Connect with us

World

Harvard’s $2.3bn gamble: What Trump demanded; how the university resisted

Published

on

Harvard’s .3bn gamble: What Trump demanded; how the university resisted

United States President Donald Trump’s campaign to pressure universities into dropping diversity, equity and inclusion measures and punishing student protesters has faced its strongest pushback yet when Harvard University rejected a series of demands from his administration.

Monday’s decision quickly prompted the US Department of Education to freeze nearly $2.3bn in federal funding for the Ivy League institution ranked among the best universities in the US.

So what happened between Harvard and Trump, and why did the institution risk billions of dollars to go against the administration’s demands?

What did the Trump administration ask Harvard to do?

The heads of the US Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration co-signed a letter to Harvard on Friday. In this letter, they claimed “Harvard has in recent years failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.”

This was followed by a list of demands for the university in Cambridge, Massachusetts, to fulfil. Key among them were:

Advertisement
  • Promoting faculty committed to the Trump administration’s demands of Harvard, as articulated in the letter, and “reducing the power” of faculty and administrators “more committed to activism than scholarship”.
  • Ending all affirmative action in faculty hiring and student admissions by August. At the same time, the letter demanded that the university ensure “viewpoint diversity” by abolishing criteria during admissions and hiring processes “that function as ideological litmus tests”.
  • Changing the admissions process “to prevent admitting international students hostile to the American values”, including “students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism”. The letter did not define what it meant by “American values”. For the 2024-2025 academic year, there were 6,793 international students at Harvard, making up 27.2 percent of its total enrolment – up from less than 20 percent in 2006-2007.
  • Changing disciplinary policies and forbidding the recognition and funding of student groups or clubs that promote “criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment”.
  • Implementing a comprehensive mask ban with immediate, serious penalties for violation “not less than suspension” after some students have protested while wearing masks. The letter did not list any exceptions to this rule, such as health reasons.
  • Closing all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes and offices and carrying out organisational reform to ensure transparency with federal regulators.

Harvard was given a deadline of August to implement these changes. This is the second letter issued by the Trump administration to Harvard. The first one was issued on April 3 and called on Harvard to ban face masks and reform academic departments that it alleged were guilty of anti-Semitic bias. Charges of anti-Semitism have been levelled against numerous US universities and colleges since widespread campus protests were held against the war in Gaza.

How did Harvard respond to the demands?

Harvard’s lawyers responded to the Trump administration by saying the university rejected the demands, arguing they violated its First Amendment rights and freedoms recognised by the US Supreme Court. The US Constitution’s First Amendment upholds the rights to free speech, expression and assembly.

The university said Harvard strongly opposes anti-Semitism and continues to make structural changes to ensure that the institution is a welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students.

The university also published a separate letter online signed by President Alan Garber on Monday. In the letter, Garber said federal grants have led to research and innovation in fields pertaining to science and medicine. “These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer,” he wrote.

The letter then referred to how the government had threatened to pull federal funding from several universities, including Harvard, over allegations of anti-Semitism on campus. The letter said the government retreating from its funding agreements with higher education institutions “risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation”.

The Harvard letter said that while some of the government’s demands are aimed at combating anti-Semitism, “the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”

Advertisement

“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber added.

The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors filed a lawsuit on Friday in a federal court in Boston, accusing the Trump administration of “unlawful and unprecedented misuse of federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority to undermine academic freedom and free speech on a university campus”.

What is the backdrop to this standoff?

In January 2024, Garber had set up presidential task forces on campus to combat anti-Semitism and fight bias against Muslims and Arabs as Israel’s war on Gaza raged, igniting tensions on campuses around the world, including in the US.

In April 2024, pro-Palestine protesters set up an encampment on the Harvard campus, called Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine (HOOP). The protesters demanded that Harvard divest from weapons companies and companies associated with Israel.

At that time, Garber said HOOP had disrupted educational activities on campus. In May, the university and protesters said they had reached an agreement to end the encampment, but the two parties gave different accounts about the terms of this agreement.

Advertisement

While the student protesters said Harvard had agreed to their demands, the university said it had only opened itself to dialogue on the demands. For example, pertaining to the students’ demand for the university to divest from companies with ties to Israel, Harvard said it had agreed to be more transparent with its students about how its endowment works.

How much federal funding could Harvard lose?

On Monday, hours after Harvard’s response, a task force created by the US Department of Education to tackle anti-Semitism released a statement announcing that  $2.3bn in federal funding to the university had been frozen.

“Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws,” the statement said. The frozen federal funds to Harvard include $2.2bn in grants and $60m in contracts, the statement added.

However, more money is at stake – about $9bn. On March 31, the Education Department, Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration released a statement warning they would review $255.6m in contracts between the federal government and Harvard and its affiliates. The statement added that they would also review more than $8.7bn in multiyear grant commitments to Harvard and its affiliates.

Harvard’s endowment amounted to $53.2bn in the 2024 fiscal year — the largest of any university. However, donors decide which programmes, departments and purposes 70 percent of the annual endowment distribution is spent on. Endowment donations also dropped by $151m in 2024 as several billionaire donors stopped funding the institution over its response to concerns over anti-Semitism on campus, the university’s student-run newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, reported in October.

Advertisement

How have things unfolded at other US universities?

While Harvard is the first university to reject the Trump administration’s demands, it is not the first Ivy League school to be targeted.

Last year, Columbia University in New York emerged as the epicentre of pro-Palestine campus protests. Protesters occupied a campus building, Hamilton Hall, on April 30. The university called in the New York Police Department to crack down on student protesters.

In February, the Trump administration pulled back Columbia’s federal funding, worth $400m, citing the institution’s “failure to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment”. In March, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents arrested Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate and protest leader who had negotiated with the university during the campus demonstrations. Days earlier, the US Department of State revoked the visa of Ranjani Srinivasan, who was an urban planning doctoral candidate at Columbia. Soon after, Columbia unenrolled Srinivasan, who flew to Canada before she could be deported.

On March 13, the government’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism issued a letter to Columbia with nine demands for negotiations to restore the funding that was pulled. On March 18, Columbia accepted the government’s demands, listed in a new memo. The memo said protesting students will have to present university identification if prompted. It added that face masks would be banned if they are being used to conceal a person’s identity. However, face coverings are still allowed for religious or medical reasons. The memo also added that Columbia had hired 36 security officers who have special powers to arrest students, and the university continues to rely on New York police for additional security assistance.

Over the past few weeks, the Trump administration has suspended or frozen funding for Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern universities. The universities have responded by expressing frustration and highlighting how federal funding is important for critical research.

Advertisement

On April 11, the US Department of Energy, which funds research at many universities, announced a universal cap on the indirect costs it would finance for projects it supports. The agency said this would save the government $405m a year.

Nine universities and three bodies representing higher education institutions have since filed a lawsuit challenging that cap. The plaintiffs in the case include the Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Brown University, California Institute of Technology, Cornell University, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the regents of the University of Michigan, Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, the trustees of Princeton University and the University of Rochester.

What are the reactions to Harvard’s dispute with Trump?

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders congratulated Harvard on X on Monday “for refusing to relinquish its constitutional rights to Trump’s authoritarianism”.

Former US President Barack Obama posted on Tuesday: “Harvard has set an example for other higher-ed institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom.”

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey posted a statement on X congratulating Harvard for “standing against the Trump Administration’s brazen attempt to bully schools and weaponize the US Department of Justice under the false pretext of civil rights”.

World

Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report

Published

on

Pope Leo says remarks about world being ‘ravaged by a ​handful of tyrants’ were not aimed at Trump: report

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Pope Leo XIV said Saturday that remarks he made this week in which he said the “world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants” were not directed at President Donald Trump, a report said. 

The pope, speaking onboard a flight to Angola during his 10-day tour of Africa, said reporting about his comments “has not been ‌accurate in all its aspects” and his speech “was ⁠prepared two weeks ago, well before the president ever commented on myself and on the message of peace that I am promoting,” according to Reuters.

The news outlet cited the pope as saying his comments were not aimed at Trump.

“As it happens, it was looked at as if I was trying to debate the president, which is not in ​my interest at all,” the pope reportedly said.

Advertisement

’60 MINUTES’ ACCUSED OF USING LEFT-LEANING CARDINALS TO BAIT TRUMP INTO FEUD WITH VATICAN

Pope Leo XIV answers journalists’ questions during his flight from Yaoundé, Cameroon, to Luanda, Angola, Saturday, April 18, 2026. (Luca Zennaro/Pool Photo via AP)

Vice President JD Vance later took to X to thank the pope for clearing the record.

“While the media narrative constantly gins up conflict — and yes, real disagreements have happened and will happen — the reality is often much more complicated,” Vance wrote. “Pope Leo preaches the gospel, as he should, and that will inevitably mean he offers his opinions on the moral issues of the day.

“The President — and the entire administration — work to apply those moral principles in a messy world,” he continued. “He will be in our prayers, and I hope that we’ll be in his.”

Advertisement

The vice president’s comments came days after he told Fox News’ Bret Baier on “Special Report” that it would be best for the Vatican to “stick to matters of morality.”

“Let the President of the United States stick to dictating American public policy,” Vance said Tuesday.

Trump last Sunday accused Pope Leo XIV of being “terrible” on foreign policy after the pontiff criticized the U.S.-Israeli war on Iran.

“He talks about ‘fear’ of the Trump Administration, but doesn’t mention the FEAR that the Catholic Church, and all other Christian Organizations, had during COVID when they were arresting priests, ministers, and everybody else, for holding Church Services, even when going outside, and being ten and even twenty feet apart,” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post. 

“I don’t want a Pope who thinks it’s OK for Iran to have a Nuclear Weapon.”

Advertisement

POPE LEO SLAMS THOSE WHO ‘MANIPULATE RELIGION’ FOR MILITARY OR POLITICAL GAIN, TRUMP RESPONDS

Pope Leo XIV and President Donald Trump (Simone Risoluti/Vatican Media via Vatican Pool/Getty Images; Salwan Georges/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

During a speech in Cameroon on Thursday, the pope said, “We must make a decisive change of course — a true conversion — that will lead us in the opposite direction, onto a sustainable path rich in human fraternity.

“The world is being ravaged by a handful of tyrants, yet it is held together by a multitude of supportive brothers and sisters.

Pope Leo XIV speaks as he meets with the community of Bamenda at Saint Joseph’s Cathedral in Bamenda on the fourth day of an 11-day apostolic journey to Africa April 16, 2026. (Alberto Pizzoli/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

“Woe to those who manipulate religion and the very name of God for their own military, economic or political gain, dragging that which is sacred into darkness and filth.”

Fox News Digital has reached out to the White House for comment. 

Fox News Digital’s Landon Mion contributed to this report. 

Advertisement
Continue Reading

World

Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years

Published

on

Bulgaria votes in eighth election in five years

Bulgarians headed to the polls Sunday for the eighth time in five years, with anti-corruption candidate and former president Rumen Radev’s bloc tipped to win.

ADVERTISEMENT


ADVERTISEMENT

The European Union’s poorest member has been through a spate of governments since 2021, when large anti-graft rallies brought an end to the conservative government of long-time leader Boyko Borissov.

Eurostat data shows Bulgaria consistently ranks last in the EU by GDP per capita. In 2025, Bulgaria (along with Greece) was at 68% of the EU average.

Radev, who has advocated for renewing ties with Russia and opposes military aid to Ukraine, was president for nine years in the Balkan nation of 6.5 million people.

Advertisement

He stepped down in January to lead newly formed centre-left grouping Progressive Bulgaria, with opinion polls before Sunday’s vote suggesting the bloc could gain 35% of the vote.

The former air force general has said he wants to rid the country of its “oligarchic governance model”, and backed anti-corruption protests in late 2025 that brought down the latest conservative-backed government.

“I’m voting for change,” Decho Kostadinov, 57, told reporters after casting his ballot at a polling station in the capital, Sofia, adding corrupt politicians “should leave — they should take whatever they’ve stolen and get out of Bulgaria”.

Polls are forecasting a surge in voter participation, with more than 3.3 million Bulgarians expected to cast ballots according to the Bulgarian News Agency.

Voting will close at 1700 GMT, with exit polls expected immediately afterwards. Preliminary results are expected on Monday.

Advertisement

‘Preserve what we have’

Borissov’s pro-European GERB party is likely to come second, according to opinion polls, with around 20%, ahead of the liberal PP-DB.

“I’m voting to preserve what we have. We are a democratic country, we live well,” said Elena, an accountant of about 60, who did not give her full name, after casting her vote in Sofia.

Front-runner Radev has slammed the EU’s green energy policy, which he considers naive “in a world without rules”.

He also opposes any Bulgarian efforts to send arms to help Ukraine fight back Russia’s 2022 invasion, though he has said he would not use his country’s veto to block Brussels’ decisions.

Pushing for renewed ties with Russia, Radev denounced a 10-year defence agreement between Bulgaria and Ukraine signed last month – drawing fresh accusations from opponents of being too soft on Moscow.

Advertisement

The ex-president also stoked outrage online for screening images at his final campaign rally of his meetings with world leaders including Russia’s Vladimir Putin.

“We need to close ranks,” he told around 10,000 cheering supporters at the rally, presenting his party as a non-corrupt “alternative to the perverse cartel of old-style parties”.

Borissov, who headed the country virtually uninterrupted for close to a decade, has dismissed suggestions that Radev brings something “new”.

At a rally of his party earlier this week, he insisted GERB had “fulfilled the dreams of the 1990s” with such achievements as the country joining the eurozone this year.

‘No one to vote for’

Radev is aiming for an absolute majority in the 240-seat parliament.

Advertisement

A lack of trust in politics has affected voter turnout, which slumped to 39% in the last election in 2024.

But with Radev rallying voters, high turnout is expected this time, according to analyst Boryana Dimitrova from the Alpha Research polling institute.

Miglena Boyadjieva, a taxi driver of about 55, said she always votes, but the “problem is that there is no one to vote for”.

“You vote for one person and get others. The system has to change,” she told reporters.

Political parties have called on Bulgarians to show up for the polls, also to curb the impact of vote buying.

Advertisement

In recent weeks, police have seized more than one million euros in raids against vote buying in stepped-up operations.

They have also detained hundreds of people, including local councillors and mayors.

Continue Reading

World

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Published

on

How Cheap Drones Are Changing Wars Like the Ones in Ukraine and Iran

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an Iranian Shahed-136 drone, a device with two triangle-shaped wings attached to a central fuselage. It has an engine the size of a small motorcycle’s and carries 110 pounds of explosives.

Engine the size of a small motorcycle’s

Advertisement

Carries 110 pounds of explosives

One of the biggest takeaways of the war with Iran is that it has proven itself to be a surprisingly capable adversary against the United States. In addition to its willingness to go on the offensive, Iran has forced the U.S. and its regional allies to confront the rise of cheap drones on the battlefield.

Advertisement

Iranian drones, made with commercial-grade technology, cost roughly $35,000 to produce. That is a fraction of the cost of the high-tech military interceptors sometimes used to shoot them down.

Note: Estimated price of munitions per unit. In practice, multiple interceptors are fired when targeting a drone. For instance, with the $80 bullet fired by the Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery, and Mortar (C-RAM), 75 rounds are fired in a second. Sources: Department of Defense, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Open Source Munitions Portal, SRC Inc, U.S. Army and U.S. Navy.

Advertisement

Cheap drones changed the war in Ukraine, and they have enabled Iranians to exploit a gap in American defense investments, which have historically prioritized accurate but expensive solutions.

Countering drones has been a major priority for the Pentagon for years, according to Michael C. Horowitz, who was a Pentagon official in the Biden administration. “But there has not been the impetus to scale a solution,” he said.

Advertisement

In just the first six days, the U.S. spent $11.3 billion on the war with Iran. The White House and Pentagon have not provided updated estimates, but the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative-leaning think tank, estimated in early April that the U.S. had spent approximately between $25 and $35 billion on the war, with interceptors driving much of the cost. Many missile defense experts also fear interceptor stockpiles are now running dangerously low.

Here is a breakdown of some of the ways the U.S. and its allies have countered Iran’s drones, and why it can be so costly.

Air-based strikes

Advertisement

In an ideal scenario, an early warning aircraft spots a drone when it is still several hundred miles out from a target, and a fighter jet, like an F-16, is dispatched from a military base. The F-16 can then use Advanced Precision Kill Weapon System (APKWS) II rockets to shoot a drone from about six miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of an F-16 fighter jet firing an APKWS II rocket from under one wing. Two to three rockets are fired per drone, as per air defense protocol. Two APKWS II rockets and an hour of F-16 flight cost approximately $65,000, a little less than twice that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Two to three interceptors fired per drone

Advertisement

Source: U.S. Navy, Department of Defense

Advertisement

These types of defensive air patrols are cost-efficient, but haven’t always been available because of the vast scope of the conflict. Iran has also targeted early warning aircraft that the U.S. needs to detect a drone from that distance, according to NBC News.

The other option for detecting and shooting down drones is a variety of different ground-based detection systems, but these systems are all at a disadvantage, as their ability to spot low-flying drones is limited by the curvature of the earth.

Advertisement

Anti-drone defense systems

One ground-based defense system the U.S. and its allies have built specifically to counter drones at a shorter range is the Coyote. It can intercept drones up to around nine miles away.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Coyote Block 2 interceptor, which looks like a three-foot tube with small rockets at one end. Two Coyotes cost approximately $253,000 or about seven times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

The Coyote is significantly cheaper than many of the other ground-based defense systems available to the U.S. and its allies and historically effective at defending important assets. But despite being both effective and cost-efficient, relatively few Coyotes have been procured by the U.S. military in recent years.

When Iran-backed militias launched attacks on U.S. ground troops in the region in 2023 and 2024, there were so few Coyotes available that troops had to shuffle the systems between eight different bases in the region almost daily, according to a report from the Center for a New American Security, a Washington think tank.

Advertisement

Ship-based anti-missile defenses

Many of the longer-range ground-based defense systems the U.S. and its allies can use to combat drones are more expensive, as they are designed to shoot down aircraft and ballistic missiles, not drones. A Navy destroyer’s built-in radar system, for instance, can detect drones from 30 miles away and shoot it down with Standard Missile 2 (SM-2) interceptors. As in the air-based strikes, military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of the deck of a Navy destroyer firing an SM-2 missile from a built-in launcher, which looks like a 15-foot missile launching from a grid of openings on the ship’s surface. Two SM-2 missiles cost approximately $4.2 million, about 120 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Advertisement

This misalignment between America’s defense systems and current warfighting tactics started after the Cold War, when the anticipated threats were fewer, faster, higher-end projectiles, not mass drone raids.

Iran often launches multiple Shahed-136 drones at a time, given their low price tag. The drones are also programmed with a destination before launch and can travel roughly 1,500 miles, putting targets all across the Middle East within reach.

Advertisement

“This category of lower-cost precision strike just didn’t exist at the time that most American air defenses were developed,” said Mr. Horowitz.

Ground-based anti-missile defenses

The Army’s standard air-defense system is the Patriot. Typically stationed at a military base, it can shoot down a drone from up to around 27 miles away with PAC-3 Missile Segment Enhancement interceptors. Military protocol stipulates that at least two missiles be fired.

Advertisement

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Patriot launcher loaded with 17-foot PAC-3 MSE missiles, which looks like a tilted shipping container with scaffolding. Two PAC-3 MSE missiles cost approximately $8 million, about 220 times that of the Iranian Shahed-136.

Patriot missile defense system

Advertisement

Advertisement

Air defense training teaches service members to prioritize using longer-range defense systems first to “get as many bites at the apple as you can,” but those are the most expensive, said Stacie Pettyjohn, a senior fellow and director of the defense program at the Center for a New American Security.

But a costly defense can still make economic sense to protect a valuable target, especially those that are difficult to repair or replace, such as the nearly $1.1 billion radar at a military base in Qatar and the $500 million air defense sensor at a base in Jordan that were damaged early in the conflict.

Advertisement

Ground-based guns

Finally, there is what one might call a last resort: a ground-based gun. When a drone is about a mile away or less than a minute from hitting its target, something like the Centurion C-RAM can begin rapidly firing to take down the drone.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Centurion C-RAM, which looks like a gun mounted to a rotating, cylindrical stand. The gun fires 75 rounds of ammunition per second. Five seconds of firing the gun costs $30,000, slightly less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Centurion Counter-Rocket, Artillery and Mortar

Fires 375 rounds of ammunition in 5 seconds

Advertisement

Advertisement

Even though it is fairly cost-effective, the Centurion C-RAM is not the best option because it has such a short range.

Interceptor drones

Advertisement

There’s also what one might call the future of fighting drones: A.I.-powered interceptor drones. Interceptor drones like the Merops Surveyor can theoretically hunt and take down enemy projectiles from a short range.

Advertisement

A 3-D rendering of a Surveyor drone, which looks like a three-foot tube with wings and a tail. The Merops drone costs approximately $30,000, a little less than a single Iranian Shahed-136.

Advertisement

Merops system: Surveyor drone

Advertisement

Eric Schmidt, the former Google chief executive, founded a company to develop the Merops counter-drone system in conjunction with Ukrainian fighters, who have already been combatting Iranian drones in the war with Russia for years.

The U.S. sent thousands of Merops units to the Middle East after the conflict began, but it is unclear whether they have been deployed. The military set up training on the system in the middle of the war, as reported by Business Insider.

Advertisement

Other attempts to lower the cost-per-shot ratio of taking out a drone have failed.

The Pentagon invested over a billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 researching directed energy weapons, or lasers, that would cost only $3 per shot and have a range of 12 miles. Those systems have yet to be used in the field.

Advertisement

Despite the cost imbalance, the real fear for many in the defense community is the depleted stockpile of munitions.

“What scares me is that we will run out of these things,” said Tom Karako, the director of the Missile Defense Project at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. “Not that we can’t afford them, but that we’ll run out before we can replace them.”

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending