Tag: Committee

  • Texas A&M committee sides with professor fired amid conservative furor

    Texas A&M committee sides with professor fired amid conservative furor

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • A Texas A&M University committee unanimously ruled last week that the public institution wrongly fired an English professor amid conservative furor over her classroom instruction on gender identity. 
    • The university terminated Melissa McCoul in September after a conservative state lawmaker shared a video of her teaching about gender and called for her to be fired. Texas Gov. Greg Abbott joined the lawmaker’s call to fire McCoul. 
    • On Nov. 18, the university’s Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure voted 8-0 that Texas A&M “had no justification for dismissing” McCoul and “failed to follow required procedures at multiple stages,” according to a Sunday statement from the Texas A&M chapter of the American Association of University Professors.

    Dive Insight:

    In September, Texas State Rep. Brian Harrison posted a video to social media of McCoul teaching about gender identity in children’s literature and accused both her and Texas A&M of perpetuating “DEI and LGBTQ indoctrination.” Although Harrison didn’t name McCoul at the time and the video did not show her face, she was later confirmed to be the professor. 

    He called for both McCoul and then-President Mark Welsh III to be fired. 

    The university terminated McCoul just a day after Harrison’s social media posts. Welsh said she was fired for teaching coursework that did not match the class’s catalog description. 

    “This isn’t about academic freedom; it’s about academic responsibility,” Welsh said at the time. “Our degree programs and courses go through extensive approval processes, and we must ensure that what we ultimately deliver to students is consistent with what was approved.”

    Welsh ultimately stepped down as president later that month under political pressure, receiving a $3.5 million settlement from the Texas A&M University System’s governing board.

    McCoul’s firing quickly drew backlash from free speech and academic freedom groups, including PEN America, the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, the Texas American Federation of Teachers, and the Texas AAUP conference. They raised concerns about due process and accused the university of acquiescing to political pressure.

    McCoul appealed her termination with the university soon thereafter. 

    A Texas A&M faculty council in late September determined that the university’s decision to fire McCoul violated her academic freedom and that Welsh failed to follow university rules when dismissing her, according to The Texas Tribune. It also found that McCoul’s syllabus was consistent with the corresponding course catalog entry and description. 

    But a senior Texas A&M administrator dismissed those findings in an October memo, saying the matter had not been assigned to the council and that the group had acted outside of its purview.

    The administrator classified McCoul’s firing as “largely unrelated to academic freedom” and said the council should not have reviewed the incident without the approval of the university’s Faculty Affairs office, according to the Tribune. 

    Last week, the university’s Committee on Academic Freedom, Responsibility and Tenure — which reviews faculty appeals of dismissals — ultimately voted in McCoul’s favor when reviewing her case.

    The committee did not find evidence Texas A&M discussed its plans to fire McCoul with her, nor did it give her meaningful notice, according to excerpts of the decision shared by Texas A&M’s AAUP chapter. 

    CAFRT also disputed the university’s assertion that McCoul was responsible for the alleged discrepancy between her class’s course description and her instruction.  

    “The CAFRT committee found no documentary evidence that Dr. McCoul was included in discussions about the special topics course,” it said. “More critically, Dr. McCoul does not have the authority to designate her own courses; it is the College of Arts and Sciences and the English department administration’s responsibility to do so.”

    Texas A&M’s interim president, Tommy Williams, may either accept or reject the committee’s findings. McCoul will be reinstated if he accepts them, but her dismissal will be final if he rejects them, according to a university webpage detailing the process. 

    A university spokesperson said Monday that Texas A&M officials “are aware of the non-binding findings.” 

    “Williams has received the committee’s report and will review it carefully before making a decision in the coming days or weeks,” the spokesperson said in an email.

    McCoul’s lawyer, Amanda Reichek, told the Associated Press that Texas A&M appears poised to fight the committee’s decision amid continued political pressure. The dispute, she said, seems headed for court.

    “Dr. McCoul asserts that the flimsy reasons proffered by A&M for her termination are a pretext for the University’s true motivation: capitulation to Governor Abbott’s demands,” Reichek said in a statement.

    Texas A&M’s AAUP chapter on Sunday called the university’s rationale to fire the professor “troubling and bizarre” and called for her to be reinstated, saying the university had “improperly shifted blame for its own repeated failures to follow established written policies onto Dr. McCoul.”

    “Dr. McCoul has a long and distinguished record of exceptional teaching and service to Texas A&M,” the group said. “The vilification, trauma, and reputational harm she has endured at the hands of Texas A&M for simply doing her job must be acknowledged and corrected.“

    Last week’s news comes after the Texas A&M system implemented significant policy changes related to the conservative contretemps around McCoul.

    On Nov. 13, Texas A&M regents announced that none of the courses at the system’s 12 universities “may teach race or gender ideology or topics related to sexual orientation or gender identity.” To teach such topics, professors will be required to get advanced authorization from their institution’s president.

    The change similarly spurred outcry from academic and free speech advocates.

    Source link

  • University of Nebraska-Lincoln committee opposes most academic program cuts

    University of Nebraska-Lincoln committee opposes most academic program cuts

    An academic advisory group at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln has opposed most of the program cuts recommended by the institution’s chancellor and is calling for more time before considering major budget reductions. 

    A majority of the Academic Planning Committee members voted against eliminating four of the six programs put on the chopping block by UNL Chancellor Rodney Bennett in September as part of an effort to save $27.5 million annually. 

    The 21-person committee — composed of 10 faculty members as well as deans, administrators, staffers and students — officially issued its recommendation to Bennett in an Oct. 24 memo. 

    Bennett plans to issue his final recommendation in the coming weeks, and the University of Nebraska System regents will consider it in December. 

    In the memo, the committee pointed to concerns raised by faculty about the process Bennett and other UNL leaders used to determine which academic programs to slash. Those issues largely revolved around potential problems with the metrics and the short evaluation period used to make permanent decisions. 

    “We strongly recommend to the Chancellor, the President, and the Board of Regents that the approval of any budget cuts be delayed allowing time for units to identify creative alternative solutions that reduce or prevent the need for these cuts,” the committee said. 

    In a note Friday, Bennett thanked the committee for its work and said, “I am now carefully reviewing the APC’s recommendations and continuing consultations with our shared governance partners before finalizing the budget reduction plan.”

    A ‘top-down’ process for judging programs

    Over the past month, the academic planning committee has been collecting feedback from UNL stakeholders through hearings and nearly 3,000 submitted comments, the memo noted.

    Many questioned the validity and usefulness of the statistical metrics and data used to evaluate programs, while also accusing the administration of not being transparent about those measures. 

    Those metrics led to Bennett’s proposal that UNL permanently eliminate degrees in community and regional planning; Earth and atmospheric sciences; educational administration; landscape architecture; statistics; and textiles, merchandising and fashion design.

    In past budget deliberations, deans were given a target for reductions and could design unit-specific ways to meet goals, a process the committee described as “bottom-up.” 

    “In the current process, metrics were used in a ‘top-down’ approach to identify lower-performing units, and then a holistic review of those units was undertaken by upper administration,” the committee said. 

    Moreover, leaders only shared metrics to make program decisions confidentially with deans and the academic planning committee, which left faculty scrambling to understand those measures. 

    “No one was able to fully validate the metrics, either through confirming the accuracy of the underlying data or via analysis to confirm that the metrics were statistically valid ways to quantify the desired performance indicators,” the committee said. 

    For example, faculty from multiple units said that programs were revenue-positive, meaning cutting them would cost the university more in lost revenue than it saved in expenses. Others pointed to the extension work done by programs that make them important to the state and help UNL fulfill its mission as a public land-grant university. 

    But the comments from faculty and other UNL stakeholders weren’t just critical — they were also creative, suggesting alternative ways that programs and the university could save on costs or generate new revenue, the committee said. In fact, every unit had ideas of ways to generate revenue and save costs.

    “Given that a budget deficit has been looming for years, it is unfortunate that the process was invoked with so little time to engage the creativity and collective intelligence of the full University community,” the committee said. “When the energy of our faculty, staff, students, and stakeholders is unleashed on the problem of the budget deficit, creative and selfless solutions can emerge.”

    Source link

  • What I told the Senate Commerce Committee about ‘jawboning’

    What I told the Senate Commerce Committee about ‘jawboning’

    This prepared statement was delivered before the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on Oct. 29, 2025.

    Chairman Cruz, Ranking Member Cantwell, and honorable members of the Committee,

    Good morning, and thank you for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Will Creeley, and I am the legal director of FIRE — the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, a nonpartisan nonprofit dedicated to defending the rights of all Americans to free speech and free thought, the essential qualities of liberty.

    I’ve spent nearly 20 years defending the First Amendment rights of speakers from every point on the ideological spectrum. At FIRE, we have one rule: If speech is protected, we’ll defend it.

    Typically, the censorship we fight is straightforward: The government punishes a speaker for saying things the government doesn’t like. That’s a classic First Amendment violation, a fastball down the middle. Unfortunately, that kind of textbook censorship isn’t the only way government actors silence disfavored or dissenting speech.

    Far too often, government officials from both sides of the partisan divide engage in “jawboning” — that is, they abuse the actual or perceived power of their office to threaten, bully, or coerce others into censoring speech. This indirect censorship violates the First Amendment just as surely as direct suppression.

    What is jawboning? And does it violate the First Amendment?

    Indirect government censorship is still government censorship — and it must be stopped.


    Read More

    This isn’t new law. The First Amendment’s prohibition against coerced censorship dates back decades, to the Supreme Court’s 1963 ruling in Bantam Books v. Sullivan. In that case, the Court confronted a Rhode Island state commission that sent threatening letters, “phrased virtually as orders,” to booksellers distributing “objectionable” titles — with follow-up visits from police, to ensure the message had been received.

    The Court held the commission’s “operation was in fact a scheme of state censorship effectuated by extra-legal sanctions; they acted as an agency not to advise but to suppress.” And in the decades since, courts have consistently heeded Bantam Books’ call to “look through forms to the substance” of censorship, and to remain vigilant against both formal and informal schemes to silence speech.

    But government officials regularly abuse their power to silence others, so the lesson of Bantam Books bears repeating. And in deciding National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo last year, the Supreme Court unanimously and emphatically reaffirmed it.

    In Vullo, New York State officials punished the NRA for its views on gun rights by threatening regulatory enforcement against insurance companies that did business with the group and offering leniency to those who stopped. New York’s backdoor censorship was successful — and unlawful.

    This regulatory carrot-and-stick approach was designed to chill speech, and the Court reiterated that “a government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly: A government official cannot coerce a private party to punish or suppress disfavored speech on her behalf.”

    A government official cannot do indirectly what she is barred from doing directly.

    To be sure, the government may speak for itself, and the public has an interest in hearing from it. But it may not wield that power to censor. As Judge Richard Posner put it: The government is “entitled to what it wants to say — but only within limits.” Under no circumstances may our public servants “employ threats to squelch the free speech of private citizens.”

    So the law is clear: Government actors cannot silence a speaker by threatening “we can do this the easy way or we can do this the hard way,” as the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission did last month. Nevertheless, recent examples of jawboning abound: against private broadcasters, private universities, private social media platforms, and more. The First Amendment does not abide mob tactics.

    Despite the clarity of the law, fighting back against jawboning is difficult. Targeted speakers can’t sue federal officials for monetary damages for First Amendment violations, removing a powerful deterrent. And as a practical matter, informal censorship is often invisible to those silenced.

    That’s particularly true in the context of social media platforms, as demonstrated by another recent Supreme Court case, Murthy v. Missouri.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression.

    Murthy involved coercive demands by Biden administration officials to social media platforms about posts related to Covid-19, vaccines, elections, and other subjects, resulting in the suppression of speech the administration opposed. But the Court held the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue, because the causal link between their deleted posts and the administration’s pressure wasn’t sufficiently clear.

    Murthy illustrates a severe information disparity: Users whose speech is suppressed have no way to know if government actors put their thumb on the scale. Only the government and the platforms have that knowledge, and usually neither want to share it. 

    That’s why FIRE authored model legislation that would require the government to disclose communications between federal agencies and social media companies regarding content published on its platform, with limited exceptions. But transparency is not enough. Federal officials must be meaningfully deterred from jawboning, and held accountable when they do.

    Jawboning betrays our national commitment to freedom of expression. Congress should take action to stop it.

    Thank you for your time. I welcome your questions.

    View FIRE’s full testimony with briefs for the U.S. Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation on October 29, 2025

    Source link

  • University of Iowa launches ‘proactive’ committee to hunt for revenue and boost efficiency

    University of Iowa launches ‘proactive’ committee to hunt for revenue and boost efficiency

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    Dive Brief:

    • The University of Iowa has assembled a massive universitywide committee to explore new revenue opportunities and ways to boost efficiency, the public institution announced last week. 
    • Dubbed “Resparc” — short for Revenue and Efficiencies Strategic Plan Action and Resource Committee — the group includes nearly 100 faculty, staff and officials from 35 units across the institution. 
    • Subcommittees will explore specific areas such as philanthropy, academic programs and financial operations. Those teams will develop proposals for increasing revenue and improving operations for Resparc’s leadership and ultimately for University of Iowa’s president and provost.

    Dive Insight:

    The university framed its new initiative as forward-looking, meant to ensure University of Iowa “maintains its strong financial trajectory for years to come,” rather than having to wrestle reactively with challenges as they happen. 

    “By launching this effort from a position of financial health, the university will be able to build upon its success at a time when higher education is navigating significant disruption, from the anticipated demographic enrollment cliff to a decline in public trust and growing financial constraints,” the university said in its announcement. 

    Iowa’s flagship university is growing. By fall 2024, its total faculty and staff had increased 5.1% year over year to 27,795 employees, while enrollment grew 2.4% to 32,199 students. 

    The university’s total assets and revenues have also been steadily rising in recent years. In fiscal 2024, its operating income — which does not include state appropriations, certain grants and contacts, investment income or gifts — stood at $36.8 million. The positive operating income stands in contrast to that of the many public universities with operating losses before those sources of revenue are factored in. 

    But University of Iowa officials acknowledged the challenges rippling across the higher ed landscape, including an anticipated decline in the traditional college-age population. 

    In Iowa specifically, the number of high school graduates is projected to decline by 4% from 2023 to 2041, according to the latest estimates from Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education. 

    University of Iowa has also seen its expenses jump along with the rest of the higher ed world, adding new financial constraints. Between fiscal years 2022 and 2024, its total operating expenses rose 15.7% to $5 billion. 

    The Trump administration’s aggressive moves to limit federal research funding could pose additional pressure. In 2024, University of Iowa brought in $315 million in federal research funding. The Trump administration has now terminated grants to the university worth roughly $14.3 million and having $9.7 million still left to be paid out, according to a Center for American Progress analysis of U.S. Department of the Treasury data. 

    Against that backdrop, many institutions — public and private — are cutting back spending and shrinking their employee base, both through layoffs and attrition. But University of Iowa officials say Resparc is different. 

    In a FAQ page, the university said the efficiency-seeking efforts are “a proactive planning effort, not a response to a budget crisis.” It states that the goal “is to find ways to work smarter, improve processes, reduce administrative burdens, and better leverage our collective resources and technology.”

    Resparc is led by Emily Campbell, associate vice president for operations and decision support, and Sara Sanders, dean of the university’s liberal arts and sciences college. 

    Campbell and engineering dean Ann McKenna oversee the initiative’s revenue teams, while Sanders and Peter Matthes, vice president for external relations and senior advisor to University of Iowa President Barbara Wilson, oversee the efficiency group.

    Source link

  • Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

    Senate committee rejects K-12 grant consolidations in FY 26 bill

    This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

    The U.S. Senate Appropriations Committee on Thursday approved a bipartisan fiscal year 2026 K-12 education bill that would prevent the executive branch from removing Title I and special education programs to agencies outside the U.S. Department of Education. The legislation also rejects several other funding reforms proposed by the Trump administration.

    The bill would require timely awarding of formula grants by the Education Department to states and districts. For several weeks in July, the Education Department and the White House’s Office of Management and Budget withheld $6.2 billion in grant funding that states and districts expected access to starting July 1.

    That funding at pre-approved FY 2025 spending levels was released after the Trump administration conducted a “programmatic review” and added “guardrails” to ensure the funds would not violate executive orders or administration policy, a senior administration official at OMB told K-12 Dive in an email July 25.

    Educators, parents, education organizations, and Republican and Democratic lawmakers had pressured the administration to make the funds available, citing that the disruption in funds was causing school program cuts, canceled contracts and staff layoffs. 

    In total, the Senate Appropriations Committee recommends funding the Education Department in FY 26 at $79 billion, according to the bill text. That’s $12.3 billion more than President Donald Trump’s proposal of $66.7 billion. In the current fiscal year, the Education Department is funded at $78.7 billion. 

    “The bill also supports families by investing in education and affordable child care, which promotes financial stability for working parents and benefits our economy,” said Appropriations Committee Chair Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.

    The proposed education budget — which was included in funding legislation for the U.S. Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services, and related agencies — passed the committee in a 26-3 vote. 

    “Our bills reject devastating cuts — and reject many of this administration’s absurd proposals — like dismantling the Department of Education,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash., vice chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, in her opening remarks. 

    “We all know President Trump cannot dismantle the Department of Education or ship education programs to other agencies. Authorizing laws prevent that. Appropriations laws prevent that,” Murray said. 

    Trump has said he wants to reduce the size and scope of the federal government and give states and localities more fiscal decision-making authority while reducing bureaucracy. 

    In March, Trump signed an executive order to shutter the Education Department to the “maximum extent appropriate.” Congress, however, would need to approve the closing of the agency.

    Maintaining separate formula grants

    The Trump administration’s budget proposed a new K-12 Simplified Funding Program that would merge 18 current competitive formula funding grant programs into one $2 billion formula grant program. The administration said the SFP would spur innovation and give states more spending flexibility and decision-making power.

    The Senate Appropriation Committee instead rejected that plan by keeping the formula grants separate. The Senate plan would provide a $50 million increase over FY 2025 spending for both Title I-A funding for low-income schools and districts, and for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

    The bill would maintain current spending levels, except for a few reductions, across other K-12 formula and competitive grant programs targeting improvements in teaching and learning, according to a bill summary from Murray’s office. 

    Other notable spending proposals from the Senate Appropriations Committee FY 26 bill include:

    • The Office for Civil Rights would maintain level spending at $140 million.
    • The Institute of Education Sciences would be funded at $793 million, level with the FY 25 budget. 
    • Title I and IDEA would be funded at $18.5 billion and $15.2 billion, respectively. The two grant programs make up the largest share of funding for K-12 at the Education Department.
    • Under the HHS portion of the legislation, the committee recommends increasing funding for the early childhood learning programs Head Start and the Child Care and Community Block grant by $85 million each to $12.4 billion and $8.8 billion, respectively. 

    The Senate Appropriations bill will now be considered by the House and full Senate. FY 26 starts Oct. 1.

    Source link

  • NEA Executive Committee Reverses Member Vote to Boycott ADL Educational Materials

    NEA Executive Committee Reverses Member Vote to Boycott ADL Educational Materials

    ADL CEO Jonathan GreenblattThe National Education Association’s (NEA) executive committee has rejected a resolution passed by union members that would have severed ties with the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), preserving access to educational materials on antisemitism and Holocaust education amid rising campus tensions.

    The decision, announced Friday by NEA President Becky Pringle, came after the union’s Representative Assembly voted last week in Portland, Oregon, to cut ties with the civil rights organization over its characterization of campus protests related to the Gaza conflict as antisemitic.

    “Following the culmination of a thorough review process, it was determined that this proposal would not further NEA’s commitment to academic freedom,” Pringle said in a statement. The rejection preserves educators’ access to ADL curricula and professional development programs that address antisemitism in educational settings.

    The controversy highlights the complex challenges facing educational institutions as they navigate discussions about antisemitism, campus climate, and academic freedom in the aftermath of increased tensions following the October 7, 2023 Hamas attacks and subsequent Gaza conflict.

    The executive committee’s decision followed an unprecedented coalition effort, with nearly 400 Jewish organizations and dozens of elected officials urging the NEA to reject the boycott proposal. The coalition argued that excluding ADL materials would harm efforts to combat antisemitism in schools and marginalize Jewish educators and students.

    “This resolution was not just an attack on the ADL, but a larger attack against Jewish educators, students, and families,” said a joint statement from ADL CEO Jonathan Greenblatt, American Jewish Committee CEO Ted Deutch, Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations COO Stephanie Hausner, and Jewish Federations of North America Executive Vice President Shira Hutt.

    The Jewish leaders emphasized that the proposed boycott would have normalized “antisemitic isolation, othering, and marginalization of Jewish teachers, students and families in our schools,” even as teachers’ unions have limited power to dictate curriculum.

    The debate reflects broader tensions on college and K-12 campuses nationwide, where Jewish students and faculty have reported increased incidents of antisemitism alongside pro-Palestinian advocacy efforts. The ADL’s annual reporting on antisemitic incidents has itself become a point of contention, with some progressive Jewish leaders questioning whether the organization conflates legitimate criticism of Israeli government policies with antisemitism.

    Amy Spitalnick, CEO of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, offered a nuanced perspective: “It’s possible to disagree with ADL without cutting off all engagement — which would undercut our shared goals of countering antisemitism and broader hate and bias.”

    Pringle clarified that rejecting the boycott proposal was not an endorsement of “the ADL’s full body of work” but acknowledged the organization’s role in addressing rising antisemitism. She met with ADL CEO Greenblatt to discuss the union’s processes and reaffirm the NEA’s commitment to combating antisemitism.

    Source link

  • China Select Committee Launches AI Campaign with Legislation to Block CCP-Linked AI from U.S. Government Use

    China Select Committee Launches AI Campaign with Legislation to Block CCP-Linked AI from U.S. Government Use

    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:

    June 25, 2025

    Contact:

    Alyssa Pettus

    Brian Benko

    WASHINGTON, D.C. — As the House Select Committee on the China opens its landmark hearing, “Authoritarians and Algorithms: Why U.S. AI Must Lead,” Committee leaders are unveiling new bipartisan legislation to confront the CCP’s growing exploitation of artificial intelligence.

    Chairman John Moolenaar (R-MI) and Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi (D-IL) today announced the House introduction of the “No Adversarial AI Act”— bipartisan legislation also being championed in the Senate by Senators Rick Scott (R-FL) and Gary Peters (D-MI). The bill would prohibit U.S. executive agencies from acquiring or using artificial intelligence developed by companies tied to foreign adversaries like the Chinese Communist Party. The House legislation is cosponsored by a bipartisan group of Select Committee members, including Reps. Ritchie Torres (D-NY) and Darin LaHood (R-IL). 

     

    “We are in a new Cold War—and AI is the strategic technology at the center,” said Chairman Moolenaar. “The CCP doesn’t innovate—it steals, scales, and subverts. From IP theft and chip smuggling to embedding AI in surveillance and military platforms, the Chinese Communist Party is racing to weaponize this technology. We must draw a clear line: U.S. government systems cannot be powered by tools built to serve authoritarian interests.”

    What the No Adversarial AI Act Does:

    • Creates a public list of AI systems developed by foreign adversaries, maintained and updated by the Federal Acquisition Security Council.
    • Prohibits executive agencies from acquiring or using adversary-developed AI—except in narrow cases such as research, counterterrorism, or mission-critical needs.
    • Establishes a delisting process for companies that can demonstrate they are free from foreign adversary control or influence.

     

    “Artificial intelligence controlled by foreign adversaries poses a direct threat to our national security, our data, and our government operations,” said Ranking Member Raja Krishnamoorthi. “We cannot allow hostile regimes to embed their code in our most sensitive systems. This bipartisan legislation will create a clear firewall between foreign adversary AI and the U.S. government, protecting our institutions and the American people. Chinese, Russian, and other adversary AI systems simply do not belong on government devices, and certainly shouldn’t be entrusted with government data.”

    Senator Rick Scott said, “The Communist Chinese regime will use any means necessary to spy, steal, and undermine the United States, and as AI technology advances, we must do more to protect our national security and stop adversarial regimes from using technology against us. With clear evidence that China can have access to U.S. user data on AI systems, it’s absolutely insane for our own federal agencies to be using these dangerous platforms and subject our government to Beijing’s control. Our No Adversarial AI Act will stop this direct threat to our national security and keep the American government’s sensitive data out of enemy hands.”

    The legislation marks a major action in the Select Committee’s AI campaign, which aims to secure U.S. AI supply chains, enforce robust export controls, and ensure American innovation does not fuel authoritarian surveillance or military systems abroad.

     

    Today’s hearing and legislation continues the series of new proposals and messaging the Committee will roll out this summer to confront the CCP’s exploitation of U.S. innovation and prevent American technology from fueling Beijing’s AI ambitions.

    Source link

  • Senate HELP Committee Releases Big Beautiful Bill

    Senate HELP Committee Releases Big Beautiful Bill

    Sen. Bill Cassidy, R-Louisiana, spearheading the Senate plan for higher education reform.

    Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

    Senate Republicans want to eliminate so-called “inflationary loans,” stop federal aid to degrees that leave students worse off and expand the Pell Grant to workforce training programs as part of a draft plan released late Tuesday evening to overhaul higher education policy. 

    The 71-page legislation is part of the Senate’s response to the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which passed the House last month and is designed to fund President Donald Trump’s tax cuts, his crackdown on immigration and other top agenda items.

    The Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions committee drafted the higher education portion of the legislation. As expected, the plan mirrors the House bill in many ways as it calls for significant changes to the federal student loan system. For instance, both plans would end the Grad Plus loans and restrict the Parent Plus program.

    But the Senate has a different plan to hold colleges accountable, nixing the House’s proposed risk-sharing model, under which colleges would have to pay a fee for their graduates’ unpaid loans, for a measure like gainful employment. Under the Senate plan, colleges would have to report their average postgraduate income levels and could lose access to federal aid, depending on students’ earnings and debt. The Senate bill also omits a provision from the House bill that would exclude part-time students from the Pell grant. Overall, the changes in the Senate bill would save $300 billion over 10 years compared to the House bill, which would save $350 billion.

    “American higher education has lost its purpose. Students are graduating with degrees that won’t get them a job and insurmountable debt that they can’t pay back,” said Sen. Bill Cassidy, the Republican chair of the HELP committee, in a news release.  “We need to fix our broken higher education system, so it prioritizes student success and ensures Americans have the skills to compete in a 21st century economy. President Trump and Senate Republicans are focused on delivering results for American families and this bill does just that.”

    Lawmakers are using the process known as reconciliation to advance the legislation, so it only needs 51 votes to pass the high chamber instead of the typical 60 votes. But before senators can vote, the Senate Budget committee and then the parliamentarian will have to scrutinize the various provisions and ensure they adhere to the reconciliation rules. For example, the policy changes must have a budgetary impact and be within the jurisdiction of the committee that proposed it. 

    President Donald Trump has set an ambitious July 4 deadline to sign the measure into law, which would require quick action from the Senate.

    From the beginning of the Trump administration in January, House Republicans have been pushing a more radical plan with steep cuts to key welfare programs like Medicaid, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and, most recently, student financial aid like the Pell Grant. Meanwhile, senators have talked about more modest, though still significant, spending cuts. 

    Now, Republicans from both chambers will have to get on the same page if they want to meet their deadline. All the while, lobbyists, policy analysts and political figures—including ex-Trump advisor, Elon Musk—are expected to come at the bill from every angle with critiques.

    Source link

  • Senate Committee Approves Education Under Secretary Nominee

    Senate Committee Approves Education Under Secretary Nominee

    The U.S. Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions voted to approve Nicholas Kent as under secretary of education, the top job in the country for higher education policy and oversight, by a narrow 12-to-11 vote. The Senate will hold a final confirmation vote at a later date.

    Kent, a former Virginia deputy secretary of education, is a vocal critic of the Biden administration and a former lobbyist for for-profit colleges and trade schools. 

    His nomination earned a mix of support and concern from higher education associations and advocates, some of whom viewed it as a worrying harbinger of the Trump administration’s plans to reduce federal regulation and oversight of for-profit colleges and credential programs.

    Kent was advanced to a full vote with a tranche of six other cabinet nominees. A few organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers and the Institute for College Access and Success, expressed concern that there was no public hearing about Kent’s ties to for-profit institutions. In 2015 Kent’s then-employer, Education Affiliates, a company that operates dozens of for-profit colleges nationwide, settled a False Claims Act case brought by the Department of Justice for $2 million.

    Sen. Bernie Sanders, Independent of Vermont, voted no on Kent’s nomination Thursday morning, saying, “We should not be confirming a former lobbyist who represented for-profit colleges to oversee higher education.”

    Other organizations say Kent could shake up a regulatory framework they believe has stifled innovation. The American Association of Community Colleges wrote a letter supporting Kent, saying it believes he is committed to “ensuring statutory compliance and program integrity while decreasing administrative burdens and supporting innovation.”

    If confirmed, Kent will replace acting under secretary James Bergeron as the No. 2 education policy official in the country. 

    Source link

  • Senate Committee Postpones Vote on Antisemitism Awareness Act

    Senate Committee Postpones Vote on Antisemitism Awareness Act

    A vote on the Antisemitism Awareness Act—a bill that would codify the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s controversial definition of antisemitism—was postponed Wednesday following a testy two-hour debate in the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, Jewish Insider reported.

    The committee’s Republican chairman, Sen. Bill Cassidy of Louisiana, called off the planned vote after the Democratic minority won enough Republican support to pass several amendments aimed at more clearly distinguishing what qualifies as discriminatory speech and protecting the First Amendment rights of pro-Palestinian protesters.

    For instance, some of the proposed amendments included clarifying that it is not antisemitic to oppose the “devastation of Gaza,” or to criticize Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as preventing the revocation of visas based on “protected conduct under the First Amendment.” Lawmakers also sought to ensure students and faculty members could protest as long as they don’t incite violence.

    Cassidy opposed the amendments, saying they were “problematic” and could jeopardize GOP support for the bill on the Senate floor.

    “So that it’s clear for the people that are watching, supporting these amendments is an effort to kill this bill, which protects Jewish students from antisemitic acts,” he said during the meeting. “The bill [already] includes protections for free speech. So let’s not be naïve as to what’s taking place here.” 

    But Democrats and Republican Rand Paul of Kentucky said the amendments were necessary to ensure that while objecting to bigotry and discrimination, this bill also upheld the constitutional right to peaceful protest. (Sen. Susan Collins, a Maine Republican, also supported some of the amendments.)

    “I worry very much that the Antisemitism Awareness Act that we are considering today is unconstitutional and will move us far along in the authoritarian direction that the Trump administration is taking us,” Sen. Bernie Sanders, a Vermont Independent and ranking member of the committee, said in his opening remarks.

    Paul also objected the current bill’s language, particularly the examples of antisemitic speech it includes.

    “The problem is if you look at the IHRA’s examples of speech, they are going to be limiting on campuses everything on that list … protected by the First Amendment,” Paul said. “The First Amendment isn’t about protecting good speech; it protects even the most despicable and vile speech.” 

    The bill was already expected to face a tight vote given that the committee consists of 12 Republicans and 11 Democrats. So if two Republicans voted in opposition to the act, it wouldn’t move forward.

    Furthermore, multiple Republican members of the committee were not present for the full hearing due to other commitments. Cassidy said there was not enough time for all Republicans to return to the committee room for a vote before the meeting ended, so he postponed the vote. A vote on the Protecting Students on Campus Act, which would require colleges to notify students of how to file discrimination complaints, was also delayed.

    Source link