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
What to know about Kilmar Abrego Garcia’s release from immigration custody
BALTIMORE — Kilmar Abrego Garcia, whose mistaken deportation helped galvanize opposition to President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, was released from immigration detention on Thursday, and a judge has temporarily blocked any further efforts to detain him.
Abrego Garcia currently can’t be deported to his home country of El Salvador thanks to a 2019 immigration court order that found he had a “well founded fear” of danger there. However, the Trump administration has said he cannot stay in the U.S. Over the past few months, government officials have said they would deport him to Uganda, Eswatini, Ghana and, most recently, Liberia.
Abrego Garcia is fighting his deportation in federal court in Maryland, where his attorneys claim the administration is manipulating the immigration system to punish him for successfully challenging his earlier deportation.
Here’s what to know about the latest developments in the case:
Abrego Garcia is a Salvadoran citizen with an American wife and child who has lived in Maryland for years. He immigrated to the U.S. illegally as a teenager to join his brother, who had become a U.S. citizen. In 2019, an immigration judge granted him protection from being deported back to his home country.
While he was allowed to live and work in the U.S. under Immigration and Customs Enforcement supervision, he was not given residency status. Earlier this year, he was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, despite the earlier court ruling.
When Abrego Garcia was deported in March, he was held in a notoriously brutal Salvadoran prison despite having no criminal record.
The Trump administration initially fought efforts to bring him back to the U.S. but eventually complied after the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in. He returned to the U.S. in June, only to face an arrest warrant on human smuggling charges in Tennessee. Abrego Garcia was held in a Tennessee jail for more than two months before he was released on Friday, Aug. 22, to await trial in Maryland under home detention.
His freedom lasted a weekend. On the following Monday, he reported to the Baltimore immigration office for a check-in and was immediately taken into immigration custody. Officials announced plans to deport him to a series of African countries, but they were blocked by an order from U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland.
On Thursday, after months of legal filings and hearings, Xinis ruled that Abrego Garcia should be released immediately. Her ruling hinged on what was likely a procedural error by the immigration judge who heard his case in 2019.
Normally, in a case like this, an immigration judge will first issue an order of removal. Then the judge will essentially freeze that order by issuing a “withholding of removal” order, according to Memphis immigration attorney Andrew Rankin.
In Abrego Garcia’s case, the judge granted withholding of removal to El Salvador because he found Abrego Garcia’s life could be in danger there. However, the judge never took the first step of issuing the order of removal. The government argued in Xinis’ court that the order of removal could be inferred, but the judge disagreed.
Without a final order of removal, Abrego Garcia can’t be deported, Xinis ruled.
The only way to get an order of removal is to go back to immigration court and ask for one, Rankin said. But reopening the immigration case is a gamble because Abrego Garcia’s attorneys would likely seek protection from deportation in the form of asylum or some other type of relief.
One wrinkle is that immigration courts are officially part of the executive branch, and the judges there are not generally viewed as being as independent as federal judges.
“There might be independence in some areas, but if the administration wants a certain result, by all accounts it seems they’re going to exert the pressure on the individuals to get that result,” Rankin said. “I hope he gets a fair shake, and two lawyers make arguments — somebody wins, somebody loses — instead of giving it to an immigration judge with a 95% denial rate, where everybody in the world knows how it’s gonna go down.”
Alternatively, the government could appeal Xinis’ order to the 4th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and try to get her ruling overturned, Rankin said. If the appeals court agreed with the government that the final order of removal was implied, there could be no need to reopen the immigration case.
In compliance with Xinis’ order, Abrego Garcia was released from immigration detention in Pennsylvania on Thursday evening and allowed to return home for the first time in months. However, he was also told to report to an immigration officer in Baltimore early the next morning.
Fearing that he would be detained again, his attorneys asked Xinis for a temporary restraining order. Xinis filed that order early Friday morning. It prohibits immigration officials from taking Abrego Garcia back into custody, at least for the time being. A hearing on the issue could happen as early as next week.
Meanwhile, in Tennessee, Abrego Garcia has pleaded not guilty in the criminal case where he is charged with human smuggling and conspiracy to commit human smuggling.
Prosecutors claim he accepted money to transport, within the United States, people who were in the country illegally. The charges stem from a 2022 traffic stop in Tennessee for speeding. Body camera footage from a Tennessee Highway Patrol officer shows a calm exchange with Abrego Garcia. There were nine passengers in the car, and the officers discussed among themselves their suspicions of smuggling. However, Abrego Garcia was eventually allowed to continue driving with only a warning.
Abrego Garcia has asked U.S. District Court Judge Waverly Crenshaw to dismiss the smuggling charges on the grounds of “selective or vindictive prosecution.”
Crenshaw earlier found “some evidence that the prosecution against him may be vindictive” and said many statements by Trump administration officials “raise cause for concern.” Crenshaw specifically cited a statement by Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche on a Fox News Channel program that seemed to suggest the Justice Department charged Abrego Garcia because he won his wrongful-deportation case.
The two sides have been sparring over whether senior Justice Department officials, including Blanche, can be required to testify in the case.
News
Afghan CIA fighters face stark reality in the U.S. : Consider This from NPR
A makeshift memorial stands outside the Farragut West Metro station on December 01, 2025 in Washington, DC. Two West Virginia National Guard troops were shot blocks from the White House on November 26.
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
hide caption
toggle caption
Heather Diehl/Getty Images
They survived some of the Afghanistan War’s most grueling and treacherous missions.
But once they evacuated to the U.S., many Afghan fighters who served in “Zero Units” found themselves spiraling.
Among their ranks was Rahmanullah Lakanwal, the man charged with killing one National Guard member and seriously injuring a second after opening fire on them in Washington, D.C. on Thanksgiving Eve.
NPR’s Brian Mann spoke to people involved in Zero Units and learned some have struggled with mental health since coming to the U.S. At least four soldiers have died by suicide.
For sponsor-free episodes of Consider This, sign up for Consider This+ via Apple Podcasts or at plus.npr.org. Email us at considerthis@npr.org.
This episode was produced by Erika Ryan and Karen Zamora. It was edited by Alina Hartounian and Courtney Dorning.
Our executive producer is Sami Yenigun.
News
Video: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power
new video loaded: Behind the Supreme Court’s Push to Expand Presidential Power
By Ann E. Marimow, Claire Hogan, Stephanie Swart and Pierre Kattar
December 12, 2025
-
Alaska7 days agoHowling Mat-Su winds leave thousands without power
-
Texas1 week agoTexas Tech football vs BYU live updates, start time, TV channel for Big 12 title
-
Ohio1 week ago
Who do the Ohio State Buckeyes hire as the next offensive coordinator?
-
Washington4 days agoLIVE UPDATES: Mudslide, road closures across Western Washington
-
Iowa6 days agoMatt Campbell reportedly bringing longtime Iowa State staffer to Penn State as 1st hire
-
Miami, FL6 days agoUrban Meyer, Brady Quinn get in heated exchange during Alabama, Notre Dame, Miami CFP discussion
-
Cleveland, OH6 days agoMan shot, killed at downtown Cleveland nightclub: EMS
-
World6 days ago
Chiefs’ offensive line woes deepen as Wanya Morris exits with knee injury against Texans