Tag: Trump

Trump Wants to Cut Funding for California Schools Over One Trans Athlete. It’s Not So Easy – The 74

Get stories like this delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

This story was originally published by CalMatters. Sign up for their newsletters.

California’s schools and colleges receive billions in federal funding each year — money that President Donald Trump is threatening to terminate over the actions of one student. AB Hernandez, a junior from Jurupa Valley High School, is transgender, and on May 31 she won first- and second-place medals at the state track and field championship.

“A Biological Male competed in California Girls State Finals, WINNING BIG, despite the fact that they were warned by me not to do so,” Trump said in a social media post last week. “As Governor Gavin Newscum (sic) fully understands, large scale fines will be imposed!!!”

Despite this post and a similar threat a few days earlier to withhold “large-scale” federal funding from California, Trump lacks the authority to change the state’s policy toward transgender athletes without an act of Congress or a decision by the U.S. Supreme Court. And recent court cases suggest that Trump also may have a hard time withholding money from California.

California state law explicitly allows transgender students in its K-12 school districts to compete on the team that matches their preferred gender, but the Trump administration has issued multiple directives that restrict access to girls’ sports, including a letter last week from the U.S. Department of Justice telling high schools to change their policies.

On Monday, California Attorney General Rob Bonta sued the Justice Department over its letter, saying it had “no right to make such a demand.”

“Let’s be clear: sending a letter does not change the law,” said State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond in a statement to school districts. “The DOJ’s letter to school districts does not announce any new federal law, and state law on this issue has remained unchanged since 2013.” On Monday, Thurmond sent his own letter to the Trump administration, refuting its legal argument.

California receives over $2 billion each year for its low-income Title I schools, as well as over $1 billion for special education. At the college level, students receive billions in federal financial aid and federal loans. Even if Trump lacks the legal authority to change state law, he could still try to withhold funding from California, just like he tried with Maine. In February, Trump asked Maine Gov. Janet Mills if her state was going to comply with a presidential executive order — which is not a law — that directed schools to bar transgender girls from certain sports. Mills said she’d comply with “state and federal laws,” effectively rebuking the president.

The Trump administration has since tried to withhold funding from Maine, but legal challenges have prevented it.

The NCAA vs. California state law

Trump made banning transgender youth athletes a centerpiece of his 2024 presidential campaign, and it’s remained a focal point for his administration this year. Nationally, Americans increasingly support restrictions on transgender athletes, according to surveys from the Pew Research Center. Gov. Gavin Newsom, who last year signed legislation supporting trans students, spoke out against transgender athletes in a podcast this March, saying it was “deeply unfair” to allow transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports.

Female athletes with higher levels of testosterone or with masculine characteristics have long faced scrutiny, biological testing and disqualification. Debates about who gets to participate in girls’ or women’s sports predate the Trump administration — and Newsom — and policies vary depending on the athletic institution.

In 2004, the International Olympic Committee officially allowed transgender athletes to compete in the sport that aligned with their gender identity, as long as the athlete had sex reassignment surgery, only to change that policy in 2015 and require hormone testing. In 2021, the committee changed the policy again, creating more inclusive guidelines but giving local athletic federations the power to create their own eligibility criteria.

Across California, youth leagues, private sports leagues and other independent athletic associations all have their own policies. Some allow transgender women and men to participate; some restrict who can compete. Some require “confirmation” of a participant’s gender, such as a government ID or statements from health care professionals, while other associations take the athletes at their word.

California’s colleges and universities are not allowed to discriminate against transgender students but state law doesn’t provide any guidance beyond that. After the presidential executive order in February, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA), which independently regulates college sports, changed its rules, prohibiting transgender women from competing and putting colleges in a bind. Roughly 60 California universities are part of the NCAA, including almost all of the UC and many Cal State campuses. Community colleges, which represent the bulk of the state’s undergraduates, are not part of the NCAA.

“There’s a strong argument (the NCAA rules) could violate state law and federal equal protection,” said Elana Redfield, the federal policy director at UCLA’s Williams Institute, which studies LGBTQ+ issues.

Amy Bentley-Smith, a spokesperson for the California State University system, declined to comment about how the NCAA policy conflicts with state and federal regulations. She said the Cal State campuses abide by the NCAA rules — preventing transgender athletes from competing — while still following state and federal non-discrimination laws regarding trans students.

Stett Holbrook, a spokesperson for the University of California system, said the UC does not have a system-wide policy for transgender athletes. He did not respond to questions about whether the campuses abide by NCAA rules.

Unlike the NCAA, the California Community College Athletic Association allows transgender athletes to compete. A spokesperson for the association, Mike Robles, said he’s aware of the NCAA rules and the Trump administration’s priorities but he did not say whether the association will modify its own policy.

The U.S. Constitution is silent on trans students

In February, just days after the president’s inauguration and the executive order regarding transgender athletes, the U.S. Department of Education launched an investigation into San Jose State after a women’s volleyball player outed her teammate as transgender. The education department has yet to provide an update on that investigation.

With the Trump administration’s focus now on CA K-12 school districts, the legal debate has intensified. In its letter to the state’s public schools last week, Assistant U.S. Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon said allowing transgender girls to compete in girls’ sports is “in violation” of the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution and asked schools to change their policies.

But the U.S. Constitution doesn’t say anything about transgender athletes, at least not explicitly.

Instead, Dhillon is offering an interpretation of the Constitution, “which doesn’t carry the full force of law,” Redfield said. The laws that do govern transgender athletes, such Title IX, aren’t clear about what schools should do, and the U.S. Supreme Court — the entity with the power to interpret federal law and the Constitution — has yet to decide on the matter.

That said, many lower level judges have already weighed in on whether the Constitution or Title IX law protects transgender students or athletes.“The preponderance of cases are in favor of trans plaintiffs,” Redfield said. “The federal government is contradicting some pretty strong important precedent when they’re making these statements.”

After Trump’s comments about AB Hernandez, the nonprofit entity that regulates high school sports, the California Interscholastic Federation, changed its policy, slightly. For the state’s track and field championship, the federation said it would implement a new process, whereby AB Hernandez would share her award with any “biological female” that she beat. All “biological female” athletes below Hernandez would also move up in ranking.

On May 31, Hernandez shared the first-place podium twice and the second-place podium once, each time with her competitors smiling supportively, the San Francisco Chronicle reported.

A spokesperson for the governor, Izzy Gardon, said that approach is a “reasonable, respectful way to navigate a complex issue without compromising competitive fairness.”

This article was originally published on CalMatters and was republished under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives license.

Get stories like these delivered straight to your inbox. Sign up for The 74 Newsletter

Source link

June 14, 2025
Harvard spars with Trump administration over order protecting its international enrollment
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

Dive Brief:
- Harvard University argued Thursday that the Trump administration may attempt to use “creative relabeling” to circumnavigate a court order blocking its attempt to end the institution’s ability to enroll international students.
- U.S. District Judge Allison Burroughs has twice blocked attempts by the federal government to halt all international students from attending Harvard through temporary orders. Now, Harvard and the Trump administration are clashing over what a more permanent preliminary injunction should look like.
- In legal filings, the Ivy League institution called on the court to approve its own proposal, which would place more restrictions on the Trump administration and require it to provide a status report detailing its compliance with the pending preliminary injunction. “Given the government’s pattern of behavior thus far and the chaos it has inflicted, this surety is more than warranted,” it said.
Dive Insight:

In late May, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security revoked Harvard’s ability to enroll international students by terminating its Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification. The agency alleged that the university had permitted a “toxic campus climate” to flourish by accommodating “anti-American, pro-terrorist agitators.”

The loss of SEVP certification — required to host international students — would have devastating impacts on both Harvard and its international students.

In the 2024-25 academic year, nearly 6,800 foreign students attended Harvard, according to institutional data. They made up 27.2% of the university’s total student body.

The day after the SEVP revocation, Harvard sued the federal government, arguing that the Trump administration acted abruptly and without “rational explanation.”

Burroughs granted Harvard’s request for a temporary restraining order to block DHS’ decision later that day, ruling the university would undergo “immediate and irreparable injury” if the ban was enforced before she could hear from both parties.

After the judge issued the order, the federal government formally notified Harvard of its intent to revoke the university’s SEVP certification on May 28, according to court documents.

The notification alleged in part that Harvard failed to sufficiently fulfill a federal information request about its international students and gave the university 30 days to rebut the allegations.

The next day, Burroughs ruled that she would issue a preliminary injunction in the case and directed Harvard and the Trump administration to negotiate the terms of the order.

The Trump administration then tried another tactic. President Donald Trump signed a proclamation in early June ordering top federal officials to stop all international students heading to Harvard from entering the country.

The university updated its lawsuit and asked Burroughs also to block the proclamation, arguing it is tantamount to a “government vendetta against Harvard.” Burroughs issued a temporary restraining order on June 5 against Trump’s proclamation and extended the block on the SEVP revocation.

Now, Harvard and the Trump administration are fighting out the specifics of that injunction in court.

In legal filings Thursday, Harvard said its proposed preliminary injunction is “tailored to preserve the status quo” while its lawsuit proceeds.

But the Trump administration is pushing back on multiple aspects. One disputed passage would prohibit the federal government from restricting Harvard’s ability to sponsor student visas outside of the attempted SEVP revocation, the university said.

If DHS again tries to revoke Harvard’s DHS certification, another part of the proposed order would delay the decision by 30 days. The timeframe would give Harvard time to seek another injunction, it argued.

“Requiring Harvard to rush to the courthouse for a third time, and requiring the Court to take up these issues on an emergency basis yet again to prevent predictable harms — the inevitable result of the government’s approach — is inefficient, ineffective, and unnecessary,” it said.

The federal government also pushed back on a proposal that would require it to promptly demonstrate how it intends to comply with the court order once approved.
Source link
June 13, 2025
Trump Following Orbán’s Playbook, Says President of Ousted U

Shalini Randeria, president and rector of the Central European University, has warned that the Trump administration is working from the “playbook” of Hungarian prime minister Viktor Orbán, describing the legal uncertainty faced by U.S. universities as the government’s “intended outcome.”

Now based in Vienna, CEU was forced out of Budapest after Orbán’s Fidesz government implemented a series of legal measures in 2017, which the European Court of Justice later ruled were “incompatible with E.U. law.”

The 2020 ruling came too late for CEU, however, which had relocated to Austria the previous year. “That’s one of the problems of using law courts to stop the machinations of soft authoritarian regimes,” Randeria told Times Higher Education. “Courts are slow and unpredictable, even though we had a very strong case.”

“There was a lot of legal uncertainty created by Orbán, and this is exactly the same playbook which is being used by the Trump administration,” she said, pointing to the court battle between Harvard University and the government as an example.

“They introduce a flurry of laws and administrative measures that universities can then go to court against. It’s unclear what will happen at the end, and this chaos and unpredictability is really the intended outcome.”

Randeria described legal uncertainty as particularly problematic for organizations that work on “long-term cycles,” such as universities. “It makes any rational decision-making, any financial planning or academic planning, impossible,” she said.

“When we admit students now, we admit them to complete a four-year degree, or a two-year master’s, or a doctoral degree in five or six years. We are thinking and planning way ahead,” she said. “If you don’t know what the legal status of your institution will be in two years, you cannot in good faith advertise to and recruit students.”

Attracting faculty, too, requires long-term certainty, Randeria continued: “When you have this sword of Damocles hanging over your head, not knowing whether you’ll be able to run the university efficiently and fairly on a consistent basis, it’s very, very difficult to recruit faculty.”

After the “traumatic period” of forced relocation, CEU has “performed really well academically,” Randeria said, securing “competitive research funding both within Austria and, as usual, within Europe.”

Obtaining consortium grants, such as those awarded by the Austrian Science Fund, has “allowed us to anchor ourselves in Austria, not in competition with the very vibrant academic scene here and its research institutions and universities, but in partnership with them.” The university did not lose any faculty in the move, she noted, and “recruitment and admission numbers didn’t fall.”

Nevertheless, Orbán’s pursuit of the CEU—part of a larger campaign against its philanthropist founder, George Soros—has yet to run its course, Randeria said. Fidesz’s proposed “national sovereignty” law, which would allow the government to penalize or shut down organizations receiving “foreign funding,” “could be used against CEU’s continuing activities” in Budapest, she warned, namely, research conducted at the CEU Democracy Institute.

U.S. vice president JD Vance has expressed explicit admiration for Orbán’s higher education policy, calling his approach, which has also seen control of state universities transferred to government-aligned foundations, “the closest that conservatives have ever gotten to successfully dealing with left-wing domination of universities.”

“What right-wing populists all over have done is stamp universities as ivory towers of elite privilege, and this is not true,” Randeria said. In response, “we need to mobilize public support on a very large scale.”

“As institutions, we need to put a lot more focus on outreach and communication,” she told THE, with the goal of ensuring the public “really understand what universities do, and why they are the backbone of a functioning liberal democracy.”

U.S. universities must “not let themselves be divided one against the other,” Randeria advised. “I don’t think you can protect yourself as an institution on your own. It has to be a collective resistance against this kind of intervention into university autonomy and academic freedom.”

“One should be prepared for some very, very strong institutional solidarity of universities across the board.”

Source link

June 13, 2025
In Reversal, Trump Says Chinese Students Are Welcome

President Trump said that Chinese international students would be welcome in the U.S. in a post on Truth Social on Wednesday announcing the terms of a pending trade agreement with China.

In exchange for shipments of rare earth metals, the U.S. “WILL PROVIDE TO CHINA WHAT WAS AGREED TO, INCLUDING CHINESE STUDENTS USING OUR COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES (WHICH HAS ALWAYS BEEN GOOD WITH ME!),” Trump posted (capital letters his).

The about-face comes less than two weeks after Secretary of State Marco Rubio promised to “aggressively revoke” Chinese students’ visas and implement a much stricter review process for nonimmigrant visa applications from the country.

That announcement, an escalation of the Trump administration’s campaign to decrease the number of foreign students at American universities, threw higher education into a panic. International enrollment has become a financial lifeline for many institutions, and Chinese students make up nearly a quarter of all international students in the U.S.—around 280,000 in 2023–24, according to the Institute of International Education, more than students from any other country. They make up 16 percent of graduate STEM programs and 2 percent of undergraduate programs.

Rubio’s visa-revocation announcement also led to distress among Chinese families, whose hopes of sending their children to a prestigious American university seemed to be fading. In May, the Chinese foreign minister called the policy “politically discriminatory” and “irrational.”

Source link

June 13, 2025
Trump Reportedly Eyes FAU for Presidential Library

Could Florida Atlantic University become the home of Donald Trump’s presidential library?

The public university is under consideration and is willing to hand over free land to entice Trump to establish his presidential library there, The Wall Street Journal reported last week. Located in Boca Raton, FAU is about a half hour drive from Trump’s private golf club Mar-a-Lago.

Land owned by Miami Dade College has also been considered, according to The Miami Herald.

The Wall Street Journal noted that proximity is part of the appeal of choosing FAU. Additionally, the university is reportedly willing to offer a 100-year land lease at no cost, though the deal isn’t done yet.

FAU is currently led by Adam Hasner, a former Republican state lawmaker.

Trump is known for spending significant time at Mar-a-Lago, which seems to have convinced local legislators that the Sunshine State is the likely destination for his presidential library. Earlier this year Florida lawmakers passed a bill that limits local control over the planning and construction of presidential libraries, deferring such powers to the state. The bill’s sponsor, a Republican state senator, argued that Florida should “roll out the welcome mat” for Trump’s library and offer “maximum flexibility.”

Source link

June 11, 2025
Preserving the Federal Data Trump Is Trying to Purge

Within days of taking office, the Trump administration began purging federal demographic data—on a wide range of topics, including public health, education and climate—from government websites to comply with the president’s bans on “gender ideology” and diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.

Over the past five months, more than 3,000 taxpayer-funded data sets—many congressionally mandated—collected by federal agencies including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Center for Education Statistics, and the Census Bureau, have been caught in the cross fire.

One of the first data sets to disappear was the White House Council on Environmental Quality’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool, an interactive map of U.S. Census tracts “marginalized by underinvestment and overburdened by pollution,” according to a description written under a previous administration.

It’s the type of detailed, comprehensive data academics rely on to write theses, dissertations, articles and books that often help to inform public policy. And without access to it and reams of other data sets, researchers in the United States and beyond won’t have the information they need to identify social, economic and technological trends and forge potential solutions.

“Removing this data is removing a big piece of knowledge from humanity,” said Cathy Richards, a civic science fellow and data inclusion specialist at the Open Environmental Data Project, which aims to strengthen the role of data in environmental and climate governance. “A lot of science is about innovating on what people did before. New scientists work with data they may have never seen before, but they’re using the knowledge that came before them to create something better. I don’t think we fully understand the impact [that] deleting 50 years of knowledge will have on science in the future.”

That’s why she and scores of other concerned academic librarians, researchers and data whizzes are collaborating—many of them as unpaid volunteers—to preserve as much of that data as they can on nongovernment websites. Some of the groups involved include OEDP, the Data Rescue Project, Safeguarding Research and Culture, the Internet Archive, the End of Term Archive, and the Data.gov Archive, which is run by the Harvard Law School Library.

For Richards at OEDP, data-preservation efforts started right after Trump won the election in November.

She and her colleagues remembered how Trump, a climate change denier, had removed some—mostly environmental—data in 2017, and they wanted to get a head start on preserving any data that could become a target during his second term. OEDP, which launched in 2020 in response to the first Trump administration’s environmental policies, which prioritized fossil fuel extraction, compiled a list of about 200 potentially vulnerable federal data sets researchers said would be critical to continuing their work. They spent the last two months of 2024 and the first weeks of 2025 collecting and downloading as many data sets as they could ahead of Trump’s Jan. 20 inauguration, which they then transferred to stable, independent and publicly accessible webpages.

“That took time,” Richards said, noting that not every data set and its accompanying metadata was easy to replicate. “Each varied significantly. Some required scraping. In one case I had to manually download 400 files, clicking each one every few minutes.”

While they made a lot of headway, OEDP’s small team wasn’t able to preserve all of the data sets on their list by late January. And once Trump took office, the research community’s fears that the president would start scrubbing federal data were quickly realized.

“Data started to go down very quickly,” at a much larger scale compared to 2017, Richards said, with anything that mentioned race, gender or the LGBTQ+ community, among other keywords, becoming a target. “We started getting emails from people saying these websites were no longer working, panicking because they needed it to finish their thesis.”

As of this month, OEDP has completed archiving about 100 data sets, including the CDC’s Pregnancy Mortality Surveillance System, the Census Bureau’s American Community Survey, and the White House’s Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. As it works to complete dozens more, it’s also in communication with the other data-preservation efforts to make sure the work isn’t duplicated and that researchers and the general public can maintain access to as much data as possible.

‘Disrupted Trust’

Prior to Trump’s inauguration, 307,851 data sets were available on Data.gov. One month later, the number had dipped to 304,621. In addition to data-rescue efforts, the winnowing prompted outcry from the research community.

“As scientists who rely on these data to understand the causes and consequences of population change for individuals and communities, but also as taxpayers who have supported the collection, dissemination, and storage of these data, we are deeply concerned,” read a joint statement that the Population Association of America and the Association of Population Centers published in early February. “Removing data indiscriminately, even temporarily, from secure portals maintained by federal agencies undermines trust in the nation’s statistical and scientific research agencies and puts the integrity of these data at risk.”

Federal judges have since ordered the government to restore many of the deleted data sets—as of Sunday, Data.gov said there are 311,609 data sets available—and the Trump administration has complied, albeit reluctantly. For instance, the CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index, which since 2007 has tracked communities that may need support before, during or after natural disasters, came back online in February. But it now has a warning label from the Trump administration, which claims that the information does “not reflect biological reality” and the government therefore “rejects it.”

Richards, of OEDP, remains skeptical about the return of some of the data, speculating that the government may alter it to better fit its ideological narratives before restoring it. Thus, capturing the data before it gets taken down in the first place is “important for us to have that baseline proof that this is how things were on Jan. 18 and 19,” she said.

Lynda Kellum, a longtime academic data librarian who is helping to run the Data Rescue Project—which has already finished archiving some 1,000 federal data sets with the help of hundreds of volunteers—said she’s also “a little bit pessimistic” about the future of data collection. That’s not only because the Trump administration has fired thousands of federal workers who carry out that data collection, canceled billions in research contracts and removed reams of public data; it’s also because the Department of Government Efficiency has accessed protected personal data contained within some of those data sets.

“How do we actually talk to people about what’s protected and what those protections are for the data the government is collecting? DOGE has disrupted that trust,” she said. “For example, someone sent us a message asking us why they should participate in the American Community Survey when they weren’t sure what was going to happen with their (confidential, legally protected) data … There are still those protections in place, but there’s skepticism about whether those protections will hold because of what has happened in the past five months.”

Some legal protections are already eroding. On Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court sided with the Trump administration in determining that DOGE should have—for now—access to information collected by the Social Security Administration, including Social Security numbers, medical and mental health records, and family court information. (The case is now headed to a federal appeals court in Virginia that will decide on its merits.)

Henrik Schönemann, a digital history and humanities expert at Humboldt University of Berlin, who helps run the Safeguarding History and Culture initiative, which has also archived high volumes of federal data since January, said efforts to rescue federal data collections are vital to the global research community. “Even if the United States falls out of it, we are still here and we still need this data,” he said. And if and when this political moment passes, “hopefully having this data can help [the United States] rebuild.”

While Schönemann thinks it’s an “illusion” that independent federal data-preservation efforts can effectively counter the United States’ slide into autocracy, he believes it’s better than nothing.

“It’s building communities and showing people they can do something about it,” he said. “And maybe this empowerment could lead them to feeling empowered in other areas and give people hope.”

Source link

June 10, 2025
Trump Takes Education Department Lawsuit to Supreme Court

The Trump administration asked the Supreme Court on Friday to allow it to move forward with its plan to lay off nearly half of the Education Department’s employees and dismantle the agency, USA Today reported.

In late May, a federal district court ruled that the reduction in force made it impossible for the executive branch to carry out congressionally mandated programs and services. An appeals court affirmed that ruling June 4.

President Trump and his Department of Justice, however, disagree with both rulings, and they hope the 6-to-3 conservative majority on the Supreme Court will, too.

“The Constitution vests the Executive Branch, not district courts, with the authority to make judgments about how many employees are needed to carry out an agency’s statutory functions, and whom they should be,” Solicitor General John Sauer wrote in the emergency appeal to the Supreme Court.

States, school districts and teachers’ unions involved in the case have until June 13 to respond to Trump’s appeal, the Supreme Court stated.

Source link

June 9, 2025
Trump deploys National Guard amid Los Angeles immigration protests (CNN)

In a stunning escalation that has drawn comparisons to authoritarian crackdowns, former President Donald Trump has ordered 2,000 California National Guard troops into Los Angeles to quell protests sparked by ICE raids across the region. Despite opposition from California Governor Gavin Newsom and local officials, Trump bypassed state authority by invoking federal powers under Title 10 of the U.S. Code—stopping short of the more drastic Insurrection Act but still raising serious constitutional questions.

The protests began after ICE agents detained dozens of individuals in workplace raids across South L.A. County. The response from the public was immediate and fierce, with large demonstrations erupting near ICE facilities and federal buildings. As tensions grew, federal officers deployed tear gas and non-lethal weapons against demonstrators, while arrests mounted and reports of detainee mistreatment surfaced.

What makes this moment particularly alarming is the way Trump has redefined protest as “rebellion,” authorizing military support for federal law enforcement without a state request. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has even threatened to deploy active-duty Marines from Camp Pendleton—a move unseen since the 1992 Rodney King unrest. Legal experts and civil rights advocates have sounded the alarm, calling the federal takeover of California’s National Guard unprecedented and chilling.

The implications for higher education, especially for undocumented and mixed-status students, are profound. Campuses in Southern California are already on edge, with many students fearing ICE presence and military escalation. Faculty and staff in sanctuary campuses and immigrant advocacy networks warn that the militarization of civil immigration enforcement could further chill free speech, academic freedom, and student organizing.

Law professors like Erwin Chemerinsky have warned that Trump’s actions bypass both precedent and constitutional norms: “It is using the military domestically to stop dissent.” Georgetown’s Steve Vladeck noted that the National Guard’s role may technically be limited to support functions, but the symbolism and real-world consequences of armed troops on city streets are undeniable.

Trump’s invocation of rebellion in response to protest mirrors earlier moments of U.S. history where power was used to silence dissent. But this time, it is playing out amid a polarized political landscape, weakened democratic institutions, and a rising authoritarian movement—with the academy, once again, caught in the crossfire.

As protests continue, California’s colleges and universities—long sites of political activism—face renewed pressure. The presence of federal troops, surveillance, and threats of repression may signal a dangerous new phase in the government’s approach to dissent. What was once unthinkable is becoming reality: a nation where protesting immigration raids can be construed as rebellion, and soldiers patrol streets not in a time of war, but in a time of political theater.

Source link

June 8, 2025
Trump administration appeals pause on Education Department cuts to SCOTUS
This audio is auto-generated. Please let us know if you have feedback.

UPDATE: June 6, 2025: The U.S. Department of Justice asked the U.S. Supreme Court on Friday for an immediate pause on a court order that the U.S. Department of Education reinstate nearly 1,400 employees fired during a mass workforce reduction in March. The Justice Department’s appeal calls the lower court’s order an “unlawful remedy” and says the injunction “causes irreparable harm to the Executive Branch.”

Dive Brief:
- A federal appeals court on Wednesday rejected the Trump administration’s motion for a stay in a lawsuit challenging the dismantling of the U.S. Department of Education, effectively halting — at least temporarily — efforts to reduce the agency’s workforce and transfer some education responsibilities to other federal departments.
- The administration had argued it could still carry out the statutory requirements of the Education Department, even with a workforce cut in half. But the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals disagreed, saying it saw “no basis” that a lower court erred in concluding that task seemed “impossible.”
- The ruling was the latest in a series of legal developments concerning Trump administration reforms at the Education Department. Trump, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon and many Republican lawmakers are attempting to eliminate what they say is federal overreach and inefficiencies in education.
Dive Insight:

The lawsuit at the center of the ruling was filed in March by 20 Democratic-leaning states and the District of Columbia. They sued the Education Department, Trump and McMahon two days after the agency announced mass workforce reductions. That challenge was combined with a similar lawsuit from public school districts in Massachusetts and education labor unions.

A federal district judge last month issued a preliminary injunction halting the workforce reductions temporarily. That ruling also prohibited the Education Department from transferring management of the federal student loans portfolio and special education management and oversight to other federal agencies.

In Wednesday’s decision denying a motion for a stay, the three-judge panel said the Education Department has not shown “that the public’s interest lies in permitting a major federal department to be unlawfully disabled from performing its statutorily assigned functions.”

The Trump administration also argued that it is being forced to return staff whose services are no longer needed. The 1st Circuit, however, said its reading of the preliminary injunction shows no specific number or deadline for returning employees who were part of the reduction in force.

“We do not see how complying with those aspects of the injunction imposes a burden on the government, no less one that is ‘extraordinary,’” the court said.
Source link
June 6, 2025
Trump Proposes $161M Cut to Tribal Colleges’ Funding

The Trump administration is asking Congress to cut funds for tribal colleges and universities by nearly 90 percent, according to the Department of the Interior’s proposed budget released Monday.

Tribal college advocates told ProPublica, which first reported on the cuts, that tribal colleges could have to shutter if Congress approves the plan, leaving thousands of students without the support they need to complete a degree program. And reports from ProPublica show that it will only further devastate institutions that were already underfunded.

“The numbers that are being proposed would close the tribal colleges,” Ahniwake Rose, president and CEO of the American Indian Higher Education Consortium, told ProPublica. “They would not be able to sustain.”

The budget request calls for about $860 million to operate Indian Education Programs, which includes two federally controlled tribal colleges—Haskell Indian Nations University and Southwestern Indian Polytechnic Institute. Of that $860 million, about $22 million would go toward postsecondary programs. That’s about a $161 million cut compared to fiscal year 2024.

Tribal colleges argue that their funding is protected by treaties and contend that the institutions up for discussion are critical providers in some of the country’s poorest areas.

“It doesn’t make sense for them to [approve the cuts[ when they’re relying on us to train the workforce,” Dawn Frank, president of Oglala Lakota College in South Dakota, told ProPublica. “We’re really relying on our senators and representatives to live up to their treaty and trust obligation.”

Source link

June 6, 2025