birth of his first child, which he was only able to experience via a telephone call. Khalil is being held in a Louisiana detention facility more than 1,000 miles away from the New York hospital where his son was delivered.Abdalla, a 28-year-old dentist who lives in New York, and her son, who was born early Monday morning, are both in good health.Abdalla is a US citizen who was born and raised in Michigan. Her parents immigrated to the US from Syria about 40 years ago.According to emails reviewed by the New York Times, Khalil’s lawyers suggested several ways in which he could have attended the birth, including allowing him a two-week furlough while wearing an ankle monitor and requiring scheduled check-ins.“A two-week furlough in this civil detention matter would be both reasonable and humane so that both parents can be present for the birth of their first child,” the lawyers wrote.The request was denied by the New Orleans field office of Immigration and Customs Enforcement.Khalil was arrested on 8 March on grounds that he is considered to be a threat to US foreign policy. Earlier this month, an immigration judge ruled that Khalil is eligible to be deported from the United States.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionAbdalla has fought for her husband’s release since the day of his arrest, maintaining that the Trump administration is “trying to silence” anyone who speaks up for Palestinian rights.“We will not be silenced. We will persist, with even greater resolve, and we will pass that strength on to our children and our children’s children – until Palestine is free,” she wrote on 8 April.In her statement shortly after her son’s birth, Abdalla vowed to continue to fight for Khalil’s release. “I will continue to fight every day for Mahmoud to come home to us. I know when Mahmoud is freed, he will show our son how to be brave, thoughtful, and compassionate, just like his dad.” More

    • 175 Shares62 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump says Hegseth is ‘doing a great job’ despite reports of second Signal chat

      by

      Donald Trump offered public support for defense secretary Pete Hegseth a day after it emerged that Hegseth had shared information about US strikes in Yemen last month in a second Signal group chat that included family, his personal lawyer and several top Pentagon aides.“He’s doing a great job. Ask the Houthis how he’s doing,” Trump said dismissively, referring to the rebel group in Yemen targeted by those missile strikes, on the sidelines of the White House Easter egg roll event on Monday.Hegseth was revealed to have shared, in a series of messages, plans about US strikes against the Houthis on 15 March before they happened in the Signal group chat that included his wife, his brother and a number of his top military aides.The details that Hegseth sent in were essentially the same information that he shared in a separate Signal group chat earlier this year that mistakenly included the editor of the Atlantic in addition to JD Vance and other top Trump officials, a person directly familiar with the messages said.But pressure on Hegseth has so far come from people outside of the White House. Trump called the defense secretary on Sunday after the story broke and aides concluded that it had been leaked to the news media by a former Hegseth aide who was in the group chat but abruptly fired last week.Trump has resisted firing top officials in his second term, not wanting to be seen as caving to a media swarm even if he has been unhappy with the negative coverage. Trump also stuck by his national security adviser, Mike Waltz, who had added the editor of the Atlantic to the first chat.According to a person familiar with the call, Trump told Hegseth that he had his support and that disgruntled leakers were to blame for the story, which was first reported by the New York Times.Trump also told his team to back Hegseth in public, and senior Trump aides repeated their defense line that none of the information shared in either of the group chats were classified, although the accusations have centered on why it was shared with Hegseth’s wife, for instance, since she is not a Pentagon official.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe defense secretary himself appeared furious when asked about the second Signal chat during the White House Easter egg roll event on the South Lawn, telling reporters that the story was a “hit piece” that repeated his defense that it had been pushed by “disgruntled former employees”.But Hegseth faced growing pressure to resign after John Ullyot, his former spokesperson, wrote in an extraordinary opinion essay in Politico on Sunday that the Pentagon was “in disarray under Hegseth’s leadership”.Republican congressman Don Bacon, who sits on the House armed services committee, did not explicitly call for Hegseth’s resignation but suggested he would not keep Hegseth in place were he was the president.“I had concerns from the get-go because Pete Hegseth didn’t have a lot of experience,” said Bacon, a former air force general. “I’m not in the White House and I’m not going to tell the White House how to manage this … but I find it unacceptable and I wouldn’t tolerate it if I was in charge.” More

    • 125 Shares39 Views

      in US Politics

      US supreme court hears challenge to Obamacare free preventive healthcare

      by

      The US supreme court on Monday heard arguments in a case that could threaten Americans’ access to free preventive healthcare services under the Affordable Care Act, commonly known as Obamacare.At issue is the constitutionality of the US preventive services taskforce, which plays a critical role in determining which preventive services health insurers must cover without cost to patients. The 16-member panel of medical experts, appointed by the health secretary without Senate confirmation, has designated dozens of life-saving screenings and treatments as essential preventive care.If the justices uphold the lower court’s ruling, health associations said in a filing, life-saving tests and treatments that have been cost-free would become subject to co-pays and deductibles, deterring many Americans from obtaining them.The case represents the latest in a long series of legal challenges to Barack Obama’s signature healthcare legislation to reach the nation’s highest court since its passage in 2010. A big critic of the program during his first term, Trump and his administration have now taken over the case after the Biden administration initially filed the appeal.In oral arguments, the justices posed sharp questions over whether the law gives the HHS secretary the appropriate level of supervision over the taskforce, including the power to influence its recommendations and fire members at will, or if the group operates as a largely independent governmental body whose recommendations effectively have the force of law.Jonathan Mitchell, the conservative lawyer representing the plaintiffs who previously represented Trump in ballot access litigation, insisted that taskforce members are “principal officers” because “their preventive care coverage mandates are neither directed nor supervised by the Secretary of Health and Human Services”.Mitchell’s argument hinges on interpreting statutory language requiring the task force to be “independent” and “protected from political pressure”, which he argues is incompatible with secretary oversight: “We don’t see any way that statutory language can be squared with the regime envisioned by the government,” he told the justices.Several justices appeared skeptical of Mitchell’s reading of the statute, with Justice Elena Kagan questioning whether Congress would create a board without specifying who appoints its members: “I mean, it would be an odd statute. I doubt you could find another where Congress has set up a board and … just not said who should appoint.”The taskforce is made up of medical experts who serve four-year terms on a volunteer basis. It reviews medical evidence and public feedback and issues recommendations about which preventive services would be most effective for detecting illnesses earlier or addressing ailments before a patient’s condition worsens.The taskforce has identified dozens of preventive services as having a high or moderate net benefit to patients including screenings to detect diabetes and various types of cancer, statin medications to lower the risk of heart disease and stroke, and interventions to help patients quit smoking or unhealthy alcohol use.The New Orleans-based fifth US circuit court of appeals ruled in 2024 that the taskforce’s structure violates the constitution, as the plaintiffs claimed. The government’s appeal of the fifth circuit’s decision initially was filed by Biden’s administration before being taken up by Trump.Trump’s administration argued in a supreme court brief that the taskforce’s preventive care recommendations cannot become legally binding on insurers without the HHS secretary’s permission.“The secretary can remove them at will, and the threat of removal is the ultimate tool for control over final decisions on recommendations,” justice department lawyers wrote.For this and other reasons, justice department lawyers argued, the taskforce’s members should be seen as so-called “inferior officers”, meaning they can be lawfully appointed by an executive branch department head – like the HHS secretary – and do not require Senate confirmation under the constitution.In a supreme court filing, the plaintiffs argued that the Affordable Care Act has transformed the longstanding taskforce from an advisory body into one that now issues “decrees” to insurers, adding that the HHS secretary has no authority to stop taskforce recommendations from becoming binding law.The taskforce’s lack of supervision, they argued, makes its members “principal officers” who must be presidentially appointed and Senate confirmed under the constitution.Before the case was narrowed to the appointments issue, the lawsuit included a religious objection to being required to cover pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. They claimed that such drugs “facilitate and encourage homosexual behavior, prostitution, sexual promiscuity and intravenous drug use”.The fifth circuit’s ruling also rejected the government’s request to remove certain offending words from the Obamacare provision at issue – a process called severing – in order to make that part of the law conform to the constitution. That issue was also part of the appeal before the supreme court.The supreme court’s decision was expected by the end of June. More

    • 138 Shares66 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump official threatens New York governor over halt of congestion pricing

      by

      US transportation secretary Sean Duffy issued a warning to New York governor Kathy Hochul on Monday saying that the state of New York “risks serious consequences” if it does not suspend its congestion pricing program.New York City’s congestion pricing initiative, which was approved by the Biden administration last year and began on 5 January, charges a $9 toll on most passenger vehicles entering Manhattan south of 60th Street during peak hours.Similar systems are already in some major global cities such as London and are popular with environmental groups.In a letter dated Monday and addressed to Hochul, the Trump administration reiterated its demand that she halt the collection of congestion pricing tolls and gave the governor until 21 May to either certify that the collection of tolls has ceased, or provide an explanation for why its continuation does not violate federal law.“I write to warn you that the State of New York risks serious consequences if it continues to fail to comply with Federal law,” Duffy wrote.“President Trump and I will not sit back while Governor Hochul engages in class warfare and prices working-class Americans out of accessing New York City,” Duffy wrote. “The federal government sends billions to New York — but we won’t foot the bill if Governor Hochul continues to implement an illegal toll to backfill the budget of New York’s failing transit system We are giving New York one last chance to turn back or prove their actions are not illegal.”Duffy warned that the administration could begin taking action against the state as early as 28 May if the congestion tolls remain in place, such as withholding federal funding and approvals for future transportation projects in the state.The latest letter follows multiple deadlines previously set by the Trump administration to cease the program.The administration had given Hochul a deadline of 20 April and before that 21 March, but both times Hochul did not end the program.New York leaders have said that the program for Manhattan was designed to reduce traffic congestion, lower pollution, and generate revenue for public transit projects and improvements in the state.In February, the Trump administration said it was terminating the program by revoking the federal approval.The Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), which operates the tolls, has challenged the administration’s decision in federal court and says the scheme does not violate federal law – a position backed up so far by a judge.Since the program took effect, both the MTA and the governor have defended the program, asserting that it is already achieving its intended goals.In March, Hochul touted the early success of the program, saying that “traffic is down and business is up” since the program took effect.According to her office, traffic declined 11% in February, compared to the same period last year. That month, traffic also moved 30% faster on bridge and tunnel crossings, per the governor’s office.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionCommuters entering the zone are also reportedly saving up to 21 minutes per trip, she said.The MTA CEO and chair, Janno Lieber, said in March: “Congestion relief is working, cars and buses are moving faster, foot traffic is up and even noise complaints are down.”The program, according to the New York Times, is also delivering financially, reporting in February that the program raised $48.6m in tolls during its first month, exceeding expectations.MTA data released earlier this month also shows that around 560,000 vehicles entered the congestion zone daily in March – a 13% drop from the roughly 640,000 vehicles the agency projected would have entered without tolling.The agency also said in late March that the program is on track to generate $500m in revenue by the end of the year.A March survey found that 42% of New York City residents support keeping the toll, according to NBC New York, while 35% backed Donald Trump’s attempts to squash it.Statewide, favorability for the program is weaker, with only about one-third of people in New York state supporting the program, compared to 40% who want it halted, per NBC.Just last week, according to the Associated Press, a federal judge in Manhattan dismissed a number of arguments in lawsuits filed by the local trucking industry and other groups attempting to block the tolling system. More

    • 188 Shares52 Views

      in US Politics

      Gunman who killed 23 in racist attack at El Paso Walmart pleads guilty to murder

      by

      The gunman who killed 23 people in a racist attack at a Walmart in El Paso, Texas – one of the deadliest mass shootings in US history – pleaded guilty on Monday to capital murder in a state district court.Patrick Crusius was automatically sentenced to life in prison without parole for the massacre near the US-Mexico border. The change of plea comes after local prosecutors took the death penalty off the table.The people who were killed ranged in age from a 15-year-old high school athlete to elderly grandparents. They included immigrants, a retired city bus driver, a teacher, tradesmen including a former iron worker, and several Mexican nationals who had crossed the US border on routine shopping trips.Crusius has acknowledged he targeted Hispanics on 3 August 2019, when he opened fire in a Walmart in the Texas border city that was crowded with weekend shoppers from the US and Mexico.The El Paso county district attorney, James Montoya, declined to pursue the death penalty. Montoya says that decision was driven by a majority of victims’ relatives who want the case to be over.Crusius has already been sentenced to 90 consecutive life terms at the federal level after pleading guilty to hate crimes and weapons charges.Crusius was expressionless before the hearing began at the El Paso county courthouse, which was under heightened security. Crusius wore a striped jumpsuit, shackles and a protective vest.About 100 people from victims’ families were seated in the gallery behind a few rows reserved for media, prosecutors and Crusius’s defense team.If the plea arrangement proceeds, families will be able to give victim impact statements. Dozens of people made emotional statements during a similar hearing in federal court in 2023 that lasted for three days.Crusius, a white community-college dropout, was 21 years old when police say he drove more than 700 miles (1,100km ) to El Paso from his home near Dallas.Not long after posting a racist rant online that warned of a Hispanic “invasion”, he opened fire with an AK-style rifle inside and outside the store. Crusius was arrested shortly after.Joe Spencer, a defense attorney in the state and federal cases, said Crusius had been diagnosed with schizoaffective disorder that can be marked by hallucinations, delusions and mood swings, and has suffered from debilitating mental illness for most of his life. More