Columbia Just Suspended Four Student Journalists

Columbia University’s crackdown on free speech just got even worse: The school tried to suspend four student journalists who covered a pro-Palestinian protest at Butler Library this week, according to The Columbia Spectator.

Columbia College and Barnard College issued interim suspensions to one reporter at the Spectator and three student journalists at WKCR, the student-run radio station that has provided consistent on-the-ground coverage of the student demonstrations at the university—including the massive raid by police at the Gaza solidarity protest in Hamilton Hall last year.

Disciplinary emails obtained by the Spectator cited “information received” from Public Safety, which indicated that Sawyer Huckabee (class of 2026), Natalie Lahr (class of 2028), Celeste Gamble (class of 2027), and Spectator reporter Luisa Sukkar (class of 2026) had been involved in the demonstration in the Lawrence A. Wien Reading Room at Butler Library Wednesday afternoon. However, the student journalists at WCKR wore prominently displayed press placards and Huckabee identified herself as a journalist to public safety officers before leaving the building, the Spectator reported.

New York City Police were dispatched to the university, and 78 students were arrested.

Columbia lifted its suspension on one reporter only five hours after its initial notification Thursday afternoon, but the other three students remained suspended until Friday at 9 a.m.

In an email to alumni Wednesday, Acting President Claire Shipman touted a commitment to free speech while admitting that the university had called the police on its own students. Shipman also made the disturbing move of blaming the protesters for the targeting of its international students.

“I am deeply disturbed at the idea that, at a moment when our international community feels particularly vulnerable, a small group of students would choose to make our institution a target,” Shipman wrote.

But it’s the institution, not the students, that has refused to shield its own community from the Trump administration’s immigration and free speech crackdown. After Donald Trump rescinded $400 million in federal funding, the university administration agreed to the president’s outrageous demands for a complete overhaul of the school’s protest policies, as well as the adoption of a new definition of antisemitism, among several other concessions that severely undermined academic independence from the federal government.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote in a post on X Wednesday night that the administration was “reviewing the visa status of the trespassers and vandals who took over Columbia University’s library.”

“Pro-Hamas thugs are no longer welcome in our great nation,” he added.

Donald Trump’s nominee to serve as permanent U.S. attorney for Washington will soon start walking in a different direction.

Ed Martin has served as acting U.S. attorney for Washington, D.C., since Trump’s inauguration. But mounting pressure from Senate Republicans, who seemed increasingly unlikely to advance Martin’s nomination to keep the job, forced the White House to look elsewhere.

Martin, a conservative political operative from Missouri who garnered national attention for his staunch support of January 6 rioters, had used his time at the U.S. attorney’s office to help Trump transform the key prosecutor’s chair into a tool for the president’s political retribution. He threatened to investigate some of Trump’s purported enemies, including Democratic lawmakers, universities and schools, and critics of tech billionaire Elon Musk. But on Thursday, Martin found out that his time at the office was coming to an end.

Instead, he’d be the recipient of an entirely different title.

“Ed Martin has done an AMAZING job as interim U.S. Attorney, and will be moving to the Department of Justice as the new Director of the Weaponization Working Group, Associate Deputy Attorney General, and Pardon Attorney,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Thursday evening. “In these highly important roles, Ed will make sure we finally investigate the Weaponization of our Government under the Biden Regime, and provide much needed Justice for its victims. Congratulations Ed!”

In Martin’s place, Trump tapped ex–Fox News host Jeanine Pirro. The former prosecutor has been one of Trump’s most ardent defenders at a network that already has an apparent soft spot for him. In internal emails made public by the conservative media behemoth’s lawsuit with Dominion Voting Systems, Pirro’s former executive producer once described the election conspiracist’s beliefs as “completely crazy.” Pirro has not held a law enforcement job in roughly two decades.

But the tap-and-replace strategy may have an underlying motive.

“By replacing one interim U.S. attorney with another, the Trump administration appears to be trying a legal tactic that could essentially eliminate any need to submit U.S. attorney picks to the Senate for confirmation,” assessed The New York Times.

Martin isn’t the only member of Trumpverse to receive a cozy new assignment. After he publicized massive national security risks in the Trump administration’s communication channels by accidentally inviting a journalist to a Signal group chat, former national security adviser Mike Waltz was “promoted” to the role of U.N. ambassador.

Trump was reportedly sensitive to the idea of ousting Waltz, believing that doing so would be interpreted as a bend to public pressure. One source familiar with the situation at the National Security Council told CBS News last week that the president believed enough time had passed that the administration could reasonably reframe Waltz’s departure as part of a larger “reorganization.”

A federal judge ruled Friday that Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk must be released from detention “immediately.”

U.S. District Judge William Sessions ruled that Öztürk, who was detained by Immigration and Customs Enforcement over an op-ed she wrote advocating for the school to make good on student resolutions to acknowledge the genocide in Gaza and to divest from Israel, had made “substantial claims” that her constitutional rights had been violated.

“That literally is the case. There is no evidence here as to the motivation absent the consideration of the op-ed,” Sessions said, independent journalist Adam Klasfield reported on X. Sessions said that there was no evidence that Öztürk had engaged in violent acts or advocated for violence.

“Her continued detention chills the speech of the millions and millions of people who are not citizens,” Sessions added.

Öztürk was arrested in March, even after the State Department had determined that the Trump administration had no evidence linking her to antisemitic activity. After her shocking abduction on the streets of Somerville, Massachusetts, by masked federal agents, she was moved to an immigration facility in Basile, Louisiana, where she attended the bail hearing remotely.

Öztürk’s lawyers argued that their client, who suffers from asthma, faced “significant health risks” staying in the facility, and asked Sessions to grant her bail immediately, according to CBS News. Öztürk is now free to travel back to Massachusetts and Vermont.

The judge’s ruling represents a huge defeat for the Trump administration, which has sought to crack down on pro-Palestinian speech by targeting international students for deportation, alleging that they had engaged in vague “antisemitic activities.” The students targeted by these efforts have committed no crime.

Last month, a federal judge ordered the release of Mohsen Mahdawi, a graduate student at Columbia University who had been arrested at his citizenship interview. Mahdawi, who was involved in pro-Palestinian organizing on campus, explicitly denounced antisemitism.

Green card holder Mahmoud Khalil, who missed the birth of his child while being detained in Louisiana, and Georgetown scholar Badar Khan Suri, who is now held in a Texas detention center, still remain in custody.

This story has been updated.

Jared Kushner is back to advising Donald Trump, ahead of the president’s trip to the Middle East.

Kushner is reportedly advising administration officials in negotiations with Arab leaders, CNN reports, citing sources in the White House and people close to the president’s son-in-law. While Kushner isn’t expected to travel with Trump, he has been talking to foreign leaders, including Saudi Arabia’s, about normalizing relations with Israel.

While Trump’s stated priority for the trip is to make trade deals with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, Kushner and others in the White House are trying to use the trip to expand the Abraham Accords, which Kushner negotiated during Trump’s first term. The accords led to the normalization of relations between Israel and several Arab countries, including Bahrain, the UAE, Morocco, and Sudan.

Kushner has specifically been advising Trump officials on how to approach Saudi Arabia regarding normalizing relations with Israel, with the administration hoping for progress on that front. They don’t expect a deal to come from the trip, though.

“We fully expect other countries to sign (agreements) first before Saudi,” a senior Trump administration official told CNN, adding that there are discussions with a “wide range of countries.”

“When it comes to the Middle East, Jared is an expert,” another administration official said. “He knows all the players and is one of the few people who has the ear of the Arab leaders, as well as the Israelis.”

Like his father-in-law, Kushner has extensive business dealings in the Middle East, raising ethical concerns. He is pocketing billions from Saudi Arabia and reportedly speaking with the country’s crown prince every week. Also like Trump, Kushner has praised Gaza’s waterfront beachfront property as “very valuable,” a troubling sign given Israel’s vote this week to occupy the territory.

It’s anyone’s guess as to what Kushner’s actual agenda is in advising the Trump administration. It could be to line his own pockets or to further a real estate development project in Gaza. Either way, it presents a host of ethical issues.

The messages Donald Trump is sending about a proposal to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans aren’t just mixed; they’re actually inscrutable.

In a post on Truth Social Friday, the president appeared torn about whether he planned to actually follow through on his proposal to hike taxes on the superrich.

“The problem with even a ‘TINY’ tax increase for the RICH, which I and all others would graciously accept in order to help the lower and middle income workers, is that the Radical Left Democrat Lunatics would go around screaming, ‘Read my lips,’ the fabled Quote by George Bush the Elder that is said to have cost him the Election. NO, Ross Perot cost him the Election! In any event, Republicans should probably not do it, but I’m OK if they do!!!” Trump wrote.

Trump was referring to President George H.W. Bush’s famous campaign promise, “Read my lips: no new taxes.” Ultimately, Bush left income tax alone but raised other levies on oil and chemicals, increased fees on international travel, and moved up the collection dates for certain taxes. Trump seemed unwilling to break his campaign promises to lower taxes for Americans.

But it was Trump who reportedly pitched House Speaker Mike Johnson Wednesday on creating a new 39.6 percent tax bracket for individuals earning at least $2.5 million, or couples making $5 million, people familiar with the discussions told Bloomberg. Trump has been adamant that his sweeping reciprocal tariffs will replace the federal funding lost by eliminating the income tax.

Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told Bloomberg Television’s Balance of Power
Thursday that higher taxes for the rich could help offset other tax cuts.

During his first term, Trump slashed rates “from 39.6 to 37. So, if he just goes back to what he did last time, I’m in favor of that,” Lutnick said. “I think it’s smart, as long as it is a redistribution to his priorities of no tax on tips, no tax on overtime, and no tax on Social Security.”

The Trump administration’s tariff scheme appears less and less likely to bring manufacturing jobs back to U.S. shores.

Businesses across the country are crunching the numbers and realizing that, despite Donald Trump’s insistence, they can’t balance out his tariff hikes across the supply chain.

“Some manufacturers who had plans to open factories in the country say the new duties are only adding to the significant obstacles they already faced,” Bloomberg reported Friday.

That’s because the supply chain to produce those goods in the United States simply isn’t there, requiring companies to import raw materials and factory equipment—which Trump’s tariffs have made unaffordable—from abroad.

And Trump’s unpredictable approach to announcing and enacting or even retracting his tariffs has added confusion and significant volatility to the market, making businesses less likely to invest in large, long-term projects such as factory development.

Nora Orozco, the owner of footwear company Evolutions Brands, wants to open a Texas factory that would create 200 jobs. But the nitty-gritty of Trump’s so-called “manufacturing renaissance” just doesn’t work, according to the small-business owner.

“I like the idea of onshoring, but this makes it impossible for us,” Orozco told Bloomberg.

Reinvigorating American manufacturing has been a tall order for both political parties since the country offshored and automated the bulk of those jobs decades ago. But 2022 did see a spike in job announcements for reshored manufacturing gigs, according to the Reshoring Initiative, a U.S. manufacturing advocacy nonprofit.

That was thanks to President Joe Biden’s Inflation Reduction Act, which passed with zero Republican support at the time, and his CHIPS and Science Act. Biden’s landmark legislative victory is currently on the chopping block as conservative lawmakers look to make room in the federal budget for an extension to Trump’s tax plan.

Trump thinks providing poor and rural Americans with high-speed internet is “racist” and “woke.” 

The president has decided to end the Digital Equity Act, Biden-era legislation that aims to expand high-speed internet across the country. 

“I have spoken with my wonderful Secretary of Commerce, Howard Lutnick, and we agree that the Biden/Harris so-called ‘Digital Equity Act’ is totally UNCONSTITUTIONAL,” Trump wrote on Truth Social Thursday. “No more woke handouts based on race! The Digital Equity Program is a RACIST and ILLEGAL $2.5 BILLION DOLLAR giveaway. I am ending this IMMEDIATELY, and saving Taxpayers BILLIONS OF DOLLARS!”

The Act does not explicitly mention race. All it says is that people can’t be blocked from using the Act “on the basis of actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, or disability.”  This language is straight from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 

The law provided many red states with grants to create and implement plans to make internet access more accessible. These plans have already been approved in conservative states like Indiana, Alabama, Arkansas, Iowa, and Kansas.

Internet access is a massive barrier to education, opportunity, and upward mobility. This legislation attempted to remedy that for people everywhere, especially in regions that went heavily for Trump. How is that a racist, woke handout?

Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers faced a crowd of opposition while attempting to arrest a mother clinging to her baby on the streets of Worcester, Massachusetts, Thursday morning.

The brazen arrest, in which ICE agents were swarmed by close to 25 onlookers demanding a warrant and identification, was captured on video. Agents attempted to control the crowd as they formed a “human ring” around the ICE vehicle holding the detained woman. Local police were called to the scene amid the chaos.

“The crowd was unruly,” police said in a statement. They claimed that some individuals “put their hands on federal agents and Worcester officers.”

The woman’s daughter, a 16-year-old, was left holding her baby sister and stood in front of the agents’ car at one point, trying to block it. She allegedly kicked the car after handing the baby to someone else, and now faces four criminal charges, including reckless endangerment of a child, disturbing the peace, disorderly conduct, and resisting arrest.

Also arrested was a Worcester School Committee candidate, Ashley Spring, who allegedly threw an unknown liquid substance on police officers and pushed them while they tried to arrest the 16-year-old.

Worcester City Councilor Etel Haxhiaj was among the residents who protested the arrest.

“As an elected official, it is my obligation to stand up for my constituents,” Haxhiaj said in a statement. “The way immigrants in Worcester and across the Commonwealth are being targeted and terrorized by this federal administration for deportation is absolutely unconstitutional.”

It’s only the latest brazen action from immigration agents attempting a deportation arrest. The Trump administration’s immigration officers have tried to detain other immigrants in the street without warning, identification, or the production of a warrant. Last month, in another Massachusetts arrest, ICE agents smashed a car window to detain an immigrant with no criminal record.

Not even people on Donald Trump’s side think that his trade negotiations with the United Kingdom have gone well.

Conservative radio show host and far-right influencer Erick Erickson blasted the Trump administration’s deal with one its longest and strongest international allies Thursday, likening the minimum rate tariff to permanent taxes on the American people.

“It’s actually a pretty shitty deal with the UK,” wrote Erickson on X. “First, they told us the 10 [percent] tariff was just a baseline for negotiations to get to free trade deals. Now we’re being told the 10 [percent] tariff is for keeps.

“That’s just a tax on the American people,” he noted.

The U.K. deal—announced Thursday—was the first handshake that Trump had secured since announcing his sweeping tariff plans last month. But even the two countries’ “special relationship” (per deceased British Prime Minister Winston Churchill) could not spare the U.K. from a seemingly permanent 10 percent baseline tariff.

“Under the deal, the U.K. can export 100,000 vehicles each year at a 10 percent rate, with any additional vehicles facing 25 percent duties. British steelmakers and the aluminum industry will be able to export tariff-free, down from the 25 percent rate that the U.S. imposed in February,” reported NBC News.

The 10 percent hike is just the tip of the iceberg, according to Trump, who called it a “low number” for future deals.

“They made a good deal,” he continued. “Some will be much higher because they have massive trade surpluses.”

Trump has argued that tariffs are the best solution to closing the country’s trade deficits, which he has incorrectly likened to taxpayer-backed “subsidies” for other nations. He has claimed that without tariffs, the U.S. is transferring wealth to other countries while receiving nothing in exchange. He has also pitched that hiking tariffs on other nations would bring jobs and manufacturing opportunities back to American shores, but economists don’t agree with either point.

Instead, droves of financial and economic experts have insisted that tariffs on other nations will only serve to harm America and its markets, making products more expensive stateside and making American consumers less likely to spend their money (something that Trump doesn’t seem to have any problem with, actually). The Harvard Kennedy Business School even floated in April that America’s trade deficit basically doesn’t matter, writing that “Americans earn more from, or earn just about as much from, their total investments abroad as foreigners earn in the United States.”

“So if you look historically, we have felt no additional pressure about sustainability of our position,” the school wrote in an early stage tariff explainer. “As long as we borrow the money and use it productively to increase investment in the United States, it is eminently sustainable, as with any investment.”

The president’s tariff shenanigans have not boded well for his popularity. The Cook Political Report observed Wednesday that Trump’s net job approval rating had plummeted since just April 15, dropping by seven points from -3.9 percent to -10.7 percent.

An ABC News/Washington Post/Ipsos poll published last month found that Trump’s approval rating had sunk to 39 percent—a 6 percent drop from February—marking the lowest first-100-day rating of a president since modern polling began roughly 80 years ago.

And an April report by the Conference Board found that its consumer confidence index had fallen by 7.9 points, bringing overall U.S. consumer confidence to 86 points. Consumer futures were brought to a 13-year low, with outlooks on the economy dropping by 12.5 points to 54.5 points—well below the threshold of 80 that “usually signals a recession ahead,” according to the Conference Board.

The root cause of the instability was “high financial market volatility in April” that hit American consumers’ stock portfolios and retirement savings hard and fast, per the Conference Board’s report. That was almost singularly due to Trump’s machinations in the White House, which included releasing (and stalling) a sweeping and vindictive tariff proposal plan that economists observed (and the White House eventually confirmed) was founded on bad math.

The Trump administration is treating Afrikaners, white descendants of mainly Dutch colonizers in South Africa, as “refugees” and plans to bring them to the United States next week, according to The New York Times.

Trump is even planning on a welcome delegation of government officials to greet the first 54 people as they arrive at Dulles Airport near Washington, D.C., on Monday.

The 54 Afrikaners were given priority status, meaning they waited no more than three months for their resettlement. Many refugees from other countries are forced to wait 18 to 24 months, and sometimes even years, for their resettlement assignment. This comes as Trump banned virtually all other refugees on his first day in office.

“We are profoundly disturbed that the administration has slammed the door in the face of thousands of other refugees approved by D.H.S. months ago, notwithstanding courts ordering the White House to let many of them in,” Mark Hetfield, president of a Jewish resettlement organization, told the Times. “That’s just not right.”

Afrikaners in South Africa claim that they are being racially discriminated against, that they can’t get jobs and don’t feel safe with the current government and its progressive, redistributive policies. The South African government currently has a program that allows it to seize land from Afrikaners without providing compensation—the very same thing white colonizers did when they arrived, forcing Black South Africans from their land for nothing and relegating them to second- and even third-class citizenship.

Some feel as if the Afrikaners are simply using the reversal of the apartheid-era systems that they’ve benefited from for generations as justification for their resettlement in the U.S., casting themselves as victims in a situation where they’ve historically been the victimizers.

“Historically, in fact, farmers have been quite oppressed in South Africa, but those are Black farmers. Those are the people whose land was alienated over centuries of colonization and who, in many cases, worked as really poorly remunerated menial laborers in horrific conditions on white-owned farms,” said Yale professor Daniel Magaziner. “And so in many ways, what [Trump is] doing is he is implicitly, not explicitly, but implicitly downplaying the reality of South African history.”

“You do have the reality that a lot of Black South Africans are still without any wealth, are still in very deep poverty and saying, hey, since the end of apartheid, those scales have not been equaled,” said John Eligon, The New York Times’ Johannesburg bureau chief.

Some on the Black South African left have a sharper view of the situation.

“Due to global and local economic processes, the rich continue to get richer, and the poor get poorer. Most of the white—of the farmland, more than 70 percent of it is owned by white farmers. So, basically, they are sitting pretty,” said activist Trevor Nganwe. “You know, there’s a saying, ‘The guilty are afraid.’ Perhaps they know that this unjust situation, where a tiny minority enjoys most of the country’s wealth and resources, is not tenable, and sooner or later, it will have to end.”

The influence of Elon Musk, who grew up under the benefits of apartheid in South Africa, cannot be understated. In March, he replied “absolutely!” to a post that incorrectly claimed that white Afrikaners are facing genocide—a deeply ironic statement given the historical context of the country.