News
Harvard would be smart to follow Hillsdale’s playbook. Trump should avoid Biden’s. | Opinion
Harvard University doesn’t get a complete free pass in its fight with President Donald Trump – as the government aid which it has welcomed is paid for by U.S. taxpayers.
Title IX: Betsy DeVos discusses Biden admin’s revisions
USA TODAY columnist Ingrid Jacques interviews former Education Secretary Betsy DeVos on Title IX revisions from President Joe Biden’s administration.
Staff video
President Donald Trump isn’t wasting any time implementing his agenda. We’re not even 100 days into his second term, and it’s been busy to say the least.
Trump promised on the campaign trail that he would fight wokeness and diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) in government and education, and he’s following through.
In recent weeks, the Trump administration has taken aim at some of the country’s top schools, including Columbia University and Harvard, attempting to force them to fall in line. Trump is particularly displeased – for good reason – with how these universities have failed to address antisemitism on their campuses as well as with a glaring lack of ideological diversity among faculty and programs.
And Trump is using the cudgel of federal funding to get his way.
In March, Columbia made significant concessions after the administration withheld $400 million in funding. 
Trump’s latest target is Harvard, and the government has already frozen more than $2 billion in grants and contracts. Harvard, however, isn’t playing ball.
“I think Harvard’s a disgrace,” Trump said April 17.
Even though Ivy League schools like Harvard and Columbia are private, the large sums of federal dollars that reach their campuses through student aid, grants and research funding always come with strings attached. 
If they don’t like what Trump is asking for, there’s an easy answer: Don’t take federal money.
Michigan’s Hillsdale College offers a playbook other schools can follow.
Hillsdale’s independence is tied to its freedom from government money
Hillsdale, a small liberal arts institution, has made a big name for itself when decades ago it chose to eschew federal funding completely, including in the form of student aid, so that it didn’t have to bend to government demands and regulations.
Grove City College in Pennsylvania has made a similar choice.
And Hillsdale, my alma mater, is able to offer its students generous scholarships that make up for a lack of federal student loans. 
I know this from personal experience. I could not have afforded Hillsdale without the generosity of its donors, who believe strongly in the mission of the college. 
No doubt, Harvard, an extremely wealthy university with an enviable endowment (more than $50 billion), could find ways to supplant the federal funds if it so chose – at least until a more friendly (Democratic) president is back in the White House.
Harvard, however, seems defiant and unlikely to acquiesce to Trump.
In an open letter published April 14, Harvard President Alan Garber wrote that what the Trump administration wants “threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge. 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.”
Yet, Harvard doesn’t get a complete free pass from federal interference – as the government aid it has welcomed is paid for by U.S. taxpayers. 
Trump shouldn’t make the same mistakes Obama and Biden did
Trump doesn’t like to lose, and he’s not taking Harvard’s resistance well. He has threatened to withdraw the school’s tax-exempt status as well as interfere with the enrollment of international students, both of which would be a serious blow to the college’s bottom line.
I caution the president, however, against falling into the playbooks used by his predecessors.
Even though I’m sympathetic with Trump’s concerns, I’m wary of government heavy-handedness, regardless of which party it’s coming from. And free speech organizations like the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression have warned against the Trump administration’s latest actions.
FIRE raised similar concerns during both the Obama and Biden administrations when they sought to erode free speech rights and campus due process under the guise of enforcing Title IX. 
(That makes former President Barack Obama’s “concerns” over what Trump is doing now very hypocritical.)
Similarly, Trump should avoid going after Harvard’s tax-exempt status. Hillsdale faced a lawsuit recently that sought to use the nonprofit tax exemption as a way to get the college to bend to federal regulations by equating the exemption benefit with federal assistance. Luckily, the federal judge didn’t buy that argument.
If Trump can withdraw Harvard’s tax exemption, a future president unfriendly to a conservative school like Hillsdale could similarly weaponize its tax status.
It’s better not to go down that road at all.
In the meantime, if Harvard doesn’t want Trump telling it what to do, then it would be smart to follow Hillsdale’s model.
Ingrid Jacques is a columnist at USA TODAY. Contact her at ijacques@usatoday.com or on X: @Ingrid_Jacques
 
																	
																															News
Trump puts candy on trick-or-treater’s head at Halloween event
 
														News
Video: Mamdani Leads in Latest Polls
 
														new video loaded: Mamdani Leads in Latest Polls
transcript
transcript
Mamdani Leads in Latest Polls
Three new polls show Zohran Mamdani leading the New York City mayoral race. The two other major candidates, Andrew Cuomo and Curtis Sliwa, made their last appeals to voters before election day.
- 
“I do not believe the city of New York has a future if Zohran Mamdani is elected mayor.” “I voted for Andrew Cuomo. I’m not a huge fan. I think he has a past. I was here, obviously, when his father was here. You know, with politics comes imperfection.” “His ideas about free transportation, his ideas about child care, his ideas about just the diversity of the city and the importance of diversity. It’s a wonderful thing.” “I voted for the first time. It was very exciting. Just the feel of like, going in there, voting for the first time. They shouted like, ‘Hey, first-time voters!’ So that added to the excitement of everything, and I was just happy to do my part.” 
By McKinnon de Kuyper
October 30, 2025
News
Trump says he wants to resume nuclear testing. Here’s what that would mean
 
														
                A sub-surface atomic test is shown March 23, 1955 at the Nevada Test Site near Yucca Flats, Nev.
                
AP/U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
                
                hide caption
            
toggle caption
    
         AP/U.S. Atomic Energy Commission
     
President Trump said on Thursday that the U.S. would begin testing nuclear weapons again for the first time in decades.

“We’ve halted many years ago, but with others doing testing I think it’s appropriate to do so,” the president told reporters aboard Air Force One.
Experts say that the resumption of testing would be a major escalation and could upend the nuclear balance of power.
“I think a decision to resume nuclear testing would be extremely dangerous and would do more to benefit our adversaries than the United States,” said Corey Hinderstein, vice president for studies at the Carnegie Endowment for Nuclear Peace.
Here’s what a test would involve, and why the president might be calling for one now.
There’s currently only one place America could test a nuke — near Las Vegas, Nevada
The Nevada National Security Site, approximately 60 miles northwest of Las Vegas, is currently the only place where America could test a nuclear weapon, says Robert Peters, a senior research fellow for strategic deterrence at the Heritage Foundation.

The Nevada site is around 1,300 square miles in size, larger than the state of Rhode Island. Starting in the 1950s, scientists conducted atmospheric nuclear tests at the site, but from 1962 to 1992, testing was done underground.
Today, testing would likely be done in “a complex of deep underground mineshafts,” Peters said.
Scientists dig a deep shaft either directly below ground or into the side of a mountain. They then put a nuclear device in a chamber at the end of the shaft and seal it up. The detonation is contained by the rock, reducing the risk of atmospheric fallout.
Although underground testing is far safer than atmospheric testing, it still carries risks, said Hinderstein. In the past, some radioactive fallout has leaked from test shafts. Additionally, the test could shake buildings as far away as Las Vegas, and Hinderstein said some of the newer buildings in Vegas could even be at risk of damage.
“All of these big highrises — including Stratosphere, including the Trump Hotel,” she said. “They’re not designed for massive, significant seismic activity.”
America’s last test in Nevada was over 30 years ago
At the end of the Cold War, the nation’s major nuclear powers declared a voluntary moratorium on nuclear testing. Russia, then the Soviet Union, tested its last nuclear weapon in 1990, the U.S. conducted its final test in 1992, and China conducted its last test in 1996.
 
        
                The U.S. conducted hundreds of underground tests in Nevada. Each massive explosion created a subsidence crater visible at the surface.
                
NNSA/NNSS
                
                hide caption
            
toggle caption
    
         NNSA/NNSS
     
The voluntary test moratorium has been in place as part of an effort to maintain nuclear stability. The U.S currently uses scientific experiments and supercomputer simulations to make sure its bombs still work.
Last year, NPR was one of a handful of organizations granted rare access to the top-secret underground tunnels where the tests take place. Scientists working in the tunnels said they were confident they could continue to ensure the safety of America’s nuclear weapons without testing.
Although a full-scale nuclear detonation would be “complementary” to current experiments, “our assessment is that there are no system questions that would be answered by a test, that would be worth the expense and the effort and the time,” Don Haynes, a nuclear weapons scientist from Los Alamos National Laboratory told NPR as they walked through the tunnels.
Indeed Hinderstein says, preparing for a nuclear test is no small matter. While a basic demonstration test could be done in approximately 18 months. Conducting a test that would produce scientifically useful data would likely take years.
 
        
                In this photo taken from video distributed by Russian Defense Ministry Press Service on Wednesday, Oct. 22, 2025, the crew of the Bryansk nuclear submarine of the Russian navy prepares to conduct a practice launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile during the drills of Russia’s nuclear forces.
                
AP/Russian Defense Ministry Press S
                
                hide caption
            
toggle caption
    
         AP/Russian Defense Ministry Press S
     
Trump’s announcement is likely reacting to some recent tests by Russia
On Sunday, Russia announced it had conducted a successful test of a new nuclear-powered cruise missile. Then on Wednesday President Vladimir Putin announced the successful test of another doomsday weapon — a nuclear-powered underwater drone, which Russia says can be used to attack coastal cities.
Trump never called out Russia by name, but he did suggest recent testing was behind the announcement. “I see them testing,” he said aboard Air Force One, “and I say, ‘Well if they’re going to test I guess we have to test.’”

While testing nuclear-powered weapons is not the same as testing nuclear weapons themselves, Russia’s tests are highly provocative. They come just months before the expiration of the last nuclear treaty between the U.S. and Russia, designed to put limits on their arsenals.
The back-and-forth has all the hallmarks of the start of an arms race, noted Jon Wolfsthal, the director of global risk at the Federation for American Scientists.
“We saw this play out throughout the Cold War through nuclear testing, nuclear deployments, nuclear investments,” he said.
Many experts warn that now is not the time to resume nuclear testing
Hinderstein, who served as a deputy administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, the agency responsible for America’s nuclear weapons, from 2021-2024, said that a decision to resume testing would not be in America’s interests.
At the end of the Cold War, the U.S. had conducted more than a thousand nuclear tests — far more than any other nation (China, by comparison had conducted just 45).
Other nations, “have more to gain by resuming nuclear testing than the United States does,” she said.
Testing would likely be expensive adds Paul Dean, vice president for global nuclear policy at the Nuclear Threat Initiative. “The cost estimates I’ve seen have been at around, ballpark, $140 million per test,” he said.
“It’s not necessary to conduct a nuclear explosive test right now” agreed Robert Peters of the Heritage Foundation. But he added. “But there very well be compelling reasons to test in the coming months and years. That’s how bad things are getting.”
- 
																	   New York1 week ago New York1 week agoVideo: How Mamdani Has Evolved in the Mayoral Race 
- 
																	   News1 week ago News1 week agoVideo: Federal Agents Detain Man During New York City Raid 
- 
																	   News1 week ago News1 week agoVideo: Driver Crashes Car Into Security Gate Near White House 
- 
																	   News1 week ago News1 week agoVideo: Inside Our Reporter’s Collection of Guantánamo Portraits 
- 
																	   Politics1 week ago Politics1 week agoHunter Biden breaks silence on pardon from dad Joe: ‘I realize how privileged I am’ 
- 
																	   World1 week ago World1 week agoTrump to host NATO chief at White House as Putin meeting collapses 
- 
																	   Politics1 week ago Politics1 week agoJack Smith defends subpoenaing Republican senators’ phone records: ‘Entirely proper’ 
- 
																	   News3 days ago News3 days agoWith food stamps set to dry up Nov. 1, SNAP recipients say they fear what’s next 
 
									 
									 
									 
									 
									 
											 
											 
											 
											 
											 
											 
											 
											 
											