Tag: freeze

Colleges Expand Basic Needs Support Following SNAP Freeze

The government shutdown may be nearing its end, but the delayed distribution of food assistance funds continues to pose a threat to Americans, including the basic needs security of college students. For now, the future of Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program funding remains cloudy amid the federal government’s ongoing court battles against releasing the funds.

Nearly three in five college students experience some form of basic needs insecurity, and two in five experience food insecurity, according to national surveys. In addition, approximately 3.3 million college students are eligible for federal food assistance, according to 2020 data, though a large share do not utilize SNAP due to lack of awareness.

Financial insecurity is one of the top threats to student retention and persistence in higher education, meaning a lapse in support may impede some students’ ability to remain enrolled.

Some colleges and universities have established new or expanded measures to plug the gap in food support for students during the shutdown, including expanding the hours of campus food pantries and promoting emergency grant funding.

University of Minnesota

Minnesota administrators announced on Nov. 3 that students affected by the lack of SNAP funds would be able to access one free meal a day in the residential dining hall until benefits resume. The university estimates fewer than 1,000 individuals on campus are enrolled in SNAP.

In addition, the on-campus food pantry, Nutritious U, will offer expanded hours for the rest of the semester, opening one hour earlier to serve more students.

Franklin Pierce University

The New Hampshire–based university provides basic needs resources at several campus locations—including the library, counseling center and the Office of Outreach and Engagement—to ensure students can have access to food and hygiene products.

The pantry, Rations for Ravens, is funded primarily through donations, both monetary and physical products.

City University of New York

CUNY chancellor Félix Matos Rodríguez announced the university system would allocate additional funding to all campuses “so they can stock extra supplies in their on-site food pantries or provide food assistance in other forms,” he wrote in a Nov. 7 email to students. CUNY students can visit any campus pantry in the system, regardless of their home enrollment, allowing them to access those with the most convenient hours and locations.

The chancellor also urged students to apply for SNAP benefits for future assistance; students at the Bronx campuses (Lehman, Hostos and Bronx Community College) can also participate in a pilot program for community-based resources.

Austin Community College

Nearly half of the students at Austin Community College are food insecure, according to fall 2023 survey data. Since the government shutdown, officials have received up to 500 requests a week for emergency aid from the college’s 74,000 students, as reported by The Austin American-Statesman.

The college has pantries on every campus, called River Food Bites, which now have extended hours to meet students’ needs. ACC also allocated $25,000 in emergency funding to purchase gift cards to the H-E-B grocery store, and staff plan to create meal kits to support students over winter break.

Long Beach City College

The California college expanded services at its food pantry locations, called Viking Vaults, by increasing food options and offering food cards to students who have been impacted by suspended SNAP benefits. Students can also apply for emergency aid, and the college outlined a list of FAQs to address their concerns during the shutdown.

University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill

UNC offers a variety of basic needs resources during a typical academic year, some of which have been expanded to meet the current surge in demand.

Undergraduate and graduate students can access any of the six on-campus food pantries or nine gardens around campus to pick up food. Eligible students can also receive a free campus dining meal card through a referral form. In addition, the university is piloting a meal swipe donation program for the end of the term so students can share their unused meals with others.

Students can also receive push notifications of events and other free resources through campus events.

Source link

November 12, 2025
Three takeaways from Harvard’s victory over the Trump administration’s funding freeze

A federal district court in Massachusetts found yesterday that the government violated Harvard University’s First Amendment rights, as well as Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, when it stripped the university of billions in federal funding last April. At the time, the Trump administration’s explanations for the cuts strongly suggested its actions were based on hostility towards Harvard’s political viewpoint, though the government eventually shifted to an argument that they were an effort to fight campus anti-Semitism.

Much of the opinion covers a dispute about what court has jurisdiction to hear the case. But when it comes to the First Amendment and Title VI, the court’s reasoning echoes what FIRE has said publicly and in our own amicus brief in the Harvard case: Pursuing the worthy end of fighting anti-Semitic and other unlawful discrimination on campus does not justify flatly unlawful and unconstitutional methods.

Here are FIRE’s three quick takeaways about this decision and what it means for campus rights.

Government cannot force private institutions like Harvard to punish speech protected by the First Amendment

Like many universities, Harvard receives hundreds of millions of dollars every year in research grants and student aid. That money comes with both formal legal requirements and less-formal leverage over how the university operates.

In a letter it sent to Harvard in April, the federal government tried to use this leverage to make sweeping demands of Harvard if it wished to continue receiving federal funds, including prohibiting the admission of international students deemed “hostile” to “American values,” political litmus tests in the name of viewpoint diversity, and even the derecognition of pro-Palestinian student groups.

As our nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, if Harvard was unwilling to defend its rights in court, it was unlikely that any other institution would have the fortitude to do so.

But as FIRE’s amicus brief pointed out, “the government cannot strongarm private actors into punishing speech that the First Amendment protects from state intrusion,” noting that the Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle just last year in National Rifle Association v. Vullo, . In Vullo, the NRA accused New York state financial services chief Maria Vullo of using state power to coerce companies not to do business with the NRA because of the state’s opposition to the organization’s pro-gun viewpoint.

The district court read the law the same straightforward way. Comparing the government’s actions at each step to the actions at issue in Vullo, the court found:

Defendants (like Maria Vullo) urged and threatened Harvard (in the position of the insurer) to hire faculty and make curricula and research choices that better aligned with the government’s preferred viewpoints, to the detriment of professors and researchers with competing views (like the NRA). Pursuant to Vullo, using this type of coercion to suppress speech, third-party or otherwise, is not permissible.

Whether it’s a state or federal official doesn’t matter: They may not use their power to coerce private actors to unconstitutionally do the government’s bidding.

Feds must follow Title VI if it wants to strip funding for Title VI violations

FIRE has also expressed alarm about the government’s failure to follow the procedures Congress prescribed when stripping funding from Harvard (and other universities) in the name of fighting race, color, and national origin discrimination (including anti-Semitic discrimination) under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Being stripped of federal funding under civil rights law has long been seen as a nuclear option. The loss would likely shut down all but the richest colleges and universities by barring them not just from federal research grants but also from federal student aid, such as Pell grants and federally subsidized loans. That’s why Title VI requires the government to give institutions like Harvard “notice, a hearing, and an opportunity to come into compliance voluntarily before the government can terminate funding,” as we wrote in our amicus brief. Yet the government skipped the process and failed to do so.

Again, predictably, this failure did not escape the court. It outlined the same procedures to which FIRE pointed in its brief, noting that it was “undisputed” that the government did not comply with them before freezing and terminating funding. Rejecting the government’s arguments that it could “combat anti-Semitism” at Harvard by terminating funding under different provisions, the court found that “Congress has…passed a law that explicitly provides for when and how an agency can terminate federal funding to address this type of discrimination—and that law is Title VI, which dictates that ‘no such action shall be taken until the department or agency’ has gone through the appropriate procedures.”

Harvard’s free speech record is terrible, but be thankful one university found its spine

FIRE has always been a critic of Harvard’s handling of student and faculty free speech issues. When I say always, I mean that literally. As we told the court, Harvard’s repeated failure to honor student and faculty rights over decades was a major contributor to Boston civil liberties lawyer (and Harvard Law alumnus) Harvey Silverglate’s decision to co-found FIRE in 1999. But none of Harvard’s problems excuse the government’s decision to make these unlawful, unconstitutional demands.

FAQ: Responding to common questions about the fight between Harvard and the Trump administration

Harvard vs. Trump isn’t just a headline, but a battle to decide whether the government can use funding to force ideological conformity. In this explainer, FIRE makes clear why not.

Read More

Harvard should be commended for standing up for its legal rights rather than settling under this intense government pressure. As our nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, if Harvard was unwilling to defend its rights in court, it was unlikely that any other institution would have the fortitude to do so.

The decision should also serve as a needed wake-up call for government agencies charged with enforcing our civil rights laws. As we wrote with regard to Columbia University, which recently settled with the government under similar circumstances, there’s plenty of reason to have legitimate concerns about Title VI violations on college campuses. But Title VI requires that the federal government follow the appropriate procedures for a reason. When followed in good faith, the process increases the chance of just outcomes for colleges, students, and faculty while combatting unlawful discrimination. Federal agencies must follow our Constitution and laws while they do their important work.

It’s really that simple.

Source link

September 4, 2025
Federal Court Blocks Trump Administration’s $2.2 Billion Harvard Funding Freeze

A federal judge delivered a sweeping victory for academic freedom Wednesday, ruling that the Trump administration’s freeze of $2.2 billion in federal grant funds to Harvard University was illegal and unconstitutional.

U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs determined that the administration imposed the funding freeze in retaliation for Harvard’s refusal to comply with demands that would have violated First Amendment protections, including ending diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and screening international students for ideological biases.

The ruling vacates all freezing orders affecting Harvard and bars Trump administration officials from enforcing those orders going forward.

The administration froze Harvard’s federal grants on April 14, just hours after the university rejected a list of ten demands. While only one demand related to antisemitism concerns, six others targeted ideological and pedagogical issues, including restrictions on who could lead, teach, and be admitted to the university, as well as what could be taught.

Judge Burroughs noted that the “swift termination” of funding occurred before the administration had learned anything substantive about antisemitism on campus or Harvard’s response efforts, suggesting the antisemitism concerns were “at best arbitrary and, at worst, pretextual.”

The funding freeze halted work on critical research projects spanning multiple fields, including studies on tuberculosis, NASA astronauts’ radiation exposure, Lou Gehrig’s disease, and a predictive model to help Veterans Administration emergency room physicians assess suicidal veterans. Burroughs ruled that none of these affected projects had any connection to antisemitism.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) celebrated the ruling as a landmark victory for higher education.

“This is a huge win for all of American higher education, for science, and for free and critical thought in this country,” said Dr. Todd Wolfson, National AAUP President. “Time and again, Trump has tried to restrict speech and cripple lifesaving university research. As today’s victory shows, Trump’s war on higher education is unconstitutional.”

Veena Dubal, National AAUP General Counsel, characterized the administration’s actions as “cynical and lawless, leveraging claims of discrimination to bludgeon critical research and debate.”

The Harvard AAUP chapter also praised the outcome. “This historic ruling underscores the importance of free inquiry, truth, and the rule of law in a democratic society,” said Kirsten Weld, AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter President.

Harvard President Dr. Alan Garber had previously stated that “no government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

The Education Department pushed back against the ruling through spokesperson Madi Biedermann, who criticized Burroughs as “the same Obama-appointed judge that ruled in favor of Harvard’s illegal race-based admissions practices” before the Supreme Court ultimately overturned those practices.

“Cleaning up our nation’s universities will be a long road, but worth it,” Biedermann said, suggesting the administration may continue its broader efforts to reshape higher education policies.

The ruling establishes important precedent for protecting academic freedom and research independence from political interference. Legal experts note that the decision reinforces constitutional limits on government retaliation against educational institutions for their speech, curriculum choices, and admissions policies.

AAUP leaders said that the victory demonstrates the importance of collective action in defending academic freedom, with faculty and administrators standing together against what they characterize as authoritarian overreach into university governance and research priorities.

Source link

September 4, 2025
Northwestern President Michael Schill Resigns Amid Federal Funding Freeze

Northwestern University President Michael Schill announced his resignation Thursday, concluding a three-year tenure that brought record achievements alongside unprecedented federal challenges, including an ongoing $790 million funding freeze imposed by the Trump administration.

Schill, who became Northwestern’s 17th president in September 2022, cited the need for “new leadership to guide Northwestern into its next chapter” in his message to the campus community. His departure adds to a growing list of university presidents who have stepped down amid tensions with the federal government and campus controversies.

The resignation comes as Northwestern grapples with a federal funding freeze that began approximately four months ago, when the Trump administration halted $790 million in federal support. The action was reportedly connected to Title VI investigations, which examine discrimination in federally funded programs.

The frozen funds support what Northwestern describes as “innovative and life-saving research,” including development of the world’s smallest pacemaker and Alzheimer’s disease research. University officials warned that “this type of research is now at jeopardy” due to the funding suspension.

Northwestern joins other elite institutions facing similar federal actions, with universities like Cornell, Harvard, Columbia, and the University of Virginia experiencing funding freezes or leadership changes amid disputes over diversity programs and responses to Gaza-related campus protests.

During Schill’s tenure, Northwestern reached notable milestones while navigating significant challenges. Schill oversaw major academic initiatives, including the establishment of research centers like the Chan Zuckerberg Biohub Chicago and the NSF-Simons AI Institute for the Sky. He also championed free expression initiatives, launching the Litowitz Center for Enlightened Disagreement and establishing the President’s Advisory Committee on Free Expression and Institutional Speech.

However, his presidency was marked by significant controversies. Shortly after arriving on campus, Schill inherited a hazing scandal involving student-athletes, leading to new protective policies. More recently, he navigated campus tensions following the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel and subsequent protests.

Republican lawmakers, including House Education and Workforce Committee Chairwoman Elise Stefanik, had criticized Schill’s handling of campus antisemitism. Stefanik called his resignation “long overdue,” claiming he “failed to protect Jewish students” and “caved to the demands of the antisemitic, pro-Hamas mob.”

Northwestern officials counter that they have “fully cooperated with investigations by both the Department of Education and Congress” and implemented policy updates that resulted in a “dramatic decrease” in reported antisemitic incidents.

White House spokesperson Liz Huston said the Trump administration “looks forward to working with the new leadership, and we hope they seize this opportunity to Make Northwestern Great Again.”

The Northwestern Board of Trustees will name an interim president soon, with Schill continuing in his role until the transition is complete. Board Chair Peter Barris praised Schill’s leadership through “unparalleled challenges” and credited him with “lasting achievements that contribute robustly to Northwestern’s continued advancement.”

After stepping down, Schill plans to take a sabbatical before returning to teach and conduct research as a faculty member at Northwestern Pritzker School of Law.

Source link

September 4, 2025
Federal judge strikes down Trump administration’s $2.2B funding freeze at Harvard
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- The Trump administration violated Harvard University’s First Amendment rights and didn’t follow proper procedures when it froze $2.2 billion of the university’s federal funding earlier this year, a federal judge ruled Wednesday.
- U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs also ruled that the federal government acted arbitrarily and capriciously when halting the funds. The judicial branch must ensure important research isn’t improperly terminated, she wrote, “even if doing so risks the wrath of a government committed to its agenda no matter the cost.”
- Burroughs struck down the Trump administration’s freeze orders and grant termination letters, opening the door for Harvard’s funding to be reinstated. But a White House spokesperson said the Trump administration will immediately move to appeal the decision and keep Harvard “ineligible for grants in the future,” in apparent defiance of the ruling.
Dive Insight:

In April, the Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contracts to Harvard, hours after the university’s leadership rebuked its demands for changes to its admissions, hiring, governance and campus policies.

The federal government carried out the freeze under the auspices of the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, which has alleged that the Ivy League institution has not done enough to fight antisemitism on its campus. Subsequent grant termination letters from multiple federal agencies repeated those claims.

But Burroughs questioned that rationale in her decision Wednesday, saying a connection between the federal government’s stated motivations and actions was “wholly lacking.”

The evidence does not “reflect that fighting antisemitism was Defendants’ true aim in acting against Harvard,” the judge wrote in her 84-page ruling. “Even if it were, combatting antisemitism cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”

U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon also told Harvard in a May 5 letter that it would cut the university off from all future research grants — an order that Burroughs also permanently blocked.

Burroughs also cast doubt on the Trump administration’s argument that its revocation of Harvard’s funding had nothing to do with university President Alan Garber’s refusal to comply with extensive federal ultimatums.

Among several wide-ranging requirements, the Trump administration sought to have Harvard hire a third party to audit programs and departments that it described as fueling “antisemitic harassment” or reflecting “ideological capture.” It also called for “meaningful governance reform” within the university, such as reducing the power of faculty engaged in activism.

The ultimatums and cut-off funds prompted Harvard to sue the federal government in April. It argued that the Trump administration violated its free speech by pulling funding for refusing to comply with viewpoint-based demands and that the government didn’t follow the proper procedures for terminating the grants.

Despite the Trump administration assertions that Harvard’s pulled funding was unrelated, Burroughs said its own members undercut its argument.

“Numerous government officials spoke publicly and contemporaneously on these issues, including about their motivations, and those statements are flatly inconsistent with what Defendants now contend,” the judge wrote.

Burroughs cited social media posts from President Donald Trump two days after the task force announced the funding freeze.

“Harvard is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds,” he wrote on April 16.

That post and others like it demonstrated that Trump’s ongoing concern was “untethered from antisemitism,” Burroughs said.

But a White House spokesperson doubled down on Wednesday, saying the federal government’s actions against the university are intended to “hold Harvard accountable.”

“To any fair-minded observer, it is clear that Harvard University failed to protect their students from harassment and allowed discrimination to plague their campus for years,” White House Assistant Press Secretary Liz Huston said in an email. Burroughs was “always going to rule in Harvard’s favor, regardless of the facts,” she added.

In late April, Harvard published two long-awaited reports about the climate of its Massachusetts campus — one on antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias and another on anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian bias.

The reports found that Jewish, Israeli and Zionist students and employees at Harvard — along with their Muslim, Arab and Palestinian peers — at times felt shunned or harassed while at the university during the 2023-24 academic year.

“Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did,” Burroughs wrote before noting that the university is “currently, even if belatedly, taking steps it needs to take to combat antisemitism and seems willing to do even more if need be.”

But the federal government failed to consider this, the judge wrote.

“The agencies considered little, if any, data regarding the antisemitism problem at Harvard” and disregarded “substantial policy and other changes” the university enacted to address the issue, Burroughs said.

They also “failed to weigh the importance of any particular grant or to evaluate whether a particular grant recipient had engaged in antisemitic behavior before cutting off critical research,” she said.
Source link
September 3, 2025
FIRE statement on ruling that Trump’s funding freeze for Harvard was unlawful

Today, a federal court echoed what FIRE has said all along: The Trump administration trampled Harvard University’s First Amendment rights and broke civil rights law when it yanked billions in federal grants and contracts over alleged Title VI violations.

The worthy goal of combating unlawful anti-Semitic discrimination on campus cannot justify the flatly unlawful and unconstitutional means used by the Trump administration in this attempted hostile takeover, including demanding that Harvard impose ideological litmus tests and restrictive speech codes. Our government may not use civil rights laws as a pretext to violate the First Amendment.

Read FIRE’s amicus brief here.

Source link

September 3, 2025
Judge Rules Harvard Funding Freeze Illegal

A federal judge in Boston ruled in favor of Harvard University Wednesday.

Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Mandel Ngan and Joseph Prezioso/AFP/Getty Images

A judge ruled Wednesday that the Trump administration illegally froze more than $2 billion in research funding at Harvard University over how officials handled alleged campus antisemitism.

Judge Allison Burroughs of the U.S. District Court in Boston found that the federal government violated Harvard’s First Amendment rights and the U.S. Civil Rights Act in her 84-page opinion, writing, “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 added that Harvard is “currently, even if belatedly” taking action against antisemitism.

Harvard sued the Trump administration in April after the federal government froze $2.2 billion in funding when the Ivy League university rejected demands to enact a far-reaching slate of changes that would have overhauled admissions, governance, hiring and much more.

Burroughs, an Obama appointee, appeared skeptical of the Trump administration’s claims in a July hearing, telling government lawyers that they failed to back up claims Harvard did not appropriately address antisemitism. She also ruled against the administration in another case in June, temporarily blocking the government from halting Harvard’s ability to host international students.

Burroughs wrote Wednesday that “Harvard was wrong to tolerate hateful behavior for as long as it did,” but “the record … does not reflect that fighting antisemitism” was the “true aim” of the defendants and such efforts “cannot be accomplished on the back of the First Amendment.”

The ruling comes as rumors of a Harvard settlement with the federal government continue to swirl. The Trump administration has demanded a $500 million settlement that would force other changes to admissions and discipline policies, similar to agreements made by its Ivy League peers Columbia University and Brown University.

Harvard President Alan Garber said in a statement Wednesday that “the ruling affirms Harvard’s First Amendment and procedural rights, and validates our arguments in defense of the University’s academic freedom, critical scientific research, and the core principles of American higher education.”

Wednesday’s legal ruling also prompted celebration from free speech groups and others.

“Today, a federal court echoed what [the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression] has said all along: The Trump administration trampled Harvard University’s First Amendment rights and broke civil rights law when it yanked billions in federal grants and contracts over alleged Title VI violations,” FIRE wrote in a statement.

“This is a huge win for all of American higher education, for science, and for free and critical thought in this country,” said Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors. “Time and again, Trump has tried to restrict speech and cripple lifesaving university research. As today’s victory shows, Trump’s war on higher education is unconstitutional. We will continue to stand up and fight back against these attempts to dismantle our universities, terrify students and faculty, and punish hospitals and scientists for not bowing to authoritarianism. And we will win.”

The American Council on Education praised Burroughs’s ruling.

“We are pleased to see a federal court affirm what we always knew to be true: The Trump administration has ignored the law in pursuing politically motivated attacks on Harvard and other institutions,” said Peter McDonough, general counsel for ACE. “We urge the administration to abandon these harmful attacks and instead work to restore the partnership that has made colleges and universities the engine of American innovation for decades.”

Judging from the Department of Education’s response to the ruling, that seems unlikely.

“In an unsurprising turn of events, the same Obama-appointed judge that ruled in favor of Harvard’s illegal race-based admissions practices—which was ultimately overturned by the Supreme Court—just ruled against the Trump Administration’s efforts to hold Harvard accountable for rampant discrimination on campus,” spokesperson Madi Biedermann wrote in an emailed statement. “Cleaning up our nation’s universities will be a long road, but worth it.”

In a post on X, Education Secretary Linda McMahon added, “The Trump Administration is fully committed to appealing this erroneous decision and will ensure that new taxpayer funding is not invested at any university that steadfastly refuses to uphold civil rights for all students.”

Source link

September 3, 2025
States, districts seek to end federal funding freeze lawsuits
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Twenty four states and the District of Columbia are seeking to throw out a lawsuit challenging this summer’s delay of K-12 federal grant funding. A joint motion to dismiss was filed Monday by the coalition of states, led by California, and the Trump administration, with both parties agreeing that the balance of the remaining funds be released no later than Oct. 3.
- The expected July 1 release of more than $6 billion in funding was delayed for several weeks due to a “programmatic review” by the White House’s Office of Management and Budget. OMB said an initial review found that “many of these grant programs have been grossly misused to subsidize a radical leftwing agenda.”
- The funding delays impacted after-school programs, English learner services, academic supports, migrant student assistance, adult education and professional development. The inaction caused significant financial disruptions just as schools were finalizing staffing and programming for the upcoming school year, according to educators, families, lawmakers and education-related organizations.
Dive Insight:

The states’ lawsuit, State of California, et al. v. Linda McMahon, et al., was filed July 14 and said the “abrupt freeze is wreaking similar havoc on key teacher training programs as well as programs that make school more accessible to children with special learning needs, such as English language learners.”

President Donald Trump, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and OMB Director Russell Vought are named as defendants in the lawsuit, as are OMB and the U.S. Department of Education.

In a statement Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta said the assurance by the federal government that it will release the remaining funds resolved the states’ lawsuit.

“The Trump Administration upended school programs across the country when it recklessly withheld vital education funding just weeks before the school year was set to begin,” Bonta said. “Our kids deserve so much better than what this anti-education Administration has to offer, and we will continue to fight to protect them from this President’s relentless attacks.”

The Trump administration has said it wants to close the Education Department and give states more decision-making authority over federal K-12 spending.

The states’ lawsuit said that the funding freeze had violated federal funding statutes and regulations. In addition to the states’ lawsuit, a coalition of 14 school districts, parents, teachers unions and nonprofit organizations also sued the Education Department and OMB for withholding the K-12 federal funds. Both parties in that lawsuit — Anchorage School District, et al. v. U.S. Department of Education, et al. — also filed a joint motion to dismiss that lawsuit on Monday.

That motion said the second tranche of federal funding due to states should be available on or about Oct. 1.
Source link
August 27, 2025
Duke Faces $108M Funding Freeze, Multiple Investigations

Federal officials are accusing Duke University’s law journal and medical school of racial discrimination.

Duke University file photo

The Departments of Education and Health and Human Services are investigating Duke University and the Duke Law Journal for allegedly violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which bars discrimination based on race and national origin, the agencies announced Monday.

The New York Times reported Tuesday night that the Trump administration froze $108 million in federal grants and contracts at Duke’s medical school and health system.

On Monday, ED and HHS sent a letter detailing their concerns about potentially discriminatory practices at Duke Health and threatening the medical school’s federal funding.

“These practices allegedly include illegal and wrongful racial preferences and discriminatory activity in recruitment, student admissions, scholarships and financial aid, mentoring and enrichment programs, hiring, promotion, and more,” the letter states, though officials didn’t offer specifics.

The departments want Duke to “review all policies and practices at Duke Health for the illegal use of race preferences, take immediate action to reform all of those that unlawfully take account of race or ethnicity to bestow benefits or advantages, and provide clear and verifiable assurances to the government that Duke’s new policies will be implemented faithfully going forward—including by making all necessary organizational, leadership, and personnel changes to ensure the necessary reforms will be durable.”

Additionally, the agencies want Duke to convene a “Merit and Civil Rights Committee” that can negotiate with the federal government on behalf of university leaders and “avoid invasive federal engagement,” according to the letter. This request appears to be a new ask for the Trump administration as officials work to expand their scrutiny of higher education, based on what’s publicly known about investigations at other colleges.

“We hope this arrangement will enable the parties to move quickly toward a mutually agreeable resolution of outstanding concerns and complaints,” officials wrote in the letter. “If the alleged offending policies, practices, and programs are found to exist and remain unrectified after six months, or if at any time the Merit and Civil Rights Committee and federal government reach an impasse, the federal government will commence enforcement proceedings as appropriate.”

Duke has 10 days to respond to the request to form the committee.

Meanwhile, the Duke Law Journal investigation, led by the Education Department’s Office for Civil Rights, centers on allegations that the journal uses factors such as race or national origin to select editors. The department opened a similar investigation into the Harvard Law Review.

The Washington Free Beacon, a conservative news outlet, reported last month that the Duke Law Journal prepared a special application packet for affinity groups that noted applicants could get a three- to five-point bump if they have “meaningfully advanced the interests of communities with diverse perspectives and experiences either at school or in their community.”

Source link

July 30, 2025
Brown University Takes Out $500M Loan After Funding Freeze

Brown University is taking out a $500 million loan as it faces a prolonged federal funding freeze and braces for other changes to federal policy, Bloomberg reported.

The university previously borrowed $300 million in April after the Trump administration said it was freezing about $510 million in federal grants and contracts at the Ivy League institution.

“Given recent volatility in capital markets and uncertainty related to evolving federal policy related to higher education, research and other important priorities of Brown, the university is fortunate to have a number of sources of liquidity,” a Brown spokesperson told Bloomberg.

Other universities have turned to loans or bonds to get immediate cash amid federal funding freezes.

In a June message that warned of the potential for “significant cost-cutting” measures, Brown administrators pointed to numerous challenges such as federal research grant cuts, the increasing tax on university endowments and threats to international students. Administrators were considering, among other measures, service reductions as well as changes to staffing levels and graduate student admissions. Brown was already grappling with a $46 million deficit before President Trump took office in January, and the university implemented a hiring freeze in March.

“All these losses represent an ongoing threat to Brown’s financial sustainability and, consequently, our ability to fulfill our mission,” university officials wrote of the federal policy changes. “We are doing everything possible to minimize the impact, and we are proud of the response of this community in making important changes to operations to reduce expenses over the past year. Unfortunately, the level of savings to date is not enough to counter the deep financial losses Brown is experiencing and must prepare for in the coming year.”

Source link

July 29, 2025