“At its best, a university should fulfill the highest ideals of our Nation, and enlighten the thousands of hopeful students who walk through its magnificent gates,” McMahon said. “But Harvard has betrayed this ideal … this letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided.”
On a press call ahead of the letter’s release, a senior Education Department official told reporters that McMahon had identified Harvard as deficient in four areas: antisemitism, racial discrimination, abandonment of rigor and viewpoint diversity.
To become eligible for new grants, Harvard would need to enter negotiations with the federal government and prove it has satisfied the administration’s demands.
“The Trump administration won’t stand by as taxpayer dollars are used to support colleges that tolerate antisemitism or that support racist policies,” the official explained.
The latest freeze applies only to federal research grants and not federal financial aid students receive to help cover tuition and fees.
The administration has singled out Harvard due to the university’s high-profile status and the symbolic impact its grant freezes have on the rest of higher education, the official said. In all, the federal government has awarded the university nearly $9 billion in grants and contracts.
Nationwide injunctions foreclose such statesmanlike “departmentalism.” If courts had the power to issue nationwide injunctions (something unthinkable in 1857), a single slavery-supporting district judge could have enjoined the Missouri Compromise itself and the application of any laws and practices (like granting passports and patents) to any black people anywhere in America or its territories.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch have expressed disapproval of nationwide injunctions, but the Court has refused either to endorse or forbid their use in any of its opinions.
Professor Foley argues, therefore, that the Court can solve the issue without an opinion. It could amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which establishes the procedures for issuing preliminary injunctions. She does not provide proposed text, but one assumes it would say something like “any injunction shall be limited to the parties to the case.”
In that case, only two things can stop them: legislation (like the bill introduced recently by Senator Chuck Grassley), or a decree from the Supreme Court saying that such exceptions are prohibited because nationwide injunctions are unlawful and unconstitutional. But that returns us to our starting point: we have neither legislation nor a decision from the Supreme Court holding that nationwide injunctions lack a basis in law.
It would be simpler, faster, and final for the Supreme Court to end nationwide injunctions with an opinion. But the Court has not done that, which tells us that the problem is not the lack of a way, but the lack of will. Can Professor Foley’s proposed amendment energize a languid will? We do not know. But what we do know is that lower courts are imposing nationwide injunctions swiftly and with shockingly little consideration of their authority to do so. Their embarrassing haste, the resulting disruption it makes on the Court’s emergency docket, and the inevitable vigorous dissents from Justices Thomas and Gorsuch against any decision to dodge the issue will all increase the pressure on the majority to act.
Regardless, if the Court suddenly finds the will that it currently is not exercising, it would be better for it to hold nationwide injunctions unconstitutional on the basis that Article III’s “judicial Power” does not include this novel remedy, than for the judicial rulemaking process to devote years of work trying to adopt a rule that will likely only postpone the day when the Court must confront the same question.
"This is a Communist persecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020. The same Democrat Party that flies to El Salvador to try to free an MS-13 Terrorist, is cruelly imprisoning, perhaps for life, a grandmother whose brave and heroic son gave his life for America. Colorado must end this unjust incarceration of an innocent American. I am hereby directing the Department of Justice to take all necessary action to help secure the release of this 'hostage' being held in a Colorado prison by the Democrats, for political reasons. FREE TINA PETERS, NOW!"
Peters was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state in relation to security breaches of Dominion Voting Systems voting machines. She was found not guilty of identity theft, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and one count of criminal impersonation.
During sentencing, Colorado Judge Matthew Barrett told Peters, "Your lies are well documented, and these convictions are serious. I’m convinced you’d do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant a defendant as this court has ever seen."
Peters had requested a sentence of probation, while the prosecution demanded a sentence of 20 years.
'Build, baby, build' data centers to win AI race versus China
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is pushing for the construction of new data centers to fuel the nation's artificial intelligence ambitions in competition against China.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is pushing for the construction of new data centers to fuel the nation’s artificial intelligence ambitions in competition against China.
Mr. Burgum, who also leads President Trump’s National Energy Dominance Council, believes the U.S. has a technological advantage but “China is winning on electricity.”
He told the Daily Wire in an interview that the nation’s plan for energy dominance to surpass China will mean more than the mantra “drill, baby, drill.”
Hodgkinson proclaimed left-wing ideology and opposition to President Trump before the shooting. He traveled from Illinois to open fire with a rifle at the ball field in Alexandria, Virginia, where Republican lawmakers were practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game.
Hodgkinson engaged in a 10-minute shootout with U.S. Capitol Police and Alexandria Police Department officers before he was fatally shot.
The committee noted that an FBI press release at the time withheld information from the public that would have undermined the agency’s “suicide by cop” narrative.
With no new information, the FBI changed its conclusion in 2021 from “suicide by cop” to domestic violent extremism. The report urges Mr. Patel to conduct a “swift review” to determine how the FBI arrived at its initial conclusion and whether the finding was determined from “the top down” by Mr. McCabe or others.
In a statement to The Washington Times, the FBI said: “We are grateful for our partners in Congress, and as Director Patel promised during his confirmation, this FBI is committed to working quickly and transparently with Capitol Hill to ensure the American people receive the full truth they deserve.”
“We have diligently delivered all requested documents and will continue to cooperate fully with Congress to uphold transparency and accountability.”
Mr. Crawford criticized the FBI for having “stonewalled the committee” before Mr. Trump was elected to a second term.
He said, “Unfortunately, this report confirms that under previous FBI leadership, the bureau completely botched the investigation into this politically motivated attack which threatened the lives of numerous Republican members of Congress, staff and bystanders.”
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic talks, said Israel was irked by the unexpected news, particularly because the Houthis have continued to launch attacks on Israel and other Israeli targets.
Israel does not appear to be covered by the U.S.-Houthi agreement.
Appearing before reporters later Tuesday, this time for the swearing-in of senior adviser and special envoy Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump was asked about the possibility that the Houthis would continue to attack Israel. He responded, “I don’t know about that, frankly.”
“But I know one thing, they want nothing to do with us,” Mr. Trump said. “And they’ve let that be known through all of their surrogates and very strongly.”
Estimates vary, but experts converge on a transformative window of 10 to 30 years for AI to reshape most jobs. A McKinsey report projects that by 2030, 30% of current U.S. jobs could be automated, with 60% significantly altered by AI tools. Goldman Sachs predicts up that to 50% of jobs could be fully automated by 2045, driven by generative AI and robotics.
Goldman Sachs previously estimated that 300 million jobs could be lost to AI, affecting 25% of the global labor market. On the bright side, AI is least threatening to labor-intensive careers in construction, skilled trades, installation and repair, and maintenance.
Dalio warns of a “great deleveraging” where AI accelerates productivity but displaces workers faster than new roles emerge, potentially within two decades. Larry Fink, the CEO of Black Rock, speaking at the Economic Club of New York this month, cautioned that AI’s impact is already visible in sectors like finance and legal services, predicting a “restructuring” of white-collar work by 2035. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, estimates in his shareholder letter that AI will dominate repetitive tasks within 15 years.
The actual pace depends on technological breakthroughs, regulatory frameworks, and economic incentives. Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman, who runs Pershing Square, argues that corporate adoption of AI is accelerating due to cost pressures, potentially shrinking timelines.
“At its best, a university should fulfill the highest ideals of our Nation, and enlighten the thousands of hopeful students who walk through its magnificent gates,” McMahon said. “But Harvard has betrayed this ideal … this letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided.”
On a press call ahead of the letter’s release, a senior Education Department official told reporters that McMahon had identified Harvard as deficient in four areas: antisemitism, racial discrimination, abandonment of rigor and viewpoint diversity.
To become eligible for new grants, Harvard would need to enter negotiations with the federal government and prove it has satisfied the administration’s demands.
“The Trump administration won’t stand by as taxpayer dollars are used to support colleges that tolerate antisemitism or that support racist policies,” the official explained.
The latest freeze applies only to federal research grants and not federal financial aid students receive to help cover tuition and fees.
The administration has singled out Harvard due to the university’s high-profile status and the symbolic impact its grant freezes have on the rest of higher education, the official said. In all, the federal government has awarded the university nearly $9 billion in grants and contracts.
Nationwide injunctions foreclose such statesmanlike “departmentalism.” If courts had the power to issue nationwide injunctions (something unthinkable in 1857), a single slavery-supporting district judge could have enjoined the Missouri Compromise itself and the application of any laws and practices (like granting passports and patents) to any black people anywhere in America or its territories.
Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas, Elena Kagan, and Neil Gorsuch have expressed disapproval of nationwide injunctions, but the Court has refused either to endorse or forbid their use in any of its opinions.
Professor Foley argues, therefore, that the Court can solve the issue without an opinion. It could amend Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, which establishes the procedures for issuing preliminary injunctions. She does not provide proposed text, but one assumes it would say something like “any injunction shall be limited to the parties to the case.”
In that case, only two things can stop them: legislation (like the bill introduced recently by Senator Chuck Grassley), or a decree from the Supreme Court saying that such exceptions are prohibited because nationwide injunctions are unlawful and unconstitutional. But that returns us to our starting point: we have neither legislation nor a decision from the Supreme Court holding that nationwide injunctions lack a basis in law.
It would be simpler, faster, and final for the Supreme Court to end nationwide injunctions with an opinion. But the Court has not done that, which tells us that the problem is not the lack of a way, but the lack of will. Can Professor Foley’s proposed amendment energize a languid will? We do not know. But what we do know is that lower courts are imposing nationwide injunctions swiftly and with shockingly little consideration of their authority to do so. Their embarrassing haste, the resulting disruption it makes on the Court’s emergency docket, and the inevitable vigorous dissents from Justices Thomas and Gorsuch against any decision to dodge the issue will all increase the pressure on the majority to act.
!summarize #china #economy #trade
Regardless, if the Court suddenly finds the will that it currently is not exercising, it would be better for it to hold nationwide injunctions unconstitutional on the basis that Article III’s “judicial Power” does not include this novel remedy, than for the judicial rulemaking process to devote years of work trying to adopt a rule that will likely only postpone the day when the Court must confront the same question.
"This is a Communist persecution by the Radical Left Democrats to cover up their Election crimes and misdeeds in 2020. The same Democrat Party that flies to El Salvador to try to free an MS-13 Terrorist, is cruelly imprisoning, perhaps for life, a grandmother whose brave and heroic son gave his life for America. Colorado must end this unjust incarceration of an innocent American. I am hereby directing the Department of Justice to take all necessary action to help secure the release of this 'hostage' being held in a Colorado prison by the Democrats, for political reasons. FREE TINA PETERS, NOW!"
Peters was convicted of three counts of attempting to influence a public servant, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation, first-degree official misconduct, violation of duty and failing to comply with the secretary of state in relation to security breaches of Dominion Voting Systems voting machines. She was found not guilty of identity theft, one count of conspiracy to commit criminal impersonation and one count of criminal impersonation.
During sentencing, Colorado Judge Matthew Barrett told Peters, "Your lies are well documented, and these convictions are serious. I’m convinced you’d do it all over again if you could. You’re as defiant a defendant as this court has ever seen."
Peters had requested a sentence of probation, while the prosecution demanded a sentence of 20 years.
'Build, baby, build' data centers to win AI race versus China
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is pushing for the construction of new data centers to fuel the nation's artificial intelligence ambitions in competition against China.
Interior Secretary Doug Burgum is pushing for the construction of new data centers to fuel the nation’s artificial intelligence ambitions in competition against China.
Mr. Burgum, who also leads President Trump’s National Energy Dominance Council, believes the U.S. has a technological advantage but “China is winning on electricity.”
He told the Daily Wire in an interview that the nation’s plan for energy dominance to surpass China will mean more than the mantra “drill, baby, drill.”
Hodgkinson proclaimed left-wing ideology and opposition to President Trump before the shooting. He traveled from Illinois to open fire with a rifle at the ball field in Alexandria, Virginia, where Republican lawmakers were practicing for the annual Congressional Baseball Game.
Hodgkinson engaged in a 10-minute shootout with U.S. Capitol Police and Alexandria Police Department officers before he was fatally shot.
The committee noted that an FBI press release at the time withheld information from the public that would have undermined the agency’s “suicide by cop” narrative.
With no new information, the FBI changed its conclusion in 2021 from “suicide by cop” to domestic violent extremism. The report urges Mr. Patel to conduct a “swift review” to determine how the FBI arrived at its initial conclusion and whether the finding was determined from “the top down” by Mr. McCabe or others.
In a statement to The Washington Times, the FBI said: “We are grateful for our partners in Congress, and as Director Patel promised during his confirmation, this FBI is committed to working quickly and transparently with Capitol Hill to ensure the American people receive the full truth they deserve.”
“We have diligently delivered all requested documents and will continue to cooperate fully with Congress to uphold transparency and accountability.”
Mr. Crawford criticized the FBI for having “stonewalled the committee” before Mr. Trump was elected to a second term.
He said, “Unfortunately, this report confirms that under previous FBI leadership, the bureau completely botched the investigation into this politically motivated attack which threatened the lives of numerous Republican members of Congress, staff and bystanders.”
The official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss private diplomatic talks, said Israel was irked by the unexpected news, particularly because the Houthis have continued to launch attacks on Israel and other Israeli targets.
Israel does not appear to be covered by the U.S.-Houthi agreement.
Appearing before reporters later Tuesday, this time for the swearing-in of senior adviser and special envoy Steve Witkoff, Mr. Trump was asked about the possibility that the Houthis would continue to attack Israel. He responded, “I don’t know about that, frankly.”
“But I know one thing, they want nothing to do with us,” Mr. Trump said. “And they’ve let that be known through all of their surrogates and very strongly.”
Estimates vary, but experts converge on a transformative window of 10 to 30 years for AI to reshape most jobs. A McKinsey report projects that by 2030, 30% of current U.S. jobs could be automated, with 60% significantly altered by AI tools. Goldman Sachs predicts up that to 50% of jobs could be fully automated by 2045, driven by generative AI and robotics.
Goldman Sachs previously estimated that 300 million jobs could be lost to AI, affecting 25% of the global labor market. On the bright side, AI is least threatening to labor-intensive careers in construction, skilled trades, installation and repair, and maintenance.
Dalio warns of a “great deleveraging” where AI accelerates productivity but displaces workers faster than new roles emerge, potentially within two decades. Larry Fink, the CEO of Black Rock, speaking at the Economic Club of New York this month, cautioned that AI’s impact is already visible in sectors like finance and legal services, predicting a “restructuring” of white-collar work by 2035. Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase, estimates in his shareholder letter that AI will dominate repetitive tasks within 15 years.
The actual pace depends on technological breakthroughs, regulatory frameworks, and economic incentives. Hedge fund billionaire Bill Ackman, who runs Pershing Square, argues that corporate adoption of AI is accelerating due to cost pressures, potentially shrinking timelines.