برچسب: administration

Jan Resseger: Administration Cancels Federal Funding on Short Notice
Jan Resseger reports on an unprecedented stoppage in federal funding of Congressionally authorized school programs. School districts across the nation were informed on June 30 that the funding for five important programs would be withheld on July 1 pending further review. The administration really would like to terminate the programs but since they can’t do that under current law, they decided to withhold funding for undetermined reasons for an indeterminate length of time.

She writes:

Last week, this blog reported, “Chaos and Confusion at U.S. Department of Education May Threaten School Programming this Fall.” This week the situation intensified.

“The U.S. Department of Education told states in a three-sentence memo on Monday afternoon (June 30) that when federal funding for the next school year arrived July 1, as it typically does and is supposed to under federal law, funding for five key programs would not be there.” Education Week‘s Mark Lieberman published that explanation on Tuesday, July 1, 2025, the day the federal funding failed to arrive. Lieberman adds: “Those formula programs—worth $6.8 billion in total—are under review, the memo said, without specifying when the review would wrap up, what the review is aiming to determine, or whether the funds will go out once it’s finished.”

The problem is that the funds aren’t merely late; the Trump administration is trying to cancel the programs altogether. The NY Times‘ Sarah Mervosh and Michael Bender explain: “The administration has suggested that it may seek to eliminate the nearly $7 billion in frozen funding. Russell Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, said during a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing last week that the administration was considering ways to claw back the funding through a process known as rescission. The administration would formally ask lawmakers to claw back a set of funds it has targeted for cuts. Even if Congress fails to vote on the request, the president’s timing would trigger a law that freezes the money until it ultimately expires. ‘No decision has been made,’ Mr. Vought said.”

In an article published on Monday afternoon, right after states received the memo declaring that funding would not arrive as scheduled, Education Week‘s Lieberman provides some background: “(I)n an unsigned email message sent after 2 p.m. Monday… the Education Department informed states that the agency won’t be sending states any money tomorrow from the following programs:
- “Title I-C for migrant education ($375 million),
- “Title II-A for professional development ($2.2 billion),
- “Title III-A for English-learner services ($890 million),
- “Title IV-A for academic enrichment ($1.3 billion),
- “Title IV-B for before-and after-school programs ($1.4 billion.).”
Lieberman adds: “In a separate email sent (Monday) at 4:27 p.m., the department told congressional staffers that it’s holding back funds from all the programs listed above, as well as grants for adult basic and literacy education ($729 million nationwide). Questions about the changes, the letter says, must go to the Office of Management and Budget, not the Education Department.”

The elimination of these programs had been proposed in the Trump administration’s formal FY 2026 budget proposal for next fiscal year—which, if passed by Congress, would fund public schools beginning in fall 2026. In proposing to cancel the programs this fall, the Trump administration is attempting to eliminate programs already promised under an FY 2025 continuing budget resolution. (To make things even more complicated, it’s important to remember that the “One Big Beautiful” bill is a tax and reconciliation bill and not, in fact, the current year’s FY 2025 federal budget—which remains unaddressed by Congress.)

Last week Mark Lieberman clarified the schedule by which federal public school funding is supposed to be delivered: “The federal fiscal year begins Oct. 1, but for most education programs, half the upcoming year’s allocated funding flows to states each year on July 1. Congress still hasn’t agreed on a final budget for the current fiscal year, even though it’s almost over. Instead, lawmakers in March approved a continuing resolution bill that broadly carries over funding levels from the previous fiscal year. That means states and schools have been expecting for months that funding levels for key federal programs would closely mirror last year’s numbers. Thousands of school districts and nearly 30 states have already locked in their own budgets for the upcoming fiscal year.”

In his coverage on Monday, June 30, of the complex wrangling behind the holdup of funds for the current school year, Lieberman places responsibility not on Linda McMahon or staff at the Department of Education, but instead on Russell Vought, who was the co-author of the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 and who now heads the Office for Management and Budget:

“Lawsuits are likely to follow, as they have for similar funding changes the administration implemented earlier this year. Federal law prohibits the executive branch from withholding congressionally appropriated funds unless it gives federal lawmakers an opportunity to approve or reject the move within 45 days. The U.S. Constitution gives Congress, not the president, the power of the purse—but top administration official Russell Vought, whom Trump appointed to lead the Office of Management and Budget, has said he believes restrictions on impoundment are unconstitutional. On Capitol Hill last week, Vought said the administration hadn’t decided whether to ask Congress for permission to impound education funding.”

Last week, the Washington Post‘s Jeff Stein, Hannah Natanson, Carolyn Johnson, and Dan Diamond predicted that Russell Vought will attempt to interfere with spending as the year continues: “Though billionaire Elon Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service drew significant attention for its speedy cuts, Russell Vought, Trump’s budget director, is expected to be key to the coming fight over spending. Vought has spearheaded the administration’s campaign to assert sweeping executive power over spending, arguing that the Impoundment Control Act, the law at issue now, is unconstitutional. The Trump administration has justified its cost-cutting measures by pointing out that the United States is $36 trillion in debt, although the type of funding that officials have targeted represents a small fraction of the overall budget.”

Although costs for federally funded 21st Century Learning Center after-school programs, federally funded professional development programs for teachers, federally funded classes for English language learners in public schools, federally funded programs for the education of the children of migrant workers, and federally funded academic enrichment programs make up only a minute percentage of the federal budget, the abrupt obliteration of these programs will cause enormous disruption right now as public school leaders are getting crucial programming for their schools in place for fall. Public schools are incredibly complex institutions. In addition to providing special services for disabled students, school boards and school leaders patch together local, state, and federal dollars for programming to serve the specific needs of their students, which differ by region, by the income level of a school district’s families, by the primary languages of the families in their communities, and by enormous inequity in states’ investment in public education.

Clearly Russell Vought neither understands nor cares how the programs he is is cutting will affect students. Clearly he fails to grasp how these cuts will interfere with hiring already underway for the upcoming school year or how the absence of these funding streams will undermine the stability of public school operations come September.

On the other hand, say I, maybe Russell Vought knew exactly what it mean to freeze funds at the last minute. Maybe his intent was to sow chaos and disruption. Maybe he wanted to send a message to Congress: we can withhold funds Congress appropriated without regard to the law. Maybe he wanted to send a message to states and school districts: If the program is important to you, pay for it yourself. Stop expecting the federal government to send you money.
Source link
04/07/2025
Why Does the Trump Administration Want to Deport or Imprison This Cancer Researcher?

I have been following the case of Kseniia Petrova, a cancer researcher at Harvard, with a sense of outrage and helplessness. She attended a conference in France and returned last February with samples of frog embryos for her laboratory. She was detained by Customs for failing to declare them and has been incarcerated ever since. The other day, the charge of bringing in an undeclared item was upgraded to a felony, and this young woman faces a possible 20 years in prison.

Is she the kind of dangerous, violent criminal that Trump promised to deport? No.

Jay Kuo is both a lawyer and a playwright, whose blog is called The Status Kuo. He writes about the case today in hopes of rallying support for her. Petrova left Russia to protest the invasion of Ukraine. If she is deported there, she will be immediately jailed.

He writes:

We need to pay close attention to the case of Kseniia Petrova. She’s a Russian-born researcher who was detained by Customs and Border Protection back in February when traveling back from a conference in France.

Like others caught up in the “immigration crackdown” by the Trump administration, Petrova has been held in ICE detention ever since. In her case, a custom agent alleged she had failed to declare frog embryo samples that she’d picked up from a colleague to bring back to the U.S.

For this, the government canceled Petrova’s visa and threatened to deport her. But her case is about far more than frog embryos.

For starters, her home country is Russia, where she was outspoken against the war in Ukraine and was part of the exodus of Russians opposed to Putin’s invasion. She now faces persecution or worse for her anti-war activism should she be sent home, even while the Trump administration bends over backwards for Putin and the Kremlin.

She’s also a researcher and valued member of the Harvard medical sciences community, which has been the constant target of the Trump White House. Being deliberately cruel to Petrova means Trump gets to traumatize Harvard in yet another way.

Petrova has been languishing in a detention facility in Louisiana, but things had begun to move her way. This week, Judge Christina Reiss, a federal judge in Vermont hearing Petrova’s habeas petition, questioned government lawyers over whether Customs and Border Protection actually had the authority to cancel Petrova’s visa. Judge Reiss had set a bail hearing for next Friday, and many viewed it as a hopeful signal that she was set to release Petrova from custody.

Not so fast, said the government. What they did next was frankly shocking, even in this corrosive and highly politicized environment.

The government charges Petrova criminally

Apparently out of sheer spite, and faced with the prospect of losing another case where they had egregiously overreached and overreacted, the government charged Petrova with felony smuggling. That’s a charge that carries up to 20 years in prison.

Felony smuggling laws are intended to deter profiteers from deliberately carrying in endangered species, not to punish researchers who fail to declare frog embryo samples.

Normally when you fail to declare something that should have been itemized at customs, you could face a fine. It’s considered a minor infraction. And in this case, it isn’t even clear that frog embryos count. According to Petrova’s lawyer, customs experts conveyed that that she “did not need a permit to bring in her non-living scientific samples that are not considered biological material under U.S. Customs law.”

The criminal complaint itself is a just single page attaching an affidavit from a Homeland Security agent. In that affidavit, the agent makes much of the fact that, after checking her text messages on her phone (!!), he learned that Petrova apparently had been told by a colleague that she should declare the samples. But she had joked about not having a plan to carry them in, saying, “I won’t be able to swallow them.”

When asked, Petrova told the agent that she was not sure she needed to declare anything. (I should add here that advice from a colleague is not the same as legal advice from a customs lawyer.) Per the Customs and Border Protection website, U.S. government agencies “regulate the importation of biological materials that can pose a threat to agriculture, public health, and natural resources” (emphasis added). But frog embryo samples don’t pose any threat. So it’s hardly clear that Petrova knew these had to be declared.

“Yesterday’s hearing in federal district court in Vermont confirmed that Customs and Border [Protection] officials had no legal basis for cancelling Kseniia’s visa and detaining her,” wrote Petrova’s attorney. The judge in Vermont seemed prepared to agree and to rule that canceling her visa over this was excessive.

Filing criminal charges now? Really?!

When someone is taken into custody by immigration officials, it is customary to charge them first with any crimes they have committed. This makes sense because criminal charges, which are far more serious, should always take priority over any immigration violations, which are normally just civil violations.

Once the individual has been prosecuted, explained Ingrid Eagly, co-director of the Criminal Justice Program at the UCLA School of Law, to the New York Times, the authorities can begin the process of removing them from the country. In Petrova’s case, “they put her in removal proceedings, and now are saying it is a criminal case.” Dr. Eagly explained that this was a “ratcheting up of the charges,” an atypical move that “seems retaliatory, designed for a particular end.”

Prof. Marisol Orihuela of Yale Law School told the Times that this was the first time she had seen a case where criminal charges were brought against someone who had already been in removal proceedings for so long. “The question it raises in my mind is why would it take three months” to decide to charge Petrova, remarked Prof. Orihuela. “It doesn’t really quite add up,” she added, wondering why the government would “need this amount of time if you thought this was a crime worth charging.”

Nor does it make any sense that after three whole months, there is still no further evidence beyond what one lone agent said Petrova did and said under questioning just before she was taken in. There are no interviews of Petrova’s colleagues. There is no showing, beyond a text thread with a colleague, that Petrova knew such samples must be declared. They’ve had three months, but the case has not advanced beyond what was known at the time.

On top of this, the timing of the charge is highly suspicious. Judge Reiss had only this week questioned whether Petrova’s visa revocation was proper, and from all accounts she would have likely ordered Petrova’s release on bail next Friday.

Here’s what I want to know. Who in the administration ordered Petrova to be criminally charged? Was there coordination between an overzealous Customs and Border Protection and the Department of Justice? When was the charging decision made? Did anyone object to it? Why was there apparently no investigation to obtain further evidence to support the charge?

Playing dangerous politics, holding political prisoners

Petrova’s case has been prominent in the headlines. She has received support from all across the country and the world. A feature on her plight was published in the New York Times. Her work as a scientist studying images for cancer diagnostics has been widely lauded, while her detention has been condemned as a pointless harm, not just to her but for medical science and the world.

It would not surprise me if orders to do everything possible to continue to punish and hold Petrova came from the very top of the Trump administration. After all, moving to criminally charge Petrova, three months after she was first detained, makes zero sense unless your point is to make an example of her and thumb your nose at customary prosecutorial practices.

The administration has basically said, “Oh, so you think you can get her out? We’ll stop you, just to show that we can. To hell with your ‘due process’ and ‘civil rights.’ We’re in charge, and she’s not going anywhere.”

This is of course the same position the government has taken with Kilmar Abrego García and all the other political prisoners in El Salvador’s CECOT facility.

I say “political prisoners” because that is precisely what they’ve now become. Petrova, Abrego García, and others are being held for purely political reasons, by or at the request of the U.S. government. It’s not because they’ve committed any actual crimes or are in any way deserving of the treatment they are receiving. Rather, it’s because the administration wants to telegraph strength and cruelty, just like any other fascist regime.

It’s also why the White House is so desperate to cast them as “criminals” and stretch the laws and the truth, even to absurd degrees, to fit its narrative. That makes this fight not just about achieving justice for those wrongly arrested and held, but also about rejecting the raw politicization of their cases and of our immigration and criminal justice systems.

Indeed, fighting for justice for Petrova and others now means no less than fighting for the rule of law, democracy and the very soul of our nation, now put at serious risk by the tyranny of the Trump regime.

Petrova is not a dangerous criminal. She has not raped or murdered anyone. She is a researcher trying to find a cure for cancer.

Source link

20/05/2025
Breaking News: Trump Administration Cancels Scores of Research Grants at Harvard

The Trump administration is determined to punish Harvard University for defiance of its efforts to take control of Harvard’s curriculum, admissions, and faculty hiring policies. Having already suspended $2.2 billion in research grants, the Trump administration expanded its attack on Harvard.

This level of petty vengefulness is unprecedented. Trump is turning his wrath upon Harvard and weaponizing the entire federal government to force the nation’s most prestigious institution of higher education to surrender.

The headline of the story: “A Bloodbath.”

Chris Serres at the Boston Globe reported this story:

In yet another escalation of its fight against higher education, the Trump administration has moved to terminate scores of research grants at Harvard University and its medical school, imperiling scores of research projects and potentially upending the futures of dozens of young scientists.

Harvard researchers who rely on federal grants to study cancer, infectious diseases and a range of other topics began receiving termination notices en masse on Thursday from a number of federal agencies, including the National Institutes of Health, the US Department of Defense and the US Department of Energy, according to emails shared with the Globe.

The termination notices threaten tens of millions of dollars in research funding for Harvard and affect a broad swath of the university’s scientific community, including graduate students and postdoctoral researchers who are dependent on federal funding for income.

While not unexpected, the wave of termination letters has roiled the Harvard campus in Cambridge and has left many young scientists anxious about their futures, while others are scrambling to find ways to replace the anticipated loss of federal funding.

Source link

17/05/2025
Breaking News: Trump Administration Encouraging Other Nations to Sign Up For Musk’s Starlink Internet Service to Cut Tariffs

The Washington Post reported that the Trump administration is promoting Elon Musk’s Starlink Internet service while negotiating trade deals.

Less than two weeks after President Donald Trump announced 50 percent tariffs on goods from the tiny African nation of Lesotho, the country’s communications regulator held a meeting with representatives of Starlink.

The satellite business, owned by billionaire and Trump adviser Elon Musk’s SpaceX company, had been seeking access to customers in Lesotho. But it was not until Trump unveiled the tariffs and called for negotiations over trade deals that leaders of the country of roughly 2 million people awarded Musk’s firm the nation’s first-ever satellite internet service license, slated to last for 10 years.

The decision drew a mention in an internal State Department memo obtained by The Washington Post, which states: “As the government of Lesotho negotiates a trade deal with the United States, it hopes that licensing Starlink demonstrates goodwill and intent to welcome U.S. businesses.

A series of internal government messages obtained by The Post reveal how U.S. embassies and the State Department have pushed nations to clear hurdles for U.S. satellite companies, often mentioning Starlink by name. The documents do not show that the Trump team has explicitly demanded favors for Starlink in exchange for lower tariffs. But they do indicate that Secretary of State Marco Rubio has increasingly instructed officials to push for regulatory approvals for Musk’s satellite firm at a moment when the White House is calling for wide-ranging talks on trade.

In India, government officials have sped through approvals of Starlink with the understanding that doing so could help them cement trade deals with the administration, according to two people familiar with the matter, speaking on the condition of anonymity to reflect private deliberations.

Other nations seeking relief from Trump’s killer tariffs have discovered that adopting Starlink is part of the deal. I think this is called cronyism.

Source link

09/05/2025
California leaders reject Trump administration order to allow immigration enforcement in schools

Protesters in Bakersfield rally against an extensive Border Patrol operation held on Jan. 14,.

Credit: Emma Gallegos / EdSource

This article has been updated with information from the California Department of Education, Long Beach Unified and San Diego Unified.

Este artículo está disponible en Español. Léelo en español.

California state officials and leaders of county offices of education and school districts quickly rebuked the Trump administration’s new guidance allowing immigration enforcement near or in schools.

“Schools must be safe spaces, not sites of fear,” said Alex Traverso, director of communications of the State Board of Education. “Every child deserves to learn without intimidation, and California will do all we can to protect our students.”

The directive issued Tuesday by Department of Homeland Security acting Secretary Benjamine Huffman reverses guidance that dates back to 2011, restricting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agencies from detaining immigrants near locations like schools, child care centers, playgrounds, hospitals and churches.

“This action empowers the brave men and women in CBP and ICE to enforce our immigration laws and catch criminal aliens — including murderers and rapists — who have illegally come into our country. Criminals will no longer be able to hide in America’s schools and churches to avoid arrest,” the Department of Homeland Security said in a statement Tuesday.

Sign-up below to receive breaking news alerts from EdSource by text message.

Under California law, school officials are not required to allow immigration agents to enter schools without a judicial warrant, according to recent guidance issued by California Attorney General Rob Bonta.

“It is disappointing, but unfortunately unsurprising that President Trump, in his first days in office, is focusing his time and energy on making his inhumane and irresponsible mass deportation agenda a reality. My team is actively reviewing his executive orders, and we stand ready to defend the rights of Californians if we find that the President has in any way violated the law — starting with our lawsuit, filed today, challenging the President’s unconstitutional executive order on birthright citizenship,” Bonta said.

The Association of California School Administrators issued a statement saying they are “troubled and deeply disappointed” in the Trump administration’s order allowing immigration enforcement near schools.

“This is an abuse of power and goes against the constitutional right of every child to have a public education,” the statement reads. “Schools are meant to be safe spaces where children can learn and grow without fear. … We know from past experience that this decision will result in some students not attending school, families disengaging, academics being disrupted, and severe impacts on social-emotional well-being.”

In response to requests for support from school districts and county offices of education, the California Department of Education sent a letter Tuesday to all county and school district superintendents and charter school administrators with resources for immigrant students and families and reminders about their rights.

“Our schools must be a safe place for children to learn and educators to teach. In line with federal and state law, California’s schools can take actions to ensure that all students have access to school campuses and educational opportunities without fear of deportation,” State Superintendent of Public Instruction Tony Thurmond said.

“In light of the new administration’s action today to overturn the sensitive locations policy, I want to reassure our education community that the Los Angeles County Office of Education (LACOE) remains steadfastly committed to ensuring that every student, regardless of their immigration status, has access to a safe, secure and nurturing learning environment,” said Debra Duardo, superintendent of schools for Los Angeles County, in a statement.

“The change to the policy does not overrule the student’s constitutional right to an education. It also does not overrule state constitutional protections,” Duardo continued. “It is important to reinforce that all students possess the right to a public education, independent of their immigration status. Our schools are mandated to ensure that no student is denied enrollment or faced with barriers to their educational opportunities based on their or their family’s immigration status.”

Many school districts, including Los Angeles Unified, Long Beach Unified, San Diego Unified and San Francisco Unified have reaffirmed “sanctuary resolutions” or sent letters to families in recent weeks, explaining their rights and sharing legal resources. Seventeen Santa Clara County superintendents and school board members signed a letter earlier this month, saying schools will continue to support immigrant students and families and reminding the public of a 1982 Supreme Court decision, Plyler v. Doe, which found that all children present in the United States have a right to a public education, regardless of their immigration status or their parents’ immigration status.

A spokesperson for Los Angeles Unified School District said the district has begun training all staff in how to respond if federal immigration officers show up at schools and will be distributing cards to students explaining their rights if approached by immigration agents.

“Los Angeles Unified School District is compelled by legal, professional, and moral obligations to protect rights of its students and employees, including privacy rights under FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), and state and federal constitutional rights, which include rights of all students to a free and public education,” a district spokesperson wrote in an email. “School officials do not collect or share information about the immigration status of students and their families. Since 2017, LAUSD has had a policy to not voluntarily cooperate with immigration enforcement actions by federal agencies.”

Fresno Unified School District is holding a series of workshops for families about immigrant rights. District spokesperson Diana Diaz wrote, “We want to urge our families who are concerned about possible detainment or deportation to please make a family preparedness plan NOW. This includes updating your child’s emergency card with their school so they can be released to another trusted adult if parents are unable.”

Teachers’ unions also rejected the Trump administration’s change.

“As educators and union members, we are committed to protecting our students — every single student, regardless of their immigration status,” said David Goldberg, president of the California Teachers Association, which represents 310,000 teachers, nurses, counselors, psychologists, librarians and other education staff across the state. “We have a professional and moral responsibility to keep our students safe if ICE comes to our communities. We will always come together in our union to ensure every public school is a safe space and to uphold the constitutionally protected right of all students to access a public education.”

Jeff Freitas, president of the California Federation of Teachers, the state’s second-largest teachers union, said in a statement, “Trump’s first day in office showed us that he is exactly who he told us he would be. His first actions as president direct hate and aim to stoke fear in the hearts of immigrant families and our LGBTQIA+ community. We can’t expect students to learn when they fear being separated from their parents, being bullied for being LGBTQIA+, or being treated differently based on the language they speak or the color of their skin.

“While we still hope to see Congress and our courts block these blatantly unconstitutional actions,” Freitas continued, “we won’t wait for them to act. Educators and school staff stand ready to fight back against every single action that stands to harm our members, our students, and our communities.”

EdSource reporter Diana Lambert contributed to this article.

Source link

24/04/2025
California college leaders anxious, uncertain as Trump administration orders end to diversity programs

San Diego City College’s Chicano-Latina graduation ceremony in 2024 is the kind of event the Trump administration is targeting in its efforts to stamp out diversity, equity and inclusion policies on campuses.

Credit: San Diego City College

California college leaders are responding with a mix of uncertainty, resistance and worry over a U.S. Department of Education order to eliminate any race-based programs by the end of the month.

The “dear colleague” letter, published Friday by the department’s Office for Civil Rights, goes far beyond telling colleges they can’t consider race as a factor in admissions. It says colleges that factor race into “admissions, hiring, promotion, compensation, financial aid, scholarships, prizes, administrative support, discipline, housing, graduation ceremonies, and all other aspects of student, academic, and campus life” are in violation of federal law.

The letter gives colleges until the end of the month to get rid of such programs or risk losing federal funds, though it doesn’t specify which funding would be held back.

Some officials at California’s colleges and universities said Tuesday that they have no plans to abolish those types of programs in dorms, graduation ceremonies, resource centers and other areas. However, others were still determining their next steps amid great uncertainty. Many are concerned about how possible funding losses might hurt campuses and how students might be harmed if there are cuts to programs.

Greg Smith, chancellor of the San Diego Community College District, said he has “no concern about our compliance in anything that we’re currently doing.” He noted that the district already complies with Proposition 209, the 1996 ballot measure that banned public universities in California from considering race in admissions and giving other race-based preferential treatment.

He added, however, that it would be demoralizing for students if colleges were forced to get rid of programs designed to “create inclusivity and belonging based on culture and identity.”

“I think it creates a sense of fear that the progress that’s been made in the civil rights going back to the mid-’60s is starting to be undermined,” he added.

The district, one of the largest in the state, is home to San Diego City, San Diego Mesa and San Diego Miramar colleges. Each year, the colleges hold a Rite of Passage Ceremony, a celebration meant to honor the achievements of Black students graduating or transferring.

San Diego Mesa also holds a Raza Grad Ceremony to honor Latino, Hispanic and Indigenous students, while San Diego City holds a similar event and also has a UMOJA Community offering counseling and tutoring to Black students hoping to transfer to a four-year university.

Those programs and other cultural initiatives will continue, Smith said, though he acknowledged that he is concerned about possibly losing federal funding.

The college is currently planning how it would “backfill those funds” if it loses any federal dollars, such as by using reserves in the short term. “We’re really committed to ensuring those programs continue,” Smith said.

The University of California similarly suggested in a statement that the order would not immediately impact its 10 campuses, which have a number of racially themed programs. The letter serves as “guidance on the Department’s interpretation of existing anti-discrimination laws and does not name any specific institution,” UC said in its statement.

“It indicates how OCR intends to enforce these legal requirements. Given the UC’s compliance with Prop. 209, we do not use race-based preferences in our practices,” UC added.

UC could be especially vulnerable because it receives nearly $6 billion annually in federal funds for research and other program support and at least $1.7 billion in student financial aid, including Pell grants and work study programs. That does not include federal funds for medical care across UC’s hospitals.

UC Riverside, which has prided itself on being one of the nation’s most diverse universities, says on its website that it was the first campus to have a professionally staffed Black student resource center and the first UC campus to have an office serving Native American students.

Many campuses across UC and the 23-campus California State University (CSU) also have racially themed dormitory floors, such as the African Black Diaspora Living Learning Community at UC San Diego. The mission of the community is to “establish an environment of personal and academic excellence through the affirmation and celebration of Blackness in its various expressions,” according to the campus website.

CSU was still uncertain of potential impacts as of Tuesday. The system faces its own vulnerabilities if federal funding were to be cut: It estimates that more than $511 million in research expenditures were funded by federal agencies during the 2022-23 academic year.

“As this type of action is unprecedented, we are consulting with the California Attorney General and higher education partners across the country to better understand the statewide impact of this letter,” said Amy Bentley-Smith, a CSU spokesperson.

A spokesperson for the chancellor’s office overseeing California’s 116 community colleges said the office is “in conversations with state and federal partners and providing colleges as much clarity, guidance and support as we can.” Colleges are encouraged to “continue their critical work in alignment with state and federal laws,” the spokesperson added.

Some campuses and college districts declined to comment altogether as they were still assessing the potential impacts of the order. That includes Sacramento State University, which has been a vocal leader in programming aimed at helping Black students, and the Los Angeles Community College District, the state’s largest district.

Source link

20/04/2025
A Brilliant Decision by a Conservative Judge Rebukes Trump Administration

Every once in a while, a judicial decision is so beautifully written and so well crafted that it should be read in full, not summarized.

Such a decision was rendered yesterday by Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson of the Fourth District Court of Appeals in the case of Kilmer Abrega Garcia. Judge Wilkinson was appointed to the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by President Reagan in 1984. He is an old-school Republican who believes in the U.S. Constitution and the rule of law. Remember them? People like Liz Cheney and Adam Kinzinger, who are reviled by MAGA. To MAGA, whatever Trump wants overrides both the Constitution and the rule of law.

Abrego Garcia is one of the 238 men picked up by ICE and whisked away to a terrorism prison in El Salvador. None of those men had a hearing or due process. A district court judge (appointed by President George W. Bush) ordered the government to turn the flights around and bring the men in three planes back to U.S. soil. The administration ignored his ruling. Another federal district judge ordered the Justice Department to bring him back. However, the Trump Justice Department insists that the U.S. has no jurisdiction in El Salvador.

His case and plight have sparked nationwide demonstrations against the government for failing to provide him due process and refusing to bring him back despite the orders of two federal district judges and the U.S. Supreme Court, which ruled 9-0 that the government must “facilitate” his return while showing due deference to the President’s control of foreign affairs.

Here is the full decision. It is not long (seven pages) and it is great reading.

If you want to read its crucial reasoning (without the legal precedents referenced), here is the core of the decision:

“Upon review of the government’s motion, the court denies the motion for an emergency stay pending appeal and for a writ of mandamus. The relief the government is requesting is both extraordinary and premature.

While we fully respect the executive’s robust assertion of its Article II powers, we shall not micromanage the efforts of a fine district judge attempting to implement the Supreme Court’s recent decision. It is difficult, in some cases, to get to the very heart of the matter—but in this case, it is not hard at all.

The government is asserting a right to stash away residents of this country in foreign prisons without the semblance of due process that is the foundation of our constitutional order. Further, it claims, in essence, that because it has rid itself of custody, that there is nothing that can be done. This should be shocking not only to judges but to the intuitive sense of liberty that Americans far removed from courthouses still hold dear.

The government asserts that Abrego Garcia is a terrorist and a member of MS-13. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Regardless, he is still entitled to due process. If the government is confident of its position, it should be assured that that position will prevail in proceedings to terminate the withholding of removal order. In other words, if it thinks it’s got such good factual proof of that, what is it so worried about? It can present it, and it should prevail in getting him removed from this country.

Moreover, the government has conceded that Abrego Garcia was wrongfully or mistakenly deported. Why then should it not make what was wrong right?

Let me just repeat that. Why then should it not make what was wrong right?

The Supreme Court’s decision remains, as always, our guidepost. That decision rightly requires the lower federal courts to give due regard for the deference owed to the executive branch.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not, however, allow the government to do essentially nothing. It requires the government ‘to facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador and to ensure that his case is handled as it would have been had he not been improperly sent to El Salvador.’

Facilitate is an active verb. It requires that steps be taken—as the Supreme Court has made perfectly clear. The plain and active meaning of the word cannot be diluted by its constriction, as the government would have it, to a narrow term of art.

We are not bound in this context by a definition crafted by administrative agency and contained in mere policy directive.

Thus, the government’s argument that all it must do is remove any domestic barriers to his return—that is, the government said, ‘You know what? If he can make his way to our shores, then we have to take him in’—is not well taken in light of the Supreme Court’s command that the government facilitate Abrego Garcia’s release from custody in El Salvador.

“Facilitation” does not permit the admittedly erroneous deportation of an individual to the one country’s prison that the withholding order forbids, and further to do so in disregard of a court order that the government, not so subtly, spurns. Facilitation does not sanction the abrogation of habeas corpus through the transfer of custody to foreign detention centers in the manner attempted here. Allowing all this would facilitate foreign detention more than it would domestic return. It would reduce the rule of law to lawlessness and tarnish the very values for which Americans of diverse views and persuasions have always stood….”

The executive possesses enormous powers to prosecute and to deport. But with powers come restraints. If today the executive claims the right to deport without due process and in disregard of court orders, what assurance will there be tomorrow that it will not deport American citizens and then disclaim responsibility to bring them home? And what assurance shall there be that the executive will not train its broad discretionary powers upon its political enemies? That threat—even if not the actuality—would always be present.

And the executive’s obligation to ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’—that’s a quote from the Constitution, Article II—would lose its meaning.

Today, both the United States and the El Salvadoran government disclaim any authority and/or responsibility to return Abrego Garcia. We are told that neither government has the power to act. That result will be to leave matters generally—and Abrego Garcia specifically—in an interminable limbo without recourse to law of any sort.

The basic differences between the branches mandate a serious effort and mutual respect. The respect that courts must accord the executive must be reciprocated by the executive’s respect for the courts.

Too often today, this has not been the case—as calls for impeachment of judges for decisions the executive disfavors and exhortations to disregard court orders sadly illustrate.”

It is in this atmosphere that we are reminded of President Eisenhower’s sage example. Putting his “personal opinions” aside, President Eisenhower honored his “inescapable” duty to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education II to desegregate schools “with all deliberate speed.”

This great man expressed his unflagging belief that “[t]he very basis of our individual rights and freedoms is the certainty that the President and the Executive Branch of Government will support and [e]nsure the carrying out of thedecisions of the Federal Courts.” Indeed, in our late Executive’s own words,“ [u]nless the President did so, anarchy would result.”

Now the branches come too close to grinding irrevocably against one another in a conflict that promises to diminish both. This is a losing proposition all around. The Judiciary will lose much from the constant intimations of its illegitimacy, to which by dent of custom and detachment we can only sparingly reply. The Executive will lose much from a public perception of its lawlessness and all of its attendant contagions. The Executive may succeed for a time in weakening the courts, but over time history will script the tragicgap between what was and all that might have been, and law in time will sign its epitaph.

It is, as we have noted, all too possible to see in this case an incipient crisis, but it may present an opportunity as well. We yet cling to the hope that it is not naïve to believe our good brethren in the Executive Branch perceive the rule of law as vital to the American ethos. This case presents their unique chance to vindicate that value and to summon the best that is within us while there is still time.

The most ominous words in this decision are the last five. “…While there is still time.”

This respected conservative jurist recognizes that the goal of the Trump administration is to diminish and undermine the federal courts and to make himself an emperor.

Source link

18/04/2025
What college students hope, fear from the new presidential administration

“I am an immigrant, and I didn’t come here to do anything bad,” Mejias said. “They think that anybody who comes here, that is not from the U.S., has bad intentions. People don’t immigrate just because they want to leave their country. They immigrate because they want to change their future. They want to work and have a different life.”

Mejias’ goal is to transfer to Cal Poly San Luis Obispo following the completion of the required computer science transfer courses at Saddleback College. Then Mejias wants to find remote work and return home to Venezuela.

“I really miss my country, my people,” Mejias said. “I will see if I come back,” he added, because the changing social climate and attitude toward immigration in the U.S. has contributed to Mejias’ hesitation about a future visit to the states.

He also feels more comfortable in California. “I’ve been to different states, and there you see people (who are possessive of) their territory. They carry guns and everything. I’m like, ‘Oh, I am going back to California,’” Mejias said. “I think because I am here in California, I feel way way more safe than being in any part of the U.S.”

By Tasmin McGill

Source link

18/04/2025