

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
"These latest revelations ought to be the final straw," said a Summers critic.
Economist Larry Summers, a former president of Harvard University and top economic policy official under Presidents Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, is facing increased scrutiny after emails released this week showed he maintained a friendly relationship with convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein even after he served a term in prison for soliciting a minor.
The emails, which were released by investigators in the House of Representatives on Wednesday, revealed that Summers regularly conversed with Epstein on a wide range of topics, years after Epstein victims had filed lawsuits against him and his associates that contained lurid details about his alleged underage sex-trafficking ring.
In one email, flagged by writer Jon Schwarz, the then-64-year-old Summers asked Epstein for advice about a woman he appeared to be pursuing, while complaining about her relegating him to being a "friend without benefits." The email was sent in March of 2019, just months before Epstein would be indicted on charges of sex trafficking of minors and conspiracy to commit sex trafficking of minors.
Another email, flagged by historian Sam Hasselby, showed Summers' wife, Harvard English professor Elisa New, recommending that Epstein read the book Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, which is about a middle-aged professor professor who kidnaps and sexually abuses a 12-year-old girl. New described the book to Epstein as the story of "a man whose whole life is stamped forever by his impression of a young girl."
In a statement given to the Harvard Crimson, Summers called his relationship with Epstein one of the "great regrets in my life," and "a major error of judgement."
This acknowledgement was not enough to satisfy the government watchdog group Revolving Door Project, which on Thursday said Summers should lose his positions at Harvard, where he is currently a professor at the Harvard Kennedy School, and at the OpenAI Foundation, where he currently sits as a member of its board of directors.
Revolving Door Project Executive Director Jeff Hauser said that the emails showed "a close personal bond between the two men, long after Epstein’s conviction for sex crimes against minors" and added that "it is well past time for the powerful institutions that work closely with Summers—including OpenAI—to distance themselves from him, and anyone with a close relationship to Epstein."
Hauser also emphasized that Summers' years-long relationship with Epstein was not a one-time moral lapse but part of a long history of unethical behavior.
"I have previously warned about Summers’ unethical behavior and ties to unsavory businesses, but these latest revelations ought to be the final straw," he said. "It is disgusting that Summers has played such a crucial role in government at one of America's premier universities for so long. Companies and institutions affiliated with him—including the world’s most influential AI company, and two of the nation’s premier news outlets—ought to demand his immediate resignation."
"We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other," said Judge Allison Burroughs.
A Boston-based US district judge on Wednesday ruled against President Donald Trump's funding attack on Harvard University, which froze more than $2 billion in federal grants to the Ivy League institution.
When Harvard sued over the freeze in April, the university's president, Alan Garber, directly addressed the Trump administration's claims that it was responding to the school's handling of discrimination against Jewish people. Garber said that "as a Jew and as an American, I know very well that there are valid concerns about rising antisemitism," and pledged to "fight hate with the urgency it demands as we fully comply with our obligations under the law."
US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is also Jewish, wrote in her 84-page opinion on Wednesday that "as pertains to this case, it is important to recognize and remember that if speech can be curtailed in the name of the Jewish people today, then just as easily the speech of the Jews (and anyone else) can be curtailed when the political winds change direction."
"Defendants and the president are right to combat antisemitism and to use all lawful means to do so. Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did," wrote Burroughs, an appointee of former Democratic President Barack Obama. "The record here, however, does not reflect that fighting antisemitism was defendants' true aim in acting against Harvard and, even if it were, combating antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment."
"We must fight against antisemitism, but we equally need to protect our rights, including our right to free speech, and neither goal should nor needs to be sacrificed on the altar of the other," she asserted. "Harvard is currently, even if belatedly, taking steps it needs to take to combat antisemitism and seems willing to do even more if need be."
The judge concluded that "now it is the job of the courts to similarly step up, to act to safeguard academic freedom and freedom of speech as required by the Constitution, and to ensure that important research is not improperly subjected to arbitrary and procedurally infirm grant terminations, even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost."
Stand up to the bully. Do not surrender in advance:Judge rules Trump administration cannot withhold funding from Harvard www.washingtonpost.com/education/20...
[image or embed]
— Jeff (Gutenberg Parenthesis) Jarvis (@jeffjarvis.bsky.social) September 3, 2025 at 5:59 PM
Burroughs is the same judge who previously ruled against the Trump administration's ban on international students at Harvard. As Harvard begins a new academic year, Abdullah Shahid Sial, a junior who is co-president of the undergraduate student body, told CNN this week that "I do think there's a big, big spike in how much people feel scared."
In a statement to Reuters on Wednesday, White House spokesperson Liz Huston called Burroughs an "activist Obama-appointed judge" and said that Harvard "does not have a constitutional right to taxpayer dollars and remains ineligible for grants in the future."
"We will immediately move to appeal this egregious decision, and we are confident we will ultimately prevail in our efforts to hold Harvard accountable," she added.
The latest court decision comes after The New York Times reported in July that Harvard was open to spending hundreds of millions of dollars to settle its battle with the administration—as other schools have—but also aimed to protect its independence.
As the newspaper noted Wednesday:
Although the university and the administration have continued to move toward a potential agreement, they have not reached a settlement. President Trump, who has taken a special interest in the financial terms of pacts his administration has reached with universities, said last week that he wanted "nothing less than $500 million from Harvard."
"They've been very bad," Mr. Trump told the education secretary, Linda McMahon, during a televised Cabinet meeting. "Don't negotiate."
The Times added that "Harvard officials had anticipated that a favorable decision from the judge could help the university's approach to the negotiations" by boosting pressure on the government not to keep fighting until they reach the US Supreme Court and allowing the school to present any deal as a win against the Trump administration.
This article has been updated with a statement from the White House.
Too many of the president’s alleged adversaries are keeping their head down and trying to stay out of the line of fire. That has to change, and change soon, or they—and we—will all hang separately.
The appalling spectacle of some of the nation’s most prestigious law firms, media companies, and universities surrendering to bully pulpiteer Donald Trump’s extortion brings to mind that quip Benjamin Franklin made at the signing of the Declaration of Independence: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.”
Trump’s revenge campaign is just one aspect of his all-out war on democracy—and it’s easy to get distracted by his latest daily outrage—so there’s no blame for not following it closely. The gist of it is, since taking office, Trump has relentlessly attacked his perceived enemies and has brought a significant number of them to heel.
Trump’s crusade should not come as a total surprise. After all, he told his supporters at a March 2023 rally: “For those who have been wronged and betrayed… I am your retribution.” What is shocking is the capitulation rate. One by one, Trump has been picking off his alleged adversaries. To be sure, some are fighting back, but too many are keeping their head down and trying to stay out of the line of fire. That has to change, and change soon, or they—and we—will all hang separately.

Nine prominent law firms, including Paul Weiss, Skadden Arps, and Latham & Watkins, have struck deals to avoid punitive executive orders Trump issued because they represented clients or took legal positions at odds with his administration. The orders would have revoked the firms’ security clearances, blocked their access to government buildings, and canceled their federal contracts. To get Trump to back down, they agreed to provide a total of $940 million in pro bono legal services to support Trump’s pet causes and eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) considerations in hiring and promotion.
At least four other major law firms, including Perkins Cole and WilmerHale, are resisting. They filed lawsuits arguing that Trump’s executive orders are unconstitutional retaliations that threaten the rule of law and violate First Amendment protections. Judges have issued temporary injunctions to block the executive orders.
Trump has not issued any executive orders against law firms since April, but the threat has had a chilling effect. “Some of the country’s largest law firms have declined to represent clients challenging the Trump administration…,” a recent ProPublica investigation found, “while others have sought to avoid any clients that Trump might perceive as his enemies.”

Both ABC News and Paramount, owner of CBS News, crumpled in the face of a meritless Trump lawsuit.
Trump’s case against Disney’s ABC News, which settled last December for $15 million for Trump’s presidential library, largely turned on semantics. Anchor George Stephanopoulos incorrectly stated on air that Trump was found civilly liable for raping writer E. Jean Carroll. In fact, he was found guilty of sexually assaulting (and defaming) Carroll. That said, the judge handling the case said the claim that Trump raped Carroll was “substantially true,” but the term “rape” is narrowly defined by New York state law. At any rate, to win the case, Trump would have had to clearly prove that Stephanopoulos’ comment was false and that he said it with “actual malice”—that he knew it was false or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. Trump would have lost.
Will news organizations now think twice before criticizing Trump? Most likely, yes.
Paramount’s July 2 settlement of $16 million for Trump’s library was tantamount to bribery. Trump sued Paramount for $10 billion last October, alleging that “60 Minutes” deceptively edited an interview with presidential candidate Kamala Harris to make her look good. No matter that editing interviews for time and clarity is what broadcast news organizations do.
Trump did not have a case, but Paramount had a $8.4 billion merger with Skydance, a Hollywood studio, pending before the Federal Communications Commission (FCC)—now chaired by Project 2025 coauthor Brendan Carr—and it didn’t want to antagonize Trump. On July 14, CBS “Late Show” host Stephen Colbert called Paramount’s settlement a “big fat bribe.” The network cancelled his show three days later. On July 24, the FCC approved the merger.
Critics characterized the two settlements as acts of cowardice that threaten press freedom by emboldening frivolous lawsuits. Will news organizations now think twice before criticizing Trump? Most likely, yes.

At least a handful of news organizations, including the Associated Press and NPR, have pushed back against Trump’s bullying, but the results were hardly a victory for the First Amendment.
The Associated Press (AP) sued the White House in February for blocking its reporters from Oval Office briefings and Air Force One press pools because the news service didn’t adopt Trump’s new name for the Gulf of Mexico. AP argued banning its reporters violates its First Amendment rights. The case is still tied up in court.
In late April, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) sued Trump for firing three of its five board members. In late May, NPR and PBS sued the Trump administration over the executive order to revoke federal funding for public broadcasting. Late last month, Trump signed a bill canceling $1.1 billion in public broadcast funding—which Congress had originally approved—in a “rescission” package, and on August 1, CPB announced it was shutting down.
More recently, Trump filed a $10 billion defamation lawsuit after the Wall Street Journal published a story on a sexually suggestive letter Trump sent to Jeffery Epstein for his 50th birthday. Denying that he had written the letter, Trump sued Rupert Murdoch; News Corp and its CEO, Robert Thomson; Dow Jones & Company; and the reporters who wrote the piece, calling the article “false, malicious, defamatory, FAKE NEWS” on Truth Social. The Journal stands by the story and is prepared to defend it in court.
“There’s nothing inherently wrong with a president bringing a libel suit,” the renowned constitutional lawyer Floyd Abrams told the AP. “But this claim [against the Wall Street Journal] certainly seems like nothing more or less than an effort to suppress speech that our president finds discomforting. That’s not why we have libel law. It’s why we have a First Amendment.”

Under the pretext of rooting out antisemitism and DEI programs on campus, Trump has been bludgeoning the most prominent American universities, threatening to cancel their federal research funding unless they change their policies.
On July 23, my alma mater Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania were the first to capitulate. Columbia did not admit to any wrongdoing, but agreed to pay a $200 million fine; stop considering race in admissions and hiring; share with the federal government applicants’ standardized test scores, grade point averages, and race; and pay an additional $21 million to settle US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission investigations. In return, the school regains access to nearly $1.3 billion in annual federal funding that was placed on hold. Penn settled the same day but did not agree to pay anything. Among other things, it promised to align its athletic department’s policies with the Trump administration’s position banning transgender athletes.
Less than a week later, my other alma mater, Brown University, settled with the administration, agreeing to dismantle DEI programs and spend $50 million over 10 years on Rhode Island workforce development organizations. In return, the administration will reinstate $510 million in federal contracts and grants it threatened to block. Like Columbia, Brown also agreed to share details about its applicants with the federal government. Trump celebrated the agreement with a post on Truth Social proclaiming: “Woke is officially DEAD at Brown.”
In a March interview with the AP, former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said giving in to a bully makes things worse by creating a snowball effect. “
Harvard University, which initially stood up for academic freedom and sued the administration, is reportedly moving toward a settlement requiring the university to pay $500 million to vocational or work force training programs instead of directly to the federal government or Trump’s presidential library. If finalized, the Trump administration would then restore billions of withheld federal dollars to the school for research and other programs.
The administration’s professed rationale for punishing universities because of antisemitism on campus doesn’t pass the smell test. It’s a ruse. It’s all about trying to stamp out perceived leftist ideology and snuff out speech it opposes, according to Trump’s education secretary, Linda McMahon.
In a July 24 interview with Fox Business, McMahon applauded the Columbia settlement as “a monumental victory for conservatives who wanted to do things on these elite campuses for a long time because we had such far left-leaning professors…” “We’re really hopeful,” she added, “this particular settlement agreement is going be a template for other universities to follow.”
Likewise, Vice President JD Vance has made it clear that, in his opinion, “professors are the enemy.” In November 2021, he delivered the keynote address at the National Conservatism Conference in Orlando. He spent 30 minutes railing about corrupt American universities and then closed by quoting Richard Nixon, who he called a “great prophet and statesman.”
“I think in this movement of national conservatism what we need more than inspiration is we need wisdom,” Vance said, “and there is a wisdom in what Richard Nixon said approximately 40 or 50 years ago. He said, and I quote: ‘The professors are the enemy.’” (During that same taped conversation, ironically with former professor Henry Kissinger, Nixon also said “the press is the enemy.”)

In a March interview with the AP, former Trump White House lawyer Ty Cobb said giving in to a bully makes things worse by creating a snowball effect. “The more of them that cave, the more extortion that that invites,” he said. “You’ll see other universities and other law firms and other ‘enemies’ of Trump assaulted and attacked into submission because of that.”
So, what is to be done?
New York Times columnist David Brooks addressed this question on the “PBS News Hour” during his weekly discussion with MSNBC’s Jonathan Capehart on July 25.
“Well, there are two possible responses,” he said. “One, the one that’s being chosen by most organizational leaders right now, is lay low. It’s so, well, maybe they won’t pick on me, or maybe we will make a concession and they won’t pick on me...”
“The other option, which I thought we were going to have, is a broad coalition, not only of all universities, but all law firms, businesses, nonprofits, foundations, anybody in any sector that could be part of the extortion attempt,” he continued. “And they would say, we will band together. There’s strength of numbers. If they come for one of us, they come for all of us, sort of a domestic NATO Article 5.”
I would take Franklin’s proposition a bit further: It is the first responsibility of every citizen to defy authority when that authority is illegitimate.
I made the exact same argument in my graduation speech at Brown in 1976. I wasn’t talking about how to buck an authoritarian government, I was talking about how to challenge a top-down, undemocratic workplace, but it’s analogous.
The nation’s bicentennial year wasn’t a great time for a recent grad to be looking for a job. Industrial output had rebounded from a slump and corporate profits were up, but the recovery was jobless, and states and municipalities—and colleges—were facing major deficits. Given the scarcity of jobs in academia and the difficulty of earning a living as a solo practitioner, I warned my classmates: “More often than not we will find ourselves in basically undemocratic, hierarchical institutions that are resistant to change. These institutions are characterized by authoritarian control from above, and those who are not in the upper reaches of the hierarchy are excluded from the decision-making process.”
How did Brown prepare us for that future? By providing a taste of it. I cited examples of how, during my time there, Brown acted like any other corporation to protect its interests at the expense of its students, faculty, and workers. And then, like David Brooks, I spelled out the two ways to respond to authoritarians.
The first, I explained that June morning, is the “individual survival” response. One person alone has little chance against an institution, so it makes sense to keep your head down and accept the status quo. (By the same token, one university, one law firm, or one news organization alone has little chance against an authoritarian government.)
The second, more effective way is with a collective, community response. The civil rights, women’s, anti-war, gay, and environmental movements my generation grew up with demonstrated firsthand that united action can lead to positive change. It’s clear that strength comes in numbers, be it in school, the workplace, the voting booth, or the streets.
As mentioned above, 200 years before I gave that speech, Benjamin Franklin said: “We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.” He also pointed out: “It is the first responsibility of every citizen to question authority.”
I would take Franklin’s proposition a bit further: It is the first responsibility of every citizen to defy authority when that authority is illegitimate.
Certainly, there are significant risks to sticking your neck out, but the risks of doing nothing are even greater. If I learned anything during my four years at Brown—and my 40 years in Washington, DC—it’s that democracy is not a spectator sport, and we are all being tested by the worst political crisis of our lifetime.
This article first appeared at the Money Trail blog and is reposted here at Common Dreams with permission.America will not be great again by closing its doors. It will flourish through welcoming the world’s best minds and taking pride in that.
Once, the United States truly was the land of opportunity, a place where young scholars arrived with suitcases full of hope, chasing the white picket fence version of the American Dream: studying in leafy college towns, dreaming of raising families under skies of limitless possibility.
But in early June 2025, US President Donald Trump delivered a shattering blow to that promise. With two sweeping proclamations, one banning all new visas for Harvard bound international students and the other reimposing travel restrictions on 19 countries, many of them Muslim majority, the Trump administration effectively expelled the very brilliance that makes America great.
These orders not only redirect visas, but they also overturn a national identity built on access, freedom, and merit. The administration justifies the actions under the guise of protecting against foreign influence, radicalism, and even campus antisemitism. But in truth, this is a punitive escalation, a direct response to elite universities like Harvard and Columbia resisting federal overreach in governance.
It sends a chilling message: that merit and dreams matter less than nationality or ideology. That the invitation once extended to the world’s best and brightest is now conditional. This is not a means to protect national infrastructure; it is a means to coerce institutional compliance with injustice.
We must fight for a country where politics do not gate opportunity and where the world’s brightest minds are not exiled but embraced.
International students earned nearly half of all STEM PhDs in the US in recent years and contributed nearly $44 billion to the US economy in 2023–24 alone. Breaking this pipeline will hollow out AI labs, biotech firms, and university research hubs.
Experts warn of a looming brain drain that will hand leadership in critical fields to other nations. This represents an ideological turn in presidential power, unchecked and unprecedented.
The Trump administration has already suspended Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program status; frozen billions in research funding; and implemented intrusive social media vetting for visa applicants.
Thousands of international students, many of whom simply expressed political views or joined peaceful protests, have seen their legal status revoked. Rather than investing in long-term domestic talent pipelines, the Trump administration is deliberately dismantling the systems that anchor America’s intellectual and innovation ecosystems.
The shrinking H‑1B visa access, reduced Optional Practical Training (OPT) retention, and ideological bans reflect a shortsighted, transactional worldview. And economic theory makes one thing clear: These restrictive moves will not fix the trade deficit—they will erode America’s competitive edge.
So what must be done?
Lawmakers and universities must ground policy in principle and pragmatism. They must codify protections that prohibit ideological or religious discrimination in visa decisions, ensuring no future administration can replicate Proclamation 10949. Visa policy should be amended to retain international STEM graduates, scaling OPT, and opening clear talent pipelines to citizenship.
Academic autonomy must be protected by rejecting funding threats tied to political compliance and affirming universities’ independence.
America’s strength has always come from being a place where merit and motivation, not birthplace or belief, determine opportunity. Expelling brilliance to score political points may win applause from a few, but globally, it signals surrender. America will not be great again by closing its doors. It will flourish through welcoming the world’s best minds and taking pride in that.
When brilliance, innovation, and the freedom to think, speak, and believe are driven out, we must be wary and active citizens; we cannot stay silent. We must fight for a country where politics do not gate opportunity and where the world’s brightest minds are not exiled but embraced. The future of America depends on it.
They wrote that "it exemplifies anti-Palestinian discrimination, obstructing the dissemination of knowledge on Palestine at the height of the genocide in Gaza," where students and educators face scholasticide.
As Israel continues its U.S.-backed annihilation of the Gaza Strip and Harvard University weighs a deal with the Trump administration, the Ivy League institution came under fire by more than 200 scholars on Thursday for recently canceling a journal issue on Palestine.
"We, the undersigned scholars, educators, and education practitioners, write to express our alarm at the Harvard Education Publishing Group's (HEPG) cancellation of a special issue on Palestine and Education in the Harvard Educational Review (HER)," says the open letter. "Such censorship is an attempt to silence the academic examination of the genocide, starvation, and dehumanization of Palestinian people by the state of Israel and its allies."
Last month, The Guardian revealed how, after over a year of seeking, collecting, and editing submissions for a special issue on "education and Palestine" in preparation for a summer release, HEPG scrapped plans for the publication in June.
"The Guardian spoke with four scholars who had written for the issue, and one of the journal's editors," the newspaper detailed. "It also reviewed internal emails that capture how enthusiasm about a special issue intended to promote 'scholarly conversation on education and Palestine amid repression, occupation, and genocide' was derailed by fears of legal liability and devolved into recriminations about censorship, integrity, and what many scholars have come to refer to as the 'Palestine exception' to academic freedom."
The new letter also uses that language:
Contributing authors of the special issue were informed late into the process that the publisher intended to subject all articles to a legal review by Harvard University's Office of General Counsel. In response to this extraordinary move, the 21 contributing authors submitted a joint letter to both HEPG and HER, protesting this process as a contractual breach that violated their academic freedom. They also underscored the publisher's actions would set a dangerous precedent not only for the study of Palestine, but for academic publishing as a whole. The authors demanded that HEPG honour the original terms of their contractual agreements, uphold the integrity of the existing HER review process, and ensure that the special issue proceed to publication without interference. However, just prior to its release, HEPG unilaterally canceled the entire special issue and revoked the signed author contracts, in what The Guardian notes as "a remarkable new development in a mounting list of examples of censorship of pro-Palestinian speech."
These events reflect what scholars have termed the "Palestine exception" to free speech and academic freedom. It exemplifies anti-Palestinian discrimination, obstructing the dissemination of knowledge on Palestine at the height of the genocide in Gaza—precisely when Palestinian educators and students are enduring the most severe forms of "scholasticide" in modern history.
In a lengthy online statement about the cancellation, HEPG executive director Jessica Fiorillo said that "we decided not to move forward with the special issue because it did not meet our established standards for scholarly publishing. Of the 12 proposed pieces, three were research-based articles, two were reprints of previously published HER articles, and seven were opinion pieces."
"As a student-edited, non-peer-reviewed publication, HER manuscripts, nonetheless, undergo internal review by experienced, professional staff," she continued. "During this review, we determined that the submissions required substantial editorial work to meet our publication criteria. We concluded that the best recourse for all involved was to revert the rights to the pieces to authors so that they could seek publication elsewhere."
The scholars wrote Thursday that "it is unconscionable that HEPG have chosen to publicly frame their cancellation of the special issue as a matter of academic quality, while omitting key publicly reported facts that point to censorship. Perhaps most disturbingly, HEPG leadership has sought to displace responsibility for their actions onto the authors and graduate student editors of the journal, calling into question the integrity of the journal's long-standing review processes, and dismissing the articles as 'opinion pieces' unfit for publication."
"The latter claim ignores that HER explicitly welcomes 'experiential knowledge' and 'reflective accounts' through their Voices submission format," they noted. "When genocide is ongoing, personal reflections and testimonies are not only valid but vital. Dismissing such contributions as lacking scholarly merit reflects an exclusionary view of 'whose knowledge counts'—valuing Western and external academic perspectives over lived experiences of violence and oppression."
The scholars—whose letter remains open to signatures—said that they "stand in solidarity with the authors and graduate student editors of the special issue, who are facing and confronting censorship and discrimination," and concluded by calling for "HEPG to be held accountable."
HEPG is a division of the Harvard Graduate School of Education. While a spokesperson for the latter did not respond to The Guardian's request for comment on the new letter, signatory and University of Oxford professor Arathi Sriprakash told the newspaper that the cancellation mobilized scholars "precisely because we recognize the grave consequences of such threats to academic freedom and academic integrity."
"The ongoing genocidal violence in Gaza has involved the physical destruction of the entire higher education system there, and now in many education institutions around the world there are active attempts to shut down learning about what's happening altogether," Sriprakash said. "As educationalists, we have to remain steadfast in our commitment to the pursuit of knowledge and learning without fear or threat."
HEPG's cancellation has been blasted as yet another example of higher education institutions capitulating as President Donald Trump's administration cracks down on schools where policies and speech on campus don't align with the White House agenda—including students' and educators' condemnation of the Israeli assault on Gaza and U.S. complicity in it. The Trump administration is also targeting individual critics, trying to deport foreign scholars who have spoken out or protested on campus over the past 22 months.
Harvard won praise in April for suing the federal government over a multibillion-dollar funding freeze. However, last month, the university "quietly dismantled its undergraduate school's offices for diversity, equity, and inclusion," and reportedly "signaled a willingness to meet the Trump administration's demand to spend as much as $500 million to end its dispute with the White House."
Amid fears of what a settlement, like those reached by other Ivy League institutions, might involve, Harvard faculty argued in a July letter that "the university must not directly or indirectly cede to governmental or other outside authorities the right to install or reject leading personnel—that is, to dictate who can be the officials who lead the university or its component schools, departments, and centers."
While the HER issue was canceled during Harvard's battle with Trump, outrage over how scholarship on Palestine is handled on campus predates the president's return to power in January. In November 2023, The Nation published a piece about Israel's war on Gaza that the Harvard Law Review commissioned from a Palestinian scholar but then refused to run after an internal debate.
At the time, the author of that essay, human rights attorney Rabea Eghbariah, wrote in an email to a Law Review editor: "This is discrimination. Let's not dance around it—this is also outright censorship. It is dangerous and alarming."
"The university must not directly or indirectly cede to governmental or other outside authorities the right to install or reject leading personnel," wrote the Harvard faculty members.
A group of prominent faculty members at Harvard University on Thursday urged the school to stand firm against legal and financial pressures being brought by U.S. President Donald Trump's administration.
The New Republic's Greg Sargent posted a letter on Bluesky from the Harvard scholars addressed to Harvard President Alan Garber, in which they explain why striking a deal with Trump could be a major blow for both academic freedom and American democracy. The letter begins by decrying the administration's "assault on the vibrancy and inclusiveness of U.S. higher education" and then outlined values that they believe Harvard should not compromise during any negotiations with the government.
"The university must not directly or indirectly cede to governmental or other outside authorities the right to install or reject leading personnel—that is, to dictate who can be the officials who lead the university or its component schools, departments, and centers," they wrote.
The scholars also demanded that the university not allow the government to play a role in the hiring of faculty or the admission of students, and that the university keep the contents of courses in the hands of faculty members.
"Some of us believe that Harvard should not engage in any extraordinary 'negotiations' with an overstepping federal government; others believe that efforts to find a settlement are the right way forward," the scholars continued. "All of us have nevertheless agreed to sign this letter because we feel that public clarity is important about what cannot be compromised by Harvard, given its prominence in national and international academic affairs."
The letter's signatories were Harvard University political scientist Ryan Enos, Kennedy School of Government political scientist Archon Fung, Harvard University economist Oliver Hart, Harvard Business School economist Rebecca Henderson, Harvard University political scientist Steve Levitsky, Harvard University economist Eric Maskin, Kennedy School of Government economist Dani Rodrik, Harvard University sociologist Theda Skocpol, and Harvard University political scientist Stephen Walt.
In addition to those faculty members, Harvard Law School professor Rebecca Tushnet wrote her own letter to Garber in which she argued against any deal with the administration.
"Harvard has been a beacon for academic freedom, and that means that even if Harvard's administration believes that it is getting a 'good' deal, any 'deal' will be used to extort more concessions and destroy academic freedom elsewhere," she argued. "This is not how the leading U.S. university should behave."
After seeing the letter, some academics at other institutions chimed in to lend their support and appreciation to the Harvard scholars.
"When people in this group tell me about the long-term political implications of things, I listen," wrote Marquette University political scientist Julia Azari on Bluesky.
"These scholars are among the top thinkers about democracy and autocracy in the world," observed University of California, Los Angeles Law professor Rick Hasen.
Harvard has been locked in a lengthy legal battle with the Trump administration after the president cut off federal funding to the university and even threatened to revoke its accreditation status. Harvard has reportedly considered striking a deal with the administration along the lines of the one cut by Columbia University earlier this month, which may have been what prompted the university faculty members to write their letter.
"The policy chills noncitizens from speaking and, by extension, robs these organizations and their U.S. citizen members of noncitizens' perspectives on a matter of significant public debate," the Knight Institute said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
The Trump administration, for the first time, had to defend its policy of deporting immigrants for their political views in court Monday.
A case filed by a group of professors will be heard in a Massachusetts federal court. The lawsuit challenges attempts by the Trump administration to arrest and remove foreign-born college students from the country based purely on their pro-Palestine speech.
Though hundreds of cases have been filed against the Trump administration since January, this is one of very few that has reached the trial phase.
The case was filed in March by Columbia University's Knight First Amendment Institute on behalf of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP); AAUP's Harvard, NYU, and Rutgers campus chapters; and the Middle East Studies Association.
It is one of half a dozen other lawsuits filed following the arrest of Columbia graduate student and protest leader Mahmoud Khalil, who was abducted in the dead of night by plainclothes ICE officers and shipped to a detention center for nearly three months.
Khalil and several other students had their legal immigration status revoked not for having committed any crime, but because the Trump administration deemed their views at odds with the "foreign policy objective[s]" of the United States.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio, the defendant in this case, has acknowledged stripping the legal status of hundreds of student protesters based on their speech.
"The policy chills noncitizens from speaking and, by extension, robs these organizations and their U.S. citizen members of noncitizens' perspectives on a matter of significant public debate," the Knight Institute said in a statement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
In a pre-trial brief, the group argued that this "ideological deportation policy" illegally discriminates against students and faculty based on their pro-Palestinian viewpoints.
"The First Amendment framework that applies is straightforward," the brief said. "If a regulation of speech discriminates based on content or viewpoint, then the regulation is 'presumptively unconstitutional' unless the government demonstrates that it is 'narrowly tailored to serve compelling state interests.'"
The plaintiffs argue that the intent behind the Trump administration's stripping of green cards and visas from legal holders was to punish speech they found disfavorable and to coerce others into silence.
"Noncitizen members of the AAUP have been chilled by these ideological deportations and forced to self-censor in a variety of different ways, and citizen members have been harmed as a result, because they have been deprived of the insights and engagement of their non-citizen students and colleagues," the brief said.
They cited examples of professors scrubbing their social media accounts to remove commentary on the Israel-Palestine conflict, abandoning research on the Middle East that could prove too "nuanced" for the administration's liking, and even cancelling international travel for academic opportunities for fear of being disallowed entry back into the country.
"The First Amendment does not permit government officials to use the power of their office to silence critics and suppress speech they don’t like," said Andrew Manuel Crespo, a Harvard Law professor and general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter.
The AAUP lawsuit marks the first time the Trump administration will defend its use of deportations for political speech in court. But it is not the first time the courts will rule on its attacks against higher education.
Courts have blocked the Trump administration's efforts to ban Harvard from hosting foreign students and strip its funding, saying the measures violated due process.
While the case over deportations deals with non-citizens, AAUP President Todd Wolfson said it has implications for free speech for everyone in America.
"The Trump administration is going after international scholars and students who speak their minds about Palestine, but make no mistake: they won't stop there," Wolfson said. "They'll come next for those who teach the history of slavery or who provide gender-affirming health care or who research climate change or who counsel students about their reproductive choices. We all have to draw a line together—as the old labor movement slogan says: an injury to one is an injury to all."
To shy away from this fight signals one of two things: a lack of faith in the principles and strength of our democracy; or cowardice; or both.
Recently, our law firm filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of former government officials supporting Harvard in its legal battle with U.S. President Donald Trump over federal funding and control of its curriculum, hiring, and admissions. We came to Harvard's defense because of the threat Trump's attack on academic freedom poses to our democracy.
That case has been consolidated with another Harvard has brought to protect its right to host international students. So far Harvard has won three temporary injunctions stopping Trump in his tracks. A hearing is scheduled on July 21 to decide both cases on the merits and determine if Harvard is entitled to permanent relief.
Despite the fact it is winning, there are disturbing reports Harvard is now in talks with the White House to make a deal. That would be a grievous mistake, both as a matter of principle and common sense. And it would amount to a betrayal of those who have fearlessly stepped forward in defense of Harvard.
The point about principle should not be lost on Harvard.
Harvard's courage so far in standing up to Trump has empowered other universities and institutions to do the same. If Harvard makes a deal, it will signal weakness and others will follow.
As it well knows, Trump's actions have violated the Constitution in ways never before seen in this country. He is using the power of the federal government to force Harvard to conform to his ideological views. Democracies like ours survive only if the system of checks and balances proves it can work. With Congress in Trump's pocket, that job has fallen to the courts.
At this moment, the legal arguments in the Harvard case are framed and ready to be decided. This is the wrong time to back out of the fight. Harvard needs to let the court rule. The legal process can and will establish the unconstitutionality of Trump's orders and how they infringe on academic freedom and First Amendment rights.
This fight is not just to save our democracy. It will determine our place in history. When future generations look back at this pivotal moment, they should understand that what Trump did was not just aberrational, it was unconstitutional. They need to understand the threat it posed to academic freedom and democracy, and how our constitutional democracy responded and prevailed.
Harvard, of all places, should understand the importance of history. Its own history is entwined with the founding of our Republic and its democratic values. Eight Harvard graduates, starting with John Adams and John Hancock, signed the Declaration of Independence. At the time of the American Revolution, Harvard was 140 years old. It dismissed its students and turned the campus over to the Continental Army. Eight Harvard alumni have served as president, and 15 have served on the Supreme Court since 1902.
For almost 400 years, Harvard has taught and led. It has made history as it has studied history. It has produced some of our greatest constitutional scholars and countless Nobel laureates in every field of learning. Of all places, it should care what history will say it did when faced with this existential threat to our Republic.
From a practical standpoint, making a deal gets Harvard nothing. Trump is using the same playbook as with the law firms. He will change the terms of any deal and cut off funding in a heartbeat if Harvard does something he doesn't like. A deal does not end Trump's involvement with Harvard—just the opposite. It guarantees there will be more efforts to assert control.
The law firms that made deals look foolish now. They are losing business and partners while the firms that fought have won permanent relief in the courts. Had the firms who did the deals joined the firms that fought, the legal profession would be stronger and freer than it is now.
Harvard's situation is no different. Why would Harvard give in to any of Trump's demands when it is winning in court? If he continues to deny funding in the face of a court ordered injunction, then Harvard should be prepared to take this to the Supreme Court. That is the only way to prove we have a constitutional democracy that works. And it is the only way for Harvard to ensure academic freedom. To shy away from this fight signals one of two things: a lack of faith in the principles and strength of our democracy; or cowardice; or both.
Some supporters of Harvard wring their hands and lament the temporary loss of funds. But that is what a $53 billion endowment is for. It is there to ensure the independence of the university in a time of crisis. Whatever is spent now will be recovered from grateful alumni and supporters in the years ahead once the battle is won.
Harvard will prevail if it stands firm. Administrations come and go, but institutions like Harvard stand for ideas and principles that are designed to survive transient political movements.
Harvard's courage so far in standing up to Trump has empowered other universities and institutions to do the same. If Harvard makes a deal, it will signal weakness and others will follow.
And that, in the end, is all that Trump really wants. He understands how the perception of power can be used to build and project power. He will exploit the opportunity afforded by any deal, no matter what it requires or says, to lie about its content and terms to promote a narrative that helps him consolidate more unchecked power.
We have enjoyed the fruits of freedom and democracy for the last 85 years because in times of maximum peril, the principled resistance of those like Winston Churchill triumphed over the expediency of appeasement. This is a Churchillian moment for Harvard, one that tests its true mettle. History will judge whether it had the courage, wisdom, and strength to stand firm in defense of democracy.
Trump is determined to make an example of Harvard so that other universities and institutions with money and power will do his bidding.
This month, our firm filed a friend of the court brief in the Harvard case on behalf of 18 former government officials who were responsible for enforcing Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the law the Trump administration relies on to justify termination of billions of dollars in federal funding to the university. The signatories to the brief are senior career and non-career appointees who served in both Republican and Democratic administrations from the 1970’s to January of this year.
One of those former officials is David Tatel, a highly respected retired judge who served as director of the Office for Civil Rights in the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) under President Jimmy Carter, and later as a judge on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, often called the nation’s second highest court. Judge Tatel discusses his experience overseeing Title VI enforcement in the brief. It illustrates just how lawless, destructive, and dangerous President Donald Trump’s vendetta against Harvard has become—and how different it is from any Title VI enforcement action that has gone before.
Title VI requires institutions that receive federal funds to follow civil rights laws. Institutions that discriminate can lose their funds, but it is an option of last resort.
Rather than conducting a proper investigation with detailed findings, engaging in good-faith negotiations, and allowing Harvard an opportunity to defend itself, Trump moved immediately to the nuclear option that hurts everyone.
Before funds are cut, the government must conduct a proper investigation to determine if discrimination exists and the law has been violated; it must make genuine, good faith efforts to work with the fund recipient to secure voluntary compliance; and where settlement is unsuccessful, the recipient must have a chance to present its case in court.
These constraints are written into Title VI and the regulations federal agencies must follow. They protect the interests of universities like Harvard, but more important, they maintain the delivery of services to the ultimate beneficiaries of federal programs as much as possible. In the case of Harvard, those beneficiaries include not just its students and faculty, but millions around the world who benefit from advances in science, medicine, and technology that flow from Harvard’s research programs and facilities.
Judge Tatel refers to fund termination as the nuclear option: “it is like dropping an atom bomb—everyone gets hurt.”
In his time enforcing Title VI, Tatel faced egregious violations of civil rights laws by school districts and universities, involving refusals to comply with court desegregation orders, and the firing of Black teachers.
Tatel recalls traveling to remote school districts in Texas and Arkansas, meeting with school superintendents to learn about their issues and work out agreements. He did the same with the city of Chicago, taking months to investigate concerns and negotiate over how to achieve voluntary compliance with a desegregation plan that would serve the interests of students, the city, and the federal government.
Universities were no different. Tatel carefully negotiated agreements with the public university systems of Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Oklahoma, and Virginia to remove the vestiges of racially dual education systems in those five states.
The University of North Carolina took longer, but Tatel and his boss, HEW Secretary Joseph Califano, stayed with it for years, meeting repeatedly with the UNC president and North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt to craft an acceptable plan. Ultimately an agreement was worked out by the Reagan administration.
The approach to Title VI enforcement Judge Tatel followed and that is mandated by the statute has worked time and again. As a result, the termination of funds has been rare. Thousands of Title VI complaints have been filed during the decades Tatel and the signatories to the brief oversaw enforcement. They are aware of none that has resulted in fund termination since 1982.
Contrast this with way Trump has pursued alleged Title VI concerns with Harvard. After receiving notification of the government’s allegations of antisemitism on campus in February, Harvard explained the reforms it had undertaken and said it was open to exploring further reforms. Trump responded with an unprecedented and unconstitutional demand, requiring Harvard to submit to government control of the viewpoints expressed on campus. When Harvard refused to cede control of its teaching, community and governance, Trump moved within hours to terminate all federal funding.
The consequences to Harvard are dire. The cuts affect billions of dollars in funding that support medical breakthroughs, scientific discoveries, and national security. Harvard filed suit in court, challenging the fund termination as unconstitutional retaliation for exercising its First Amendment rights and its right to defend itself.
Trump responded by doubling down, ordering the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard’s certification to host the 7,000 international students currently enrolled at Harvard. Harvard filed a second suit to protect these students, and Trump retaliated yet again, issuing a new Executive Order directing the State Department to take actions designed to prevent new international students coming to Harvard from entering the country.
Nothing could be further from the process mandated by Title VI for resolving allegations of discrimination, or the process successfully followed by past administrations and those charged with enforcing Title VI. Rather than conducting a proper investigation with detailed findings, engaging in good-faith negotiations, and allowing Harvard an opportunity to defend itself, Trump moved immediately to the nuclear option that hurts everyone.
What explains this blatantly lawless conduct? In my view the answer is clear.
Trump is not interested in resolving allegations of discrimination, any more than he is interested in determining if the allegations have merit in the first instance. His motives are retaliatory and punitive. They are designed to assert control over America’s oldest, wealthiest, and most prestigious university—a powerful institution he has concluded is not aligned with his political ideology.
He is determined to make an example of Harvard so that other universities and institutions with money and power will do his bidding.
We are now well down a path toward authoritarianism. The importance of the battle between Trump and Harvard cannot be overstated. It will determine more than the future of academic freedom in America. It may well determine the future of our democracy.
"This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights," the school said.
U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday released a directive invoking national security powers to impose a six-month ban on international students from entering the United States to study at Harvard University—a move that was quickly panned by observers and the university itself.
The ban could be extended. The order also directs Secretary of State Marco Rubio to consider, at his discretion, whether non-Americans currently attending Harvard on F, M, or J visas should have their visas revoked.
"This is for crucial national security reasons," according to the statement.
The order from Trump is yet another escalation in the feud between the Trump administration and the Ivy League school that began this spring, and also comes not longer after a federal judge handed down a temporary restraining order halting the Trump administration's termination of the school's ability to enroll international students.
"This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the administration in violation of Harvard's First Amendment rights," said a spokesperson for Harvard in a statement that was sent to multiple outlets. "Harvard will continue to protect its international students."
"This is ridiculous and has nothing to do with national security," wrote Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.) on X on Wednesday. "It's a thinly veiled revenge ploy in Trump's personal feud with Harvard, and continued authoritarian overreach against free speech."
Larry Sabato, the founder and director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, wrote late Wednesday: "Absolute insanity. The damage Trump is doing to our country is incalculable."
Separately, Trump on Wednesday announced a travel ban on 12 countries, including several in Africa, and restrictions on seven other countries.
Trump's statement comes mere weeks after the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) sought to strip Harvard of it's Student Exchange and Visitor Program certification, effectively preventing the school from hosting any international students.
The administration rationalized the move by alleging that the school's leaders have permitted "anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators to harass and physically assault individuals, including many Jewish students. Many of these agitators are foreign students."
Harvard challenged the move in court the following day and a federal judge temporarily blocked DHS from taking that action. The judge then extended the block and indicated a preliminary injunction would be forthcoming.
Trump's order calls out Harvard for its financial ties to foreign countries, including China. "Our adversaries, including the People's Republic of China, try to take advantage of American higher education by exploiting the student visa program for improper purposes and by using visiting students to collect information at elite universities in the United States," the order states.
A spokesperson for China's Foreign Ministry pushed back on Trump's latest move. "Education cooperation between China and the U.S. is mutually beneficial. The Chinese side has always opposed politicizing the cooperation," the spokesperson said.
Harvard has over 10,000 international students and scholars. International students made up 27% of the student population during 2024-25 school year, making tuition from international students a sizable share of Harvard's revenue.