The plaintiffs, which include the American Association of University Professors, UAW International and UAW Local 481, allege in the lawsuit that numerous researchers and academics will lose their jobs as a result of their institutions not being able to afford the new fee. (An H-1B visa previously cost $2,000 to $5,000.) Universities, along with national labs and nonprofit research institutions, were also exempt from the annual cap on the number of new visas, and it’s unclear whether the new fee will apply to higher ed.
The New York Times reported that this lawsuit “appears to be the first major challenge to the new fee.”
The fee, the complaint states, “will result in significant and potentially catastrophic setbacks to research that benefits the American public and ensures the United States remains a leading source of innovation and expertise. For example, the fee will likely result in sharp cutbacks in the employment of highly talented foreign workers and severe setbacks for university research, graduate programs, and clinical care, compounding an anticipated shortfall of 5.3 million skilled workers over the next decade.”
The lawsuit highlights several specific examples of researchers whose work would be interrupted by this change, including an unnamed plaintiff who studies conditions and diseases that cause blindness.
“Her departure will set back the crucial research she is conducting, disrupting the lab’s ongoing work and ability to secure future research funding, preventing her department from getting any future funding through her, and potentially delaying the availability of treatment for the conditions that are the focus of her research,” it states.
The plaintiffs note in the lawsuit that the $100,000 fee “applies even where workers are already lawfully present in the United States under, for example, a student visa or another immigration status, and are seeking to change to H-1B status.”
They argue in part that the president does not have the statutory authority to increase the fee for H-1B visas. They are asking the judge to nullify the $100,000 fee and allow H-1B visas to be processed as they were previously.
Employees who had the messages put on their accounts told Inside Higher Ed that it was “wild to see your name attached to a message that you had nothing to do with.”
J. David Ake/Getty Images
The American Federation of Government Employees, a union representing federal workers, sued the Trump administration Friday, challenging the automated out-of-office email responses it placed on many employees’ email accounts when the government shut down.
The message, which was placed on the email accounts of all furloughed staff members without their consent, blamed Democrats in the Senate for causing the shutdown.
AFGE’s members, who will be represented by the legal firms Democracy Forward and Public Citizen Litigation Group, argue in the complaint that the message Trump attached to their email accounts is “partisan political rhetoric.” Not only does it violate the Hatch Act, a federal law that requires nonappointed government staff to stay nonpartisan, but it also violates the First Amendment rights of the individual employees, they argue.
“The Trump-Vance administration is losing the blame game for the shutdown, so they’re using every tactic to try to fool the American people, including taking advantage of furloughed civil servants,” Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, said in a news release. “Even for an administration that has repeatedly demonstrated a complete lack of respect for the Constitution and rule of law, this is beyond outrageous. The court must act immediately to stop this flagrant unlawfulness.”
The Trump administration has frozen more than $500 million in federal funding to UCLA.
A coalition of California education unions and faculty associations is suing the Trump administration to challenge what they say is “the illegal and coercive use of civil rights laws to attack the University of California system and the rights of their members,” the American Association of University Professors announced Tuesday.
The coalition comprises 19 groups—including the AAUP, the American Federation of Teachers and 10 University of California campus faculty associations—and is represented by the legal organization Democracy Forward.
“We will not stand by as the Trump administration destroys one of the largest public university higher education systems in the country and bludgeons academic freedom at the University of California, the heart of the revered free speech movement,” AAUP president Todd Wolfson said in a statement. “We stand hand in hand to protect not only our individual rights to free expression, debate, and association, but also to safeguard the health, safety, and economic mobility of our communities—all of which is at risk.”
The Trump administration has issued a litany of demands to the University of California in exchange for restored federal funding, including unfettered government access to faculty, student and staff data; cooperation with immigration enforcement; a ban on gender-inclusive restrooms and locker rooms; an official statement that the UC does not recognize transgender identity; and over a billion dollars in penalties. So far, the University of California, Los Angeles, has borne the brunt of the demands, but university system officials fear that funding freezes could extend to the system’s other campuses.
On Sept. 4, University of California, Berkeley, officials notified 160 faculty, staff and students that their names appeared in documents given to the Trump administration as part of the administration’s investigation into alleged antisemitism on campus.
“UCLA [faculty association] is honored to stand with this coalition, which presents as an important reminder of what the UC really is—the people who day in and day out do the work on UC campuses,” Anna Markowitz, president of the UCLA faculty association executive board, said in a statement Tuesday. “Today, we join the people of the UC in standing up against federal extortion, job loss, bans on speech and expression—against any effort to dismantle core public values that have made the UC great.”
With a 22-page document and $221 million fine, Columbia University ended its months-long battle with the Trump administration that included accusations of civil rights violations, an accreditation review and a funding freeze that disrupted research and forced layoffs.
The settlement agreement, announced Wednesday night, will force changes to admissions, disciplinary processes and academic programs. In exchange, Columbia should get about $400 million in federal research funding back. The seemingly unprecedented deal will also see the federal government close investigations into alleged failures to police antisemitism on campus. (Despite the settlement, Columbia has not admitted to any allegations of wrongdoing but has acknowledged reforms were needed.)
Critics have decried the agreement as a concession to authoritarian demands imposed for political control, while supporters have argued reforms are necessary at Columbia after a pro-Palestinian encampment in spring 2024 and subsequent protests disrupted campus life.
Although Trump officials purportedly began their crusade against Columbia in an effort to address campus antisemitism, officials’ comments indicate that conservative politics also factored into the settlement.
“This is 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,” Education Secretary Linda McMahon said in a FOX Business interview following the settlement announcement.
The Trump administration has made clear that this agreement will serve as a roadmap for its dealings with other universities, including Harvard. Much of the agreement reflects what the administration had demanded of Columbia in March, but other provisions—such as a requirement to turn over admissions data and scrutinize international student enrollment—are new and reflect demands sent to other universities.
Here’s what is in the agreement and what it means for Columbia.
Funding Streams Restored
Columbia will see at least a partial restoration of federal research funds.
The federal government will restore grants terminated by the Department of Health and Human Services and National Institutes of Health. However, grants terminated by the Department of Education “and other terminated contracts are excluded from this provision,” according to the agreement.
Columbia will be eligible for future grants, contracts, and awards “without disfavored treatment.”
Columbia acting president Claire Shipman emphasized that the agreement was about much more than $400 million, telling CNN on Thursday that federal scrutiny imperiled $1.3 billion a year.
“There are many headlines about $400 million dollars. This is really access to billions of dollars in future funding. And it’s not just money for Columbia. I mean, this is about science. It’s about curing cancer. Cutting edge, boundary breaking science that actually benefits the country and humanity,” she said, emphasizing the deal “reset” Columbia’s relationship with the government.
Closure of Investigations
The agreement will close pending investigations or compliance reviews related to potential violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination based on race or national origin. That includes a probe by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission into the treatment of Jewish employees at Columbia. Of the $221 million settlement, $21 million will go toward the EEOC complaint.
However, the Trump administration noted in the agreement that the deal does not affect “in any way EEOC’s right to bring, process, investigate, litigate, or otherwise seek relief in any charge filed by individual charging parties or third parties that may later be filed against Columbia.”
Protest Restrictions
Columbia will maintain policies announced in March that deem protests inside of academic buildings and related spaces to be a “direct impediment” to the university’s academic mission.
“Such protests in academic buildings, and other places necessary for the conduct of University activities, are not acceptable under the Rules of University Conduct because of the likelihood of disrupting academic activities,” part of Columbia’s settlement with the federal government reads. All protest activity will be subject to university anti-discrimination and anti-harassment policies.
Prohibitions on masks announced in March will also remain in place.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon has said Columbia’s “unlawful encampments and demonstrations” deprived Jewish students of learning opportunities.
Mary Altaffer-Pool/Getty Images
Student Life Changes
The agreement codifies changes to disciplinary processes announced in March, such as placing the University Judicial Board under the Office of the Provost who reports to the president. Students previously served on the board, but now, it will be restricted to faculty and staff members.
The university president will make the final determinations on appeals cases.
Columbia will also add a student liaison “to further support Jewish life and the wellbeing of Jewish students on campus” who will advise administrations on issues such as antisemitism.
DEI Ban
Diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, a frequent target of the Trump administration, are also included in the agreement. The deal bars Columbia from maintaining “programs that promote unlawful efforts to achieve race-based outcomes, quotas, diversity targets, or similar efforts.”
Per the agreement, Columbia will be required to provide reports “summarizing its compliance with this obligation” and to ensure that university programs do not “promote unlawful DEI goals.”
Changes to Admissions
The agreement emphasizes merit-based admissions and bars Columbia from giving preference to applicants due to “race, color, or national origin.” It also prevents Columbia from using personal statements, diversity narratives or references to race “to introduce or justify discrimination.”
Columbia will also be required to submit admissions data to the federal government on both rejected and admitted students, including demographic details and standardized test scores.
International applicants at Columbia will also be subject to additional scrutiny with the agreement dictating that the university “undertake a comprehensive review of its international admissions processes and policies.” That review is designed to ensure those applicants are “asked questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States.”
Columbia is also required to provide details of “all disciplinary actions involving student visa-holders resulting in expulsions or suspensions, and arrest records that Columbia is aware of” to the extent that is permissible under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act.
Columbia also agreed to examine its business practices and decrease its financial dependence on international students.
CHUYN/iStock Unreleased/Getty
Program Reviews
Maintaining a senior vice provost to provide greater administrative oversight of Middle East studies (and other regional programs), as initially announced in March, is also part of the agreement.
That official will conduct reviews of programs such as the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies; Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies; the Middle East Institute; and various other programs, according to the agreement. Those reviews are intended to ensure programs are “comprehensive and balanced” and include “all aspects of leadership and curriculum.”
But some faculty members have expressed skepticism about additional administrative scrutiny.
Michael Thaddeus, president of the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors, wrote in an emailed statement that the agreement poses threats to academic freedom at U.S. universities.
“Columbia’s insistence that it will not allow the government to interfere in appointments, admissions, or curriculum is welcome. Yet the creation of a monitor, charged with scrutinizing our admissions data and our Middle Eastern studies department, opens the door to just such interference,” Thaddeus said.
Resolution Monitor
As part of the deal, a third-party resolution monitor will police the agreement.
Bart Schwartz, co-founder of Guidepost Solutions and former Chief of the Criminal Division of the United States Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, will serve in that role.
The agreement will allow the resolution monitor to access campus for assessment purposes.
Asked if Columbia believed the Trump administration would live up to its side of the agreement and if it had obtained any assurances, a university spokesperson did not provide a statement but instead pointed Inside Higher Ed to language in the agreement on dispute resolution.
That section noted opportunities for arbitration “if either party reasonably believes that the other is in violation of the terms of this agreement,” including reporting obligations outlined in the deal.
Hiring Requirements
The deal also places restrictions on university hiring processes.
Columbia’s agreement will bar the use of “personal statements, diversity narratives, or any applicant reference to racial identity as a means to introduce or justify discriminatory practices in hiring or promotion.” Other unspecified “indirect methods or criteria that serve as a substitute for race conscious hiring or promotion practices” are also prohibited per the deal.
Columbia is required to submit data on hiring and promotion practices to the resolution monitor.
Codifying and Introducing Changes
While some elements of the agreement are new, other parts simply codify prior changes. For example, changes to disciplinary processes, and greater administrative oversight of Middle East studies (and other regional programs) already announced in March are now codified in the deal.
David Pozen, a Columbia law professor who has argued that “the agreement gives legal form to an extortion scheme,” noted while some of the deal was foreshadowed, other parts go beyond what was previously announced.
Some provisions “are novel and don’t track what was already said in March,” Pozen said. “There’s language, for example, about all-female locker rooms and sports teams in paragraph 20. I don’t believe that has any antecedent and just seems like a new anti-trans provision. So, it’s a mix of memorialization, extension and innovation in what Columbia has conceded.”
Citing an unnamed source, Axios reported this week that the Trump administration has cut “about $20 million in grants covering subscriptions” with Springer Nature, which publishes more than 3,000 journals, including the prestigious Nature.
The article didn’t specify which agency cut these subscriptions. Axios reported that Springer Nature “has long received payments for subscriptions from National Institutes of Health and other agencies.” The NIH originally told Inside Higher Ed in an email Thursday that it “has not terminated any contracts with Springer Nature.” But the Department of Health and Human Services, which includes NIH, sent a new statement Thursday evening.
“All NIH staff currently have full access to Springer Nature journals through the NIH Library—and that access will continue uninterrupted,” the NIH wrote in the initial email. “NIH is not, in any way, limiting access to scientific publications. On the contrary, the agency actively encourages the use of these resources to advance scientific discovery and promote transparency and replicability in research.”
But the Department of Health and Human Services then wrote in a statement that “all contracts with Springer Nature are terminated or no longer active. Precious taxpayer dollars should be not be [sic] used on unused subscriptions to junk science.”
A National Science Foundation spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed in an email that “NSF has not canceled subscriptions to Springer or Nature publishing journals.”
In a statement, a Springer Nature spokesperson said, “We are proud of our track record in communicating U.S. research to the rest of the world for over a century and continue to have good relationships with U.S. federal agencies.”
The spokesperson wrote, “We don’t comment on individual contracts, but across our U.S. business there is no material change to our customers or their spend.”
The White House didn’t provide comment to Inside Higher Ed.
Harvard has about $9 billion in grants and contracts from the federal government.
Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images
Harvard University won’t be getting any new grants, Education Secretary Linda McMahon wrote in a blistering letter to the institution that was posted on the social media platform known as X.
“Harvard will cease to be a publicly funded institution and can instead operate as a privately-funded institution, drawing on its colossal endowment and raising money from its large base of wealthy alumni,” McMahon wrote. “You have an approximately $53 billion head start, much of which was made possible by the fact you are living within the walls of, and benefiting from, the prosperity secured by the United States of America and its free-market system you teach your students to despise.”
McMahon didn’t specify what grants she was referring to in the letter, sent Monday evening, but other media outlets reported that the Trump administration was cutting Harvard off from new research grants.
The move escalates the Trump administration’s war with Harvard University. After the university rejected sweeping demands, the administration froze $2.26 billion of Harvard’s estimated $9 billion in grants and contracts. Harvard then sued. Trump also has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status and its ability to enroll international students.
The letter didn’t cite any legal authority for cutting off new funds to Harvard, so it’s unclear if McMahon can follow through on her threat.
McMahon accused Harvard of failing to follow federal law and abide “by any semblance of academic rigor.” She also raised questions about why the university was offering an introductory math course to address pandemic learning loss and criticized the decision to scrap standardized testing requirements.
“Why is it, we ask, that Harvard has to teach simple and basic mathematics, when it is supposedly so hard to get into this ‘acclaimed university’? Who is getting in under such a low standard when others, with fabulous grades and a great understanding of the highest level of mathematics, are being rejected?” McMahon wrote.
Over all, she wrote that Harvard had “made a mockery of the country’s higher education system,” referencing in part the plagiarism allegations against the university’s former president. To McMahon, it all shows “evidence of Harvard’s disastrous management” and an “urgent need for massive reform.”
Trump administration officials told Politico that to restore the flow of federal funds, Harvard “would have to enter into a negotiation with the government to satisfy the government that it’s in compliance with all federal laws.” (The government has yet to release any finding or evidence showing that Harvard isn’t complying with federal laws, though officials have made plenty of accusations.)
McMahon wrote that the administration stands by its demands for “common sense” reforms such as merit-based admissions and hiring decisions and an “end to unlawful programs that promote crude identity stereotypes.” Those changes “will advance the best interests of Harvard University,” she added.
The Trump administration has sent questionnaires to U.S.-funded Canadian and Australian researchers asking whether their research is a “DEI project,” whether it defends against “gender ideology” and whether it reinforces “U.S. sovereignty,” according to organizations in those countries.
The Canadian Association of University Teachers, a federation that says it represents 72,000 employees, provided Inside Higher Ed a copy of one of these surveys. One question asked, “Can you confirm that your organization does not work with entities associated with communist, socialist, or totalitarian parties, or any party that espouses anti-American beliefs?” Another asked, “Does this project reinforce U.S. sovereignty by limiting reliance on international organizations or global governance structures (e.g., UN, WHO)?”
David Robinson, executive director of the Canadian association, said his organization was informed of the questionnaires by U.S. Department of Agriculture–funded researchers who received them. The White House didn’t return Inside Higher Ed’s request for comment Wednesday.
“It’s just unbelievable,” Robinson said. He said the U.S. government is trying to “impose a certain ideological viewpoint on research.”
Robinson also provided a survey that he said Australian researchers received. It contains the same questions and more, including, “What impact does this project have on protecting religious minorities, promoting religious freedom, and combatting Christian prosecution [sic]?”
Both surveys say “OMB”—standing for Office of Management and Budget—at the top. Chennupati Jagadish, president of the Australian Academy of Science, said in a statement Monday that “Australian scientists have been surveyed to disclose their institution’s compatibility with United States (US) foreign and domestic policy.”
“Any reasonable assessment of the survey indicates that US Government funded research in Australia could be terminated because an Australian institution—not the research project—has links with several named countries, or links with the United Nations and its agencies, or impacts the protection and promotion of specific religions,” Jagadish said.
The Trump administration is pausing $175 million in federal funding to the University of Pennsylvania, apparently because the college allowed a transgender woman to compete in women’s sports three years ago.
The funding pause, announced Wednesday via a White House social media post, is not related to any investigation. Instead, the Departments of Defense and Health and Human Services stopped the $175 million as part of an “immediate proactive action to review discretionary funding streams,” a senior White House official said in a statement. The legality of the move isn’t clear, and officials didn’t specify what the paused funding was intended to be used for.
The official did note that the university “infamously permitted a male to compete on its women’s swimming team.”
The University of Pennsylvania became a target for Republicans and conservatives after swimmer Lia Thomas, who initially competed on the men’s swimming team, transitioned and then swam for the women’s team during the 2021–22 season—in compliance with the NCAA policies at the time. Thomas went on to win the NCAA championship in the 500-yard freestyle, although her time was not an NCAA record.
President Donald Trump campaigned in part on getting “men out of women’s sports,” and signed an executive order in early February specifically banning transgender women from competing in women’s sports. The order is part of a broader rollback of trans rights, and Trump has gone so far as to deny the existence of trans and gender-nonconforming people, declaring that there are only two sexes, male and female.
Shortly after the order was signed, the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights opened a Title IX investigation into transgender athletes participating in college sports at the University of Pennsylvania. The Education Department also urged the NCAA to rescind all “records, titles, awards, and recognitions” given to trans women and girls. Since Trump’s order, the NCAA and Penn have acceded and revised policies to prevent trans women from competing in women’s sports.
A senior Trump administration official told Fox Business that the pause was a “proactive punishment” and that the university is at risk of losing all federal funding as part of the ongoing Title IX investigation.
“This is just a taste of what could be coming down the pipe for Penn,” the official told Fox Business, which first reported on the pause.
A University of Pennsylvania spokesperson said Wednesday afternoon that the institution had yet to receive any official notification or any details about the pause. The spokesperson noted that Penn follows NCAA and Ivy League policies regarding student participation on athletic teams.
“We have been in the past, and remain today, in full compliance with the regulations that apply to not only Penn, but all of our NCAA and Ivy League peer institutions,” the spokesperson said.
Columbia, Penn and other universities are facing great uncertainty when it comes to federal funding as Trump looks to cut spending and crack down on programs that don’t align with his priorities. Penn recently paused hiring and took other steps to curb spending.
Pausing Penn’s funding without any formal investigation and outside the typical processes for such a punishment is just the latest salvo in Trump’s attacks on wealthy universities. Earlier this month, the administration cut $400 million in grants and contracts from Columbia University, accusing the institution of “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students”—an unprecedented move that alarmed experts and higher education advocates. Trump officials then ratcheted up the pressure by demanding sweeping changes at Columbia as a precondition to formal negotiations. Columbia has until Thursday, March 20, to respond.
Jon Fansmith, senior vice president of government relations at the American Council on Education, said the administration is punishing conduct they disagree with, adding that he found the Penn pause “more troubling” because of the lack of explanation or rationale.
“It’s one thing to say we think there’s a big problem,” he said. “It’s a much bigger deal to say we’re arbitrarily suspending funding without a reason … You should at least have a reason for taking serious action.”
He noted that the current regulations governing Title IX don’t specifically bar transgender students from participating in women’s sports, and that Penn is in compliance with the policies. So he’s not sure what Penn could offer the Trump administration to restore the funding.
Blake Emerson, a professor of law and political science at the University of California, Los Angeles, said the funding pause is illegal since the administration didn’t follow the processes under Title IX to pull funding. That process includes a formal hearing and a report to Congress.
“There is no freestanding executive power to cut off money without legal authority,” he said. “It’s another instance in this pattern of the Trump administration not just aggressively using the law to target political opponents and universities, but flouting the law and not even showing casual regard for the legal process.”
Emerson noted that executive orders aren’t laws, and that if the Trump administration wants to change the existing interpretations of Title IX, it has to go through the rule-making process.
He urged Penn and Columbia to fight the cuts, as he doesn’t think “acquiescence is likely to appease” the Trump administration.
“Universities have a strong case to make that the funds being cut off are really necessary to provide essential public services the universities provide,” he said. “We’re losing scientific research because of these illegal steps, and universities are failing to make the case for their own programs when the actions being taken against them are clearly illegal. To my mind, acquiescence is a major blunder.”
Meanwhile, conservative activists who have railed against trans athletes praised the move.
Riley Gaines, who competed against Thomas, called the timing of the announcement “serendipitous” in a social media post. Three years ago Wednesday, she tied with Thomas for fifth place in the 200-yard freestyle at the 2022 NCAA championships.
Beth Parlato, senior legal adviser for the Independent Women’s Law Center, said in a statement that the message from the funding pause was clear: comply or suffer the consequences.
“President Trump means business and he’s not going to tolerate any school willfully violating the law,” Parlato said. “It is so encouraging to see an administration actually follow through with promises made to the American people, and I’m looking forward to watching each and every school that fails to protect women and girls be held accountable.”
