MONOPOLY CAPITALI$M

Mark Zuckerberg suggested wiping everyone’s Facebook friends and making users start again to boost the platform’s relevance (PROFIT$)

Beatrice Nolan
Tue, April 15, 2025 
FORTUNE

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the witness stand on Monday amid a landmark antitrust trial against the company.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg once floated the idea of wiping users’ Facebook friends to boost the platform's relevance. The email was revealed as part of the FTC's landmark antitrust case against Meta. The FTC is seeking to unwind Meta’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp, but the company maintains it does not hold a monopoly power in a highly competitive and rapidly evolving digital marketplace.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the witness stand on Monday amid a landmark antitrust trial against the company.

Various emails from Zuckerberg's past communication were introduced as evidence, including one from 2022, when the Meta boss proposed a “crazy” strategy to boost Facebook's waning cultural relevance: deleting all users' friend networks.

"Option 1. Double down on Friending," Zuckerberg wrote in a 2022 message to senior Meta executives. "One potentially crazy idea is to consider wiping everyone's graphs and having them start again."

The message, suggested in response to growing concerns about Facebook’s weakening relevance, suggested that the company could revitalize user engagement by eliminating existing friend connections and encouraging users to rebuild their networks from scratch.

The proposal was met with skepticism from some within the company. Tom Alison, the head of Facebook at the time, cautioned that such a move could undermine critical platform functionality, particularly on Instagram.

He responded to the Meta boss, writing, "I'm not sure Option #1 in your proposal (Double-down on Friending) would be viable given my understanding of how vital the friend use case is to IG."

Zuckerberg pressed the idea further, however, questioning whether a shift from a friend-based model to a follower-based model might be feasible.

Though the proposal was never actually implemented, as Zuckerberg noted in court on Monday, the email reveals how concerned Meta was with remaining competitive in a rapidly evolving digital landscape.
Meta's antitrust trial

A separate internal email, written by the Meta CEO in 2008, is at the heart of the FTC’s ongoing antitrust case against the platform. In it, he wrote, “It is better to buy than compete.”

The trial, which began Monday, is the result of a years-in-the-making case over Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp. The FTC's case alleges the company bought the rival platforms to squash competition and establish an illegal monopoly in the social media market. If Meta loses the case it could be forced to break off Instagram and WhatsApp.

Meta insists that the competitive landscape has shifted dramatically and that it now contends with a host of formidable rivals including TikTok, YouTube, iMessage, and more.

What Meta stands to lose if the FTC wins
Quartz

“The evidence at trial will show what every 17-year-old in the world knows: Instagram, Facebook and WhatsApp compete with Chinese-owned TikTok, YouTube, X, iMessage and many others. More than 10 years after the FTC reviewed and cleared our acquisitions, the Commission’s action in this case sends the message that no deal is ever truly final. Regulators should be supporting American innovation, rather than seeking to break up a great American company and further advantaging China on critical issues like AI,” the company said in a statement.

Experts say the FTC will face an uphill battle in proving its case, pointing to a recent court filing in which Meta emphasized that the FTC must demonstrate the company holds monopoly power in the current market—not based on conditions from years past. This requirement may be a hurdle for regulators, as the competitive landscape has evolved significantly since Meta acquired WhatsApp and Instagram with new powerful rivals like TikTok gaining ground.

The risks for Meta are still significant, as a forced divestiture of Instagram could slash its advertising revenues by as much as 50%.

Representatives for Meta did not immediately respond to a request for comment from Fortune, made outside normal working hours.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com

Mark Zuckerberg's messages to Sheryl Sandberg were displayed at Meta's antitrust trial

Brent D. Griffiths,

Natalie Musumeci
Tue, April 15, 2025 
BUSINESS INSIDER 

Mark Zuckerberg returned Tuesday for a second day of testimony in Meta's antitrust trial.

The Meta boss was grilled by the FTC about his company's 2012 purchase of Instagram.


The FTC claims Meta's acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp violated competition laws.

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was back in the hot seat on Tuesday in the social media empire's landmark antitrust trial.

While on the witness stand for a second day of testimony, the tech mogul faced intense grilling by a Federal Trade Commission lawyer over his company's 2012 purchase of Instagram for $1 billion.

The FTC argues in its case against Meta that the company "helped cement" an illegal monopoly in the social media market with its acquisitions of Instagram and the messaging app WhatsApp two years later.

Zuckerberg talked about the purchase of Instagram in a November 2012 message to Sheryl Sandberg, then the chief operating officer of Meta, which was then called Facebook.

In the same note, he offered to teach Sandberg how to play the board game Settlers of Catan, according to partially redacted messages revealed by the US government during Zuckerberg's testimony.

"We would love it. I want to learn Settlers of Catan too so we can play," Sandberg told Zuckerberg in the message.

He responded: "I can definitely teach you Settlers of Catan. It's very easy to learn."

A recently released memoir by the former Facebook executive Sarah Wynn-Williams says company employees let Zuckerberg win the popular board game in which players compete to build settlements and cities. An ex-employee has denied the account, saying Zuckerberg won by persuading the other players to gang up on him.

Zuckerberg once offered to teach Sheryl Sandberg how to play Settlers of Catan.Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images

Buying competitors

In his 2012 messages to Sandberg, Zuckerberg wrote that Facebook Messenger wasn't "beating" WhatsApp, adding, "Instagram was growing so much faster than us that we had to buy them for $1 billion."

Zuckerberg wrote: "That's not exactly killing it."

While under questioning on Tuesday in a Washington, DC, federal courtroom, the FTC's lead litigator, Daniel Matheson, posited to Zuckerberg that the "genuine reason" he bought Instagram was to be "disruptive."

"If you choose to buy something, you are inherently taking someone who would be a competitor off the market," Zuckerberg said. "It ended up being very valuable to bring them in."

Matheson then raised the idea that Zuckerberg could have developed his own alternative to Instagram to compete.

"We could have built our own app, but whether it would have succeeded or not would be speculation," Zuckerberg said. "We have probably tried building dozens of apps over the history of the company, and a majority of them don't go anywhere."

The US government called Zuckerberg as its first witness after the blockbuster trial opened Monday. It's expected to last up to eight weeks.

The FTC alleges that Meta's $1 billion acquisition of Instagram and its $19 billion acquisition of WhatsApp were intended to box out competition and dominate the social media sphere.

The government says these acquisitions were part of Meta's "buy or bury" strategy to maintain market dominance and stamp out competitive threats.

The FTC said in court papers that Meta had maintained its monopoly position "in significant part" by pursuing Zuckerberg's strategy outlined in an internal 2008 email in which the CEO wrote, "It is better to buy than compete."

Meta argues there's no monopoly and says the company faces massive competition from apps such as TikTok and YouTube — and is no longer just for social networking but part of a greater entertainment landscape with plenty of rivals.

The case, set to be decided by Judge James Boasberg, could be one of the most consequential antitrust trials in years. If FTC regulators have their way, Meta could be forced to sell off WhatsApp and Instagram.

Mark Zuckerberg once considered deleting all your Facebook friends

Sarah Perez
Tue, April 15, 2025 

TECH CRUNCH

Mark Zuckerberg, chief executive officer of Meta Platforms Inc., during the Meta Connect event in Menlo Park, California, US, on Wednesday, Sept. 25, 2024. Meta Platforms Inc. debuted its first pair of augmented reality glasses, devices that show a combined view of the digital and physical worlds, a key step in Chief Executive Officer Mark Zuckerberg's goal of one day offering a hands-free alternative to the smartphone. Photographer: David Paul Morris/Bloomberg via Getty ImagesMore


Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg once considered deleting everyone's Facebook friends in an effort to boost the social network's cultural relevance. This "potentially crazy idea," as the exec called it at the time, was revealed on Monday as a part of the evidence introduced during the first day of the U.S. government's antitrust trial against Meta.

In one message to Meta employees in 2022, Zuckerberg proposed the strategy of "wiping everyone's graphs and having them start again" as a possible solution to Facebook's declining significance in the social networking space. The idea was that forcing everyone to re-create their friend graphs could encourage users to reconnect with the social network as they rebuild their social connections.

Others at Meta, including the head of Facebook, Tom Alison, pushed back on the plan, and ultimately, the strategy was never implemented.

However, the evidence presented in the trial revealed that Zuckerberg had considered other strategies to maintain his company's relevance, including shifting Facebook from a friends-based model to a follower-based model. That also never came to be.

In recent weeks, Facebook has focused again on connecting friends, having revamped its Friends tab in an effort to return to an "OG Facebook." The new tab centralizes friend requests and only friends' content, including their posts, reels, stories, and birthdays.

“I think there are a lot of opportunities to make [Facebook] way more culturally influential than it is today,” Zuckerberg told investors during Meta's Q4 2024 earnings call about his key goals for the year ahead. “I think some of this will kind of get back to how Facebook was originally used back in the day.”

Mark Zuckerberg defends Meta’s social media acquisitions in first day of antitrust trial

Auzinea Bacon and Clare Duffy, 

CNN
Mon, April 14, 2025 



Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg attends Donald Trump's presidential inauguration ceremony in Washington, DC, on January 20, 2025. - Kenny Holston/Pool/Reuters



Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg took the witness stand Monday to defend his company against accusations by the Federal Trade Commission that it bought competing social media companies to dominate the market with a monopoly.

It was the first of what is expected to be two days of testimony for Zuckerberg, who will seek to explain two of his company’s most important acquisitions, Instagram and WhatsApp.

And although Zuckerberg is no stranger to defending his company, the stakes in this case may be higher than ever before. If the FTC wins, Meta could be forced to break itself apart and spin off WhatsApp and Instagram, which would upend the company’s core digital advertising business and reshape the broader social media ecosystem.

Meta relies on the 3.3 billion daily users it claims across its platforms as one of the core selling points of its ad business, which last year alone raked in more than $160 billion in revenue.

But the government argued repeatedly in opening statements that Meta’s large user base reflected not simple success, but a lack of choice, saying that “consumers do not have reasonable alternatives” to Meta’s platforms. Lawyers for Meta argued that its platforms have plenty of competition in the social media space and that regulators approved the purchases years ago when they were made.

The FTC, however, argued that the acquisitions were intended to prevent Meta from having to compete with nascent, would-be challengers by buying them instead. One email dating to 2011 from Zuckerberg to Facebook executives detailed the company’s reasoning for buying Instagram, relating to the company’s stalled efforts to develop an app called Facebook Camera.

“in the time it has taken us to get our act together on this, Instagram has become a large and viable competitor to us on mobile photos, which will increasingly be the future of photos,” Zuckerberg wrote at the time. The company ended up acquiring Instagram in April 2012.

The FTC questioned Zuckerberg about the transformation of Facebook from a platform designed to facilitate connections between friends and family to one focused more on showing users interesting third-party content, including the launch of features like the news feed and groups.

“It’s the case that over time, the ‘interest’ part of that has gotten built out more than the ‘friend’ part,” Zuckerberg said. “(Users are) connected to a lot more groups and other kinds of things. The ‘friend’ part has gone down quite a bit, but it’s still something we care about.”

A large portion of Zuckerberg’s testimony, however, focused on the messaging features built into many of Meta’s platforms, from Facebook to Instagram to WhatsApp, which could be key to how the FTC defines the “market” Meta dominates with its platforms.

Zuckerberg said that messaging is “symbiotic” to Facebook’s larger offerings, as it allows users to share content they find with friends, after the FTC attorney asked if Zuckerberg considered messaging to be a “complement” to the platform’s core services.

Separately, Zuckerberg conceded that in one 2022 email exchange with Chief Product Officer Chris Cox and Facebook President Tom Alison, he was, as FTC attorney Daniel Matheson put it, “discussing strategies that Meta might employ to ensure there’s a vision for Facebook in light of concern for cultural relevance,” — a reference to Facebook’s declining popularity compared to Instagram and third-party platforms like TikTok.

“That’s generally a good summary,” Zuckerberg said.

–This story has been updated with additional details and context.

For more CNN news and newsletters create an account at CNN.com


Meta Antitrust Trial Begins That Could Force Instagram Sale

Andrew Kessel
Mon, April 14, 2025 

INVESTOPEDIA


picture alliance / Contributor / Getty Images


Key Takeaways

Meta went to court Monday against the Federal Trade Commission in a landmark antitrust case.


If the trial ends in the FTC’s favor, Meta could be forced to sells apps such as Instagram and WhatsApp.


Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg has reportedly sought help from the Trump administration in resolving the case.


Meta (META) went to court Monday against the Federal Trade Commission in a landmark antitrust case that could force the social media titan to sell off Instagram or WhatsApp.

The FTC’s complaint, originally filed in 2021, alleges Meta engaged in an “illegal buy-or-bury scheme to maintain its dominance” and “acquired innovative competitors with popular mobile features that succeeded where Facebook’s own offerings fell flat or fell apart.”

If the trial ends in the FTC’s favor, Meta could be forced to break up its social media holdings by selling off apps such as Instagram or the social messaging platform WhatsApp.

Meta CEO Zuckerberg Seeks Trump Administration's Help To Resolve Case

The trial comes a couple weeks after Zuckerberg reportedly visited the White House to seek President Donald Trump's help to resolve the FTC case, according to reporting from the New York Times.

The Meta CEO has also looked to the administration for help in fighting against looming fines from the European Commission, according to reports.

In a statement over the weekend, Meta Chief Legal Officer Jennifer Newstead said, "it’s absurd that the FTC is trying to break up a great American company at the same time the Administration is trying to save Chinese-owned TikTok."

Shares of Meta slid about 2% in recent trading Monday. The stock is down 9% so far in 2025.

Mark Zuckerberg’s showdown with the FTC is massive for Meta—and even bigger for tech overall

Allie Garfinkle
Tue, April 15, 2025 

FORTUNE


Suited in variations of blue, Mark Zuckerberg took the stand Monday to defend his company’s past—and fight for its future.

The CEO of Meta, Zuckerberg has helmed the company that began as Facebook for more than 20 years. Over the last decade, he’s had to defend his business in Washington, D.C. plenty of times before, from the 2018 Cambridge Analytica hearings to the 2021 Congressional hearings focused on disinformation.

But arguably, these are the highest stakes Zuckerberg has faced so far, because what’s on trial is fundamental: The composition of his sprawling, $1.35 trillion market cap business.

The FTC has sued Meta, arguing that the social media giant’s acquisitions of Instagram and WhatsApp more than a decade ago were anti-competitive tactics to eliminate rivals. If Meta loses the case, it could be forced to divest the two apps. The case, which has its roots in the first Trump administration and was carried on by Biden FTC Chair Lina Khan, has travelled a long and winding docket (it was initially dismissed and then refiled) to finally make it to trial—with Zuckerberg as the first witness.

While FTC lawyer Daniel Matheson argued that “consumers do not have reasonable alternatives” to Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp, Zuckerberg made the case that Meta’s market is far bigger (and more competitive) than the government suggests. On the stand, Zuckerberg dismissed the idea that Facebook was centered on friends, and said that the company had become “more of a broad discovery and entertainment space.”

This case, of course, is far bigger than Meta. On some level, it’s existential for the tech landscape as a whole—at least, when it comes to how the industry currently operates. Whether or not the FTC’s claims about Meta’s anticompetitive motives are correct, the underlying business practice—a tech giant swallowing up an innovative startup—is the way the tech ecosystem has been structured to function, and to reward its various participants, over the past several decades.

For startups, especially those with limited IPO prospects, dreams of a Big Tech exit have been dim for the last several years—and under the Trump administration, investors and entrepreneurs have been eagerly waiting for M&A to roar back to life.

There is some evidence that has been happening—take, for example, Google’s blowout acquisition of Wiz for $32 billion, announced in March and the largest deal in the search giant’s history. And some in Meta’s camp are no doubt holding out hope that Trump will step in and pressure the FTC to settle the case with Zuckerberg (Meta has certainly been lobbying the President).

But the reality is this: If Meta loses this trial, the Big Tech dealmaking that was beginning to thaw is very likely to freeze back over, affecting the whole ecosystem. For startups, the hopes of exiting to a tech giant will appear grimmer, and liquidity-starved VCs will continue to see exits stall while LPs grow increasingly impatient for returns.

Again, none of this is to excuse or condone the monopolistic market concentration that may have been created over time. But given the incentives that are currently built into tech, it does remain natural for giants to look for innovation by acquiring startups.

Zuckerberg is expected to take the stand again on Tuesday, and when he does, he won’t just be making the case for his company. He’ll be making the case for Big Tech M&A being allowed to return to its longstanding modus operandi—for better, or for worse.

Freeze...The Trump administration said yesterday that it's frozen about $2.2 billion in federal funds for Harvard, amid a standoff over demands sent by the government last week. Harvard is the latest prestigious university caught in a crossfire with the Trump administration. These showdowns could create pressure on endowments, traditional limited partners of VC firms.

ICYMI...I recently profiled Conviction founder Sarah Guo. We talked about what it was like to grow up in a startup office, and why prior assumptions don't hold in the age of AI. Read the story here.

See you tomorrow,

Allie Garfinkle
X: @agarfinks
Email: alexandra.garfinkle@fortune.com

BIG 💓💓💓LOVE

Newsom launches tourism campaign to bring Canadians back to California

Clara Harter
Tue, April 15, 2025

Gov. Gavin Newsom speaks during a news conference in Los Angeles 

 (Eric Thayer / Associated Press)


Gov. Gavin Newsom unveiled a tourism campaign on Monday urging Canadians to "come experience our California Love" after seeing a dip in in visits from the United State's northern neighbors who say they've been alienated by President Trump's policies.

In a video posted on social media, Newsom focuses on the allure of the Golden State while distancing it from Trump's administration.

"Sure, you-know-who is trying to stir things up back in D.C., but don't let that ruin your beach plans," Newsom says, as images of the Golden Gate Bridge and a woman flying a kite on a beach appeared on the video.

"California is the ultimate playground — over 2,000 miles from Washington and a world away in mindset, from our iconic beaches and national parks to world-class wine, food, and outdoor adventure — there's something here for everyone," he adds.

Canadian tourism in California was down 12% in February compared to the same month in 2024, the first decline since the pandemic, according to the governor's office. Many Canadians are citing concerns about Trump's policies as their reason for nixing trips.

Read more: Canadian snowbirds love Palm Springs. But Trump is making them say: Sorry! We're leaving

Trump has mocked Canada, referring to it as America's "51st state," and has threatened to use "economic force" to annex the country of 40 million people. Trump this month also began levying a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, generating further resentment.

Travelers have also been alarmed by Canadian advisories warning citizens that they should "expect scrutiny" at the U.S. border.

Many Canadians have already made their displeasure with Trump's economic and immigration policies clear.

Canadian fans have been booing "The Star-Spangled Banner" before hockey and baseball games. Retailers have been removing American goods from store shelves, as officials push residents to "buy Canadian."

Newsom is trying to ease their fears while emphasizing that California will continue to welcome them with open arms.

"Here in California we have plenty of sunshine and a whole lot of love for our neighbors up north," Newsom says in the video.

In 2024, around 1.8 million Canadians visited the Golden State and spent roughly $3.72 billion, according to the governor's office.

Read more: Bucking Trump tariffs, California will push to maintain global trade independently, Newsom says

Visit California, the nonprofit organization dedicated to promoting tourism, predicts that the state will see an overall $6-billion decline in tourism revenue this year largely due to a decrease in international visitors, including Canadians.

One of the hardest hit places is the Coachella Valley, where snowbirds flock every winter, funneling millions into the local economy.

The city of Palm Springs recently hung banners proclaiming "Palm Springs ♥ Canada" to welcome and encourage visitors. Canada is the top international travel source for the city, Palm Springs Mayor Ron deHarte told The Times this month.

"California and Canada share so much in common," Caroline Beteta, chief executive of Visit California, said in a statement. "Our inclusive values, love of natural beauty and passion for innovation bind us, and we look forward to welcoming you back with the same community spirit you’ve always shown us."

Newsom has also been working to strengthen economic and political ties between California and Canada.

On Monday, he met with British Columbia Premier David Eby to discuss collaboration opportunities in the lumber industry, national transportation corridors and affordable housing projects, according to his office.

Times staff writer Hailey Branson-Potts contributed to this report.

Why Harvard is standing its ground against Trump

Jasper Goodman
Tue, April 15, 2025

POLITICO




The oldest and wealthiest university in America — long a training ground for cultural elites — is quickly becoming a face of the resistance to President Donald Trump.

Harvard University vowed this week to fight a wide-ranging set of demands from the Trump administration, pitting the biggest name brand in American higher education against the White House and setting up a remarkable clash of power that could wind up in court.

The fight is quickly escalating. Federal officials have frozen more than $2 billion in grants to the university after it refused to comply with policy changes requested by the Trump administration, including to crack down on student protests, change admissions and hiring practices and submit to government audits. Trump on Tuesday suggested on social media that Harvard could lose its tax-exempt status and instead “be Taxed as a Political Entity.”

Harvard, fueled by a massive endowment valued at more than $53 billion and a powerful alumni network, is now uniquely positioned to become the most prominent U.S. institution yet to actively fight Trump’s efforts to bend elements of American civil society to his will.

“Harvard — by virtue of its resources, its history and its commitment to free speech — is in a position to defend itself,” said Steven Hyman, who previously served as Harvard’s provost, the top academic officer at the school.

While the clash has been brewing for months as the Trump administration targeted other elite schools, this week represents a remarkable inflection point in Trump’s campaign to target institutions his administration sees as hostile — and in the 388-year-old history of America’s wealthiest university.

“Politicians have traditionally, bottom line, been proud of the fact that American higher education was the envy of the world,” said Thomas Parker, a Harvard alum who is a senior associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a Washington-based advocacy organization. “It is unprecedented for the view to be the opposite.


The blitz against the country’s top universities is being led by some of the most powerful people in the West Wing, including Stephen Miller, Trump’s top policy adviser; Vince Haley, director of the Domestic Policy Council; and May Mailman, a senior policy strategist and graduate of Harvard Law School.

Harvard now must decide whether to negotiate with the Trump administration or fight back in court. The university is being represented by two lawyers with significant street credibility on the right: William A. Burck, who has represented many Trump allies in legal disputes, and Robert Hur, a Harvard alum who authored a report on former President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents that conservatives cited as evidence of his mental decline during the 2024 campaign.

The clash is putting a spotlight on Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, who was thrust into the school’s top job last year after his predecessor, Claudine Gay, resigned amid a plagiarism scandal and concerns about her handling of campus antisemitism.

A 69-year-old lifelong academic with degrees in both economics and medicine and a reserved demeanor, Garber is hardly a natural fit to become a resistance leader. But his response to Trump this week is being hailed by Democrats and many on Harvard’s campus as an example of how to fight the president’s aggression.

Garber wrote in a statement Monday that the Trump administration’s demands to the school violate “Harvard’s First Amendment rights and [exceed] the statutory limits of 

“No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” he wrote.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that Harvard “has not taken the administration’s demand seriously.”

“All the president is asking is, don’t break federal law, and then you can have your federal funding,” she said. Leavitt added that Trump “wants to see Harvard apologize” for “the egregious antisemitism that took place on their college campus against Jewish American students.”

Many on the left now hope Harvard’s resistance will spur a new wave of pushback from institutions the administration is seeking changes from. But the funding freeze could create significant issues for the university, even despite its wealth — and it’s unclear if others will follow suit.

“Historically, universities in general have been pretty good at fending off government intervention,” Parker said. “What I’ve been asking myself lately is, Harvard has made this historically important and grand gesture — but where’s everybody else? Where’s the coalition?”

Irie Sentner contributed to this report.

Harvard sees $2.2 billion in grants frozen after telling Trump to back off

John L. Dorman,Kelsey Vlamis

INSIDER
Mon, April 14, 2025 



Harvard rejected the Trump administration's demands to change myriad policies.


The administration responded by freezing $2.2 billion in grants to the university.


The administration has sought to exercise greater control of affairs at several elite universities.

President Donald Trump's administration said it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard University on Monday after the school rejected a series of demands to change its policies or risk losing its federal funding.

"No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue," university president Alan M. Garber wrote in a letter on Monday.

"These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate," he continued. "The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community."

Later on Monday, the Trump administration said in a statement it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts.

"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," said the joint statement, which was issued by the General Services Administration, the Department of Education, and Health and Human Services.

The Trump administration has demanded Harvard cut its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and make changes to certain programs that his administration feels have fueled "antisemitic harassment."

"Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration," lawyers for Harvard wrote in a letter to administration officials.

The Trump administration announced in March that it was reviewing approximately $9 billion in federal grants and contracts given to Harvard as part of its investigation into how institutions have tackled antisemitism.

The administration also asked Harvard to make changes to its admissions process and work with immigration officials.

The move by Harvard makes it the first university to fight back against the Trump administration over funding threats.


Harvard's decision comes after Columbia University, another Ivy League institution, recently agreed to meet a series of demands in order to obtain $400 million in restored federal grant and contract funding that the administration canceled last month.

Columbia announced that it had agreed to bring onboard nearly 40 "special officers" who would have the power to remove individuals from its campus or arrest them, if needed. It also agreed to ban face masks on campus for the intent of withholding identification, although exceptions are carved out for religious or health reasons. And it agreed to tap a new senior vice provost to oversee the university's Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies.

A week after agreeing to Trump's demands, the interim head of Columbia resigned.

Business Insider




Trump administration freezes $2B in Harvard funding after university refuses to comply

Irene Rotondo | IRotondo@masslive.com
Tue, April 15, 2025 


The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in funding to Harvard University after the school refused to comply with its demands for a major overhaul.

On Monday, Harvard President Alan M. Garber sent a letter to the school community addressing the list of demands made the first week of April. The government said it would cut nearly $9 billion in Harvard funding and grants if the school did not comply with changes to its leadership structure, admissions and hiring.

Garber said the administration’s demands go ”beyond the power of the federal government,” violate Harvard’s First Amendment rights and are over “the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI.”

“... It threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production and dissemination of knowledge. No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber’s letter read.

Hours after a formal rejection was sent from Harvard’s attorneys, the government’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism released a statement.

“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 on the U.S. Department of Education website read.

The statement announced a freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60M in multi-year contract value to Harvard University.

“The disruption of learning that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support,” the statement read.

Harvard was the first school to push back against he government’s efforts to restructure top schools in the country.

The Trump administration has also threatened to pull funding from Columbia University, Brown University, Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania.

Columbia agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration after facing an ultimatum to abide by the requirements or jeopardize federal funding. The decision was met with outrage from community members and the higher education community despite it placing Columbia “on the right track” toward recovering the funding, according to The Associated Press.

The threatened funding also comes after a series of arrests by ICE, including Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk who was arrested by six masked federal immigration agents in Somerville on March 25, in apparent retaliation to an op-ed article she co-authored in the school’s newspaper last year.  schools boss defies Trump DEI edict: State will ‘continue to promote diversity’

Trump administration freezes $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard over campus activism

MICHAEL CASEY

 Associated Press
Mon, April 14, 2025 at 8:30 PM MDT



The federal government says it’s freezing more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard University, after the institution said it would defy the Trump administration’s demands to limit activism on campus.

In a letter to Harvard Friday, President Donald Trump’s administration had called for broad government and leadership reforms at the university, as well as changes to its admissions policies. It also demanded the university audit views of diversity on campus, and stop recognizing some student clubs.

The federal government said almost $9 billion in grants and contracts in total were at risk if Harvard did not comply.

On Monday, Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands.

“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said in a letter to the Harvard community. “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”

Hours later, the government froze billions in Harvard’s federal funding — marking the seventh time the Trump administration has taken the step at one of the nation’s most elite colleges. Six of the seven are in the Ivy League.

The first university targeted by the Trump administration was Columbia, which acquiesced to the government’s demands under the threat of billions of dollars in cuts. In an attempt to force compliance with its agenda, the administration also has paused federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern.

Trump’s administration has normalized the extraordinary step of withholding federal money to pressure major academic institutions to comply with the president’s political agenda and to influence campus policy. The administration has argued universities allowed antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests last year against Israel’s war in Gaza.

Harvard, Garber said, already has made extensive reforms to address antisemitism. He said many of the government’s demands don’t relate to antisemitism, but instead are an attempt to regulate the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.

Withholding federal funding from Harvard, one of the nation’s top research universities in science and medicine, “risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.” It also violates the university’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the government’s authority under Title VI, which prohibits discrimination against students based on their race, color or national origin, Garber said.

The government’s demands included that Harvard institute what it called “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies and conduct an audit of the study body, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity. The administration also called for a ban on face masks at Harvard — an apparent target of pro-Palestinian campus protesters — and pressured the university to stop recognizing or funding “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment.”

Harvard’s defiance, the federal antisemitism task force said Monday, “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 

“The disruption of learning that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable.”

Trump has promised a more aggressive approach against antisemitism on campus, accusing former President Joe Biden of letting schools off the hook. It has opened new investigations at colleges and detained and deported several foreign students with ties to pro-Palestinian protests.

The demands from the Trump administration had prompted a group of Harvard alumni to write to university leaders calling for it to “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.”

“Harvard stood up today for the integrity, values, and freedoms that serve as the foundation of higher education,” said Anurima Bhargava, one of the alumni behind the letter. “Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation and transformative growth will not yield to bullying and authoritarian whims.”

The government’s pressure on Harvard also sparked a protest over the weekend from the campus community and residents of Cambridge and a lawsuit from the American Association of University Professors on Friday challenging the cuts.

In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration has failed to follow steps required under Title VI before it starts cutting funds, including giving notice of the cuts to both the university and Congress.

Harvard’s defiance of Trump’s ‘authoritarian incursion’ supported by 60 past and present college and university presidents

FORTUNE
Tue, April 15, 2025 


Alan Garber, president of Harvard University.


The Trump administration has recently escalated its destructive and illegal attacks on the core freedoms of American colleges and universities, which we have called on it to halt (Fortune, April 8). The demands issued to Harvard University (in an April 11 letter), followed by the freezing of $2.2 billion of federal research funds along with threats to Harvard's tax-exempt status, violate no less than the freedom of all colleges and universities to admit students, hire faculty, and govern themselves consistently with the law, the First Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and long-standing principles of academic freedom. As current and former presidents of academic institutions, we strongly support Harvard’s President Alan Garber, who has rejected the demands on these grounds while the Trump administration threatens to demand control of numerous other schools. Just over three miles from Harvard Square is the Boston Tea Party site where, in 1773, American patriots fought government tyranny.

When the Trump administration conditions federal grants and contracts to universities on these demands, it threatens all Americans. Higher education is the greatest source of U.S. global competitiveness, cultural enrichment, and learning. By partnering with the federal government for decades, American universities have made lifesaving discoveries and increased the prosperity, safety, security, and creativity of our country. When the Trump administration insists on anyone’s compliance with likely illegal and unconstitutional conditions, it is threatening everyone’s freedom from arbitrary rule. When it insists on controlling the admission of students, faculty hiring, and governance of a university, it is also threatening a prime source of the opportunity and economic prosperity of all Americans. We all know from Martin Neimoller’s haunting lament, this authoritarian incursion does not end with Harvard.

Authors:

Edward Ayers, University of Richmond (Virginia)

Lawrence Bacow, Tufts University (Massachusetts), Harvard University (Massachusetts)

Kimberly Benston, Haverford College (Pennsylvania)

Katherine Bergeron, Connecticut College (Connecticut)

Henry Bienen, Northwestern University (Illinois)

Lee Bollinger, Columbia University (New York), University of Michigan (Michigan)

Phil Boroughs, SJ, College of the Holy Cross (Massachusetts)

William Brody, Salk Institute, The Johns Hopkins University (Maryland)

Robert Brown, Boston University (Massachusetts)

Alison Byerly, Carleton College (Minnesota)

Albert Carnesale, University of California – Los Angeles (California)

Carol T. Christ, University of California – Berkeley (California)

Mary Sue Coleman, University of Michigan (Michigan), University of Iowa (Iowa)

Ron Crutcher, Wheaton College (Massachusetts)

Nicholas Dirks, University of California – Berkeley (California)

Adam Falk, Williams College (Massachusetts)

Jonathan Fanton, The New School (New York)

Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University (Massachusetts)

Wayne A. I. Frederick, Howard University (Washington DC)

Stephen Friedman, Pace University (New York)

Amy Gutmann, University of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)

Phil Hanlon, Dartmouth College (New Hampshire)

Robert Head, Rockford University (Illinois)

Mark A. Heckler, Valparaiso University (Indiana)

John Hennessy, Stanford University (California)

Catharine Bond Hill, Vassar College (New York)

Jonathan Holloway, Rutgers University (New Jersey)

Freeman Hrabowski, The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (Maryland)

Nan Keohane, Duke University (North Carolina), Wellesley College (Massachusetts)

Brit Kirwan, University System of Maryland (Maryland)

Bernie Machen, University of Florida (Florida)

Gail Mellow, LaGuardia Community College – City University of New York (New York)

Pat McGuire, Trinity Washington University (Washington DC)

Anthony Monaco, Tufts University (Massachusetts)

Richard Morrill, Centre College (Kentucky)

M. Duane Nellis, Ohio University (Ohio), Texas Tech University (Texas), University of Idaho (Idaho)

Lynn Pasquerella, Mount Holyoke College (Massachusetts)

Laurie Patton, Middlebury College (Vermont)

Susan Poser, Hofstra University (New York)

Steven Poskanzer, Carleton College (Minnesota)

Gregory Prince, Hampshire College (Massachusetts)

Stuart Rabinowitz, Hofstra University (New York)

L. Rafael Reif, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Massachusetts)

Kevin Reilly, University of Wisconsin (Wisconsin)

L. Song Richardson, Colorado College (Colorado)

Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan University (Connecticut)

George Rupp, Rice University (Texas), Columbia University (New York)

Leonard A. Schlesinger, Babson College (Massachusetts)

Mark Schlissel, University of Michigan (Michigan)

Jake Schrum, Emory & Henry College (Virginia), Southwestern University (Texas), Texas Wesleyan University (Texas)

Allen Sessoms, Queens College, City University of New York (New York), Delaware State University (Delaware), University of the District of Columbia (Washington DC)

Donna Shalala, University of Miami (Florida), University of Wisconsin-Madison (Wisconsin), Hunter College of the City University of New York (New York)

Robert Sternberg, University of Wyoming (Wyoming)

Teresa Sullivan, University of Virginia (Virginia)

Beverly Daniel Tatum, Spelman College (Georgia)

Lara Tiedens, Scripps College (California)

Steve Trachtenberg, George Washington University (Washington DC)

Laura Walker, Bennington College (Vermont)

Daniel H. Weiss, Haverford College (Pennsylvania), Lafayette College (Pennsylvania)

Julie Wollman, Widener University (Pennsylvania)

Meredith Woo, Sweet Briar College (Virginia)

Nicholas Zeppos, Vanderbilt University (Tennessee)

Institutional affiliations provided for identification only.

The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.

This story was originally featured on Fortune.com


Trump threatens Harvard’s tax status after freezing billions in funds

Mathias Hammer
Tue, April 15, 2025

 SEMAFOR

The News

US President Donald Trump threatened Harvard University’s tax-exempt status Tuesday, escalating the tensions between the administration and the country’s oldest university.

The threat to tax Harvard as if it were a political entity comes after the Ivy League school rejected administration demands for widespread changes to its policies, prompting Trump to freeze more than $2 billion in federal funding.

The Ivy League’s president suggested the demands — which include screening international students over antisemitism — were illegal and equated to government overreach. While Columbia University capitulated to President Donald Trump’s demands, Harvard’s defiance marks a major rebuke to his crackdown on higher education.

SIGNALS

Harvard could open door to more institutional opposition to TrumpSources: The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Harvard Crimson

Harvard’s opposition to Donald Trump could encourage more universities to stand up to the administration: “If Harvard had not taken this stand… it would have been nearly impossible for other institutions to do so,” the president of the American Council of Education told The New York Times. Still, the university has sought to minimize tensions with the administration: It has hired lawyers close to the White House, dismissed some faculty targeted by conservatives, and adopted an expansive definition of antisemitism. Harvard must consider whether cooperation is even rewarded, The Atlantic argued — Columbia’s funding remains frozen. For now, Harvard seems likely to sue the Trump administration, several law professors told The Harvard Crimson., setting up another contentious legal test of presidential authority.

Trump allies push to expand pressure campaign

Sources: The Economist, Christopher Rufo, The Wall Street Journal

The president’s most ardent supporters are eager for the administration to expand its pressure campaign on higher education, seeing the schools as hotbeds for leftwing radicalism that have fostered damaging ideas about race and gender, The Economist argued. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo said the showdown with Columbia University can serve as a “prototype” for how to weaken progressive influence in schools, showing universities are “vulnerable to financial pressure and fold easily.” “Cutting off the funding spigot is a nuclear-type weapon of enforcement,” one education lawyer told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s outside the legal system and is a remarkable exercise of executive authority.”

Law firms offer a ‘playbook’ for how to organizeSources: Politico, The New Yorker, The New York Times

U.S. judge presses Trump ad­min­is­tration on its refusal to return Kilmar Abrego Garcia

FELON POTUS CONTEMPTOUS OF COURT

Associated Press 

Maryland

Apr. 15, 2025

GREENBELT, Md. — A federal judge said Tuesday that she will order sworn testimony by Trump administration officials to determine if they complied with her orders to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to a notorious El Salvador prison.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis in Maryland issued her order after Trump officials continually refused to retrieve Abrego Garcia, saying they defied a “clear” Supreme Court order.

She also disregarded Monday's comments by White House officials and El Salvador's president that they were unable to bring back Abrego Garcia, describing their statements as “two very misguided ships passing in the night.”

What You Need To Know
A federal judge says she will order sworn testimony by Trump administration officials to determine if they complied with her orders to facilitate the return of Kilmar Abrego GarciaHe was mistakenly deported to a notorious El Salvador prison last monthThe U.S. Supreme Court ordered the Trump administration to return him. But the administration has so far refusedIt claims he's in the MS-13 gang. Abrego Garcia's attorneys deny the allegations and say he was never charged with a crimeThe president of El Salvador also said he would not return Abrego Garcia, likening it to smuggling “a terrorist into the United States”

“The Supreme Court has spoken,” Xinis said, adding that what was said in the Oval Office on Monday “is not before the court.”

In her written order published Tuesday evening, Xinis called for the testimony of four Trump administration officials who work for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, the Department of Homeland Security and the State Department.

She expects the process to last about two weeks. Xinis wrote that Trump administration officials “have done nothing at all” toward returning Abrego Garcia. But, she wrote, they “remain obligated, at a minimum, to take the steps available to them toward aiding, assisting, or making easier Abrego Garcia’s release.”

The hearing came a day after White House advisers repeated the claim that they lack the authority to bring back the Salvadoran national from his native country. The president of El Salvador also said Monday that he would not return Abrego Garcia, likening it to smuggling “a terrorist into the United States.”

Abrego Garcia’s deportation has become a national flashpoint as President Donald Trump follows up on campaign promises of mass deportations, including to a notorious prison in El Salvador.

An attorney for Abrego Garcia said contempt proceedings could be the logical next step after two weeks of discovery. “This is still a win, and this is still progress," Rina Ghandi said. “We’re not done yet, though.”

Abrego Garcia's wife, Jennifer Vasquez Sura, said shortly before Tuesday's hearing that he was working hard to achieve the American dream for his family.

“That dream was shattered on March 12th when he was abducted and disappeared by the United States government in front of our 5-year-old-child,” she said. “Today is 34 days after his disappearance ... I will not stop fighting until I see my husband alive.”

Meanwhile, Democratic U.S. Sen. Chris Van Hollen of Maryland said he'll travel to El Salvador on Wednesday.

“My hope is to visit Kilmar and check on his wellbeing and to hold constructive conversations with government officials around his release,” Van Hollen said.

Abrego Garcia, 29, lived in the U.S. for roughly 14 years, during which he worked construction, got married and was raising three children with disabilities, according to court records.

A U.S. immigration judge had shielded Abrego Garcia from deportation to El Salvador in 2019, ruling that he would likely face persecution there by local gangs that had terrorized his family. He also was given a federal permit to work in the United States, where he was a metal worker and union member, according to Abrego Garcia’s lawyers.

But the Trump administration expelled Abrego Garcia to El Salvador last month anyway. Administration officials later described the mistake as “an administrative error” but insisted that Abrego Garcia was a member of the MS-13 in the U.S.

Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime and has denied the allegations, which include being a member of MS-13 in Long Island, New York, where he has never lived.

U.S. District Judge Paula Xinis had ordered the Trump administration in early April to bring Abrego Garcia back. And the U.S. Supreme Court agreed on Thursday that the U.S. government must “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s release.

But the White House has balked at trying to broker his return, arguing the courts can’t intrude on the president’s diplomacy powers.

Xinis ordered the U.S. on Friday to provide daily status updates on plans to return Abrego Garcia. The Trump administration responded Saturday that he was alive in the El Salvador prison. But it has only doubled down on its decision not to tell a federal court whether it has any plans to repatriate Abrego Garcia.

In its filing to the judge on Monday, the Trump administration repeated the statement made by El Salvador President Nayib Bukele.

“How can I smuggle a terrorist into the United States? Of course I'm not going to do it. The question is preposterous,” Bukele said.

In a filing with the U.S. District Court on Tuesday, Abrego Garcia's lawyers cited Thursday's order from the Supreme Court to facilitate his return.

“To give any meaning to the Supreme Court’s order, the Government should at least be required to request the release of Abrego Garcia,” the attorneys wrote. “To date, the Government has not done so.”

The attorneys also rejected the idea that the U.S. lacks the authority to retrieve him. They noted that the U.S. is paying El Salvador to hold prisoners, including Abrego Garcia, and “can exercise those same contractual rights to request their release.”

Bukele struck a deal under which the U.S. will pay about $6 million for El Salvador to imprison Venezuelan immigrants for a year. Trump has said openly that he would also favor El Salvador taking custody of American citizens who have committed violent crimes, which is likely illegal.

POSTMODERN GESTAPO

US Visa can­cel­la­tions sow panic for

 in­ter­na­tional students, with hundreds fearing de­por­tation

In this image taken from security camera video, Rumeysa Ozturk, a 30-year-old doctoral student at Tufts University, is detained by Department of Homeland Security agents on a street in Sommerville, Mass., Tuesday, March 26, 2025. (AP Photo)

BY Associated Press 

Washington, D.C.
 Apr. 15, 2025


WASHINGTON — At first, the bar association for immigration attorneys began receiving inquiries from a couple students a day. These were foreigners studying in the U.S., and they'd discovered in early April their legal status had been terminated with little notice. To their knowledge, none of the students had committed a deportable offense.

In recent days, the calls have begun flooding in. Hundreds of students have been calling to say they have lost legal status, seeking advice on what to do next.

“We thought it was going to be something that was unusual,” said Matthew Maiona, a Boston-based immigration attorney who is getting about six calls a day from panicked international students. “But it seems now like it’s coming pretty fast and furious.”

What You Need To Know
The speed and scope of the federal government’s efforts to terminate the legal status of international students have stunned colleges and universities across the countryFew corners of higher education have been untouched, as schools ranging from prestigious private universities, large public research institutions and tiny liberal arts colleges discover status terminations one after another among their student bodyAt least 600 students at more than 90 colleges and universities have had their visas revoked or their legal status terminated in recent weeks, according to an Associated Press review of university statements and correspondence with school officials

The speed and scope of the federal government's efforts to terminate the legal status of international students have stunned colleges across the country. Few corners of higher education have been untouched, as schools ranging from prestigious private universities, large public research institutions and tiny liberal arts colleges discover status terminations one after another among their students.

At least 600 students at more than 90 colleges and universities have had their visas revoked or their legal status terminated in recent weeks, according to an Associated Press review of university statements and correspondence with school officials. Advocacy groups collecting reports from colleges say hundreds more students could be caught up in the crackdown.
Students apparently targeted over minor infractions

Around 1.1 million international students were in the United States last year — a source of essential revenue for tuition-driven colleges. International students are not eligible for federal financial aid, and their ability to pay tuition often factors into whether they will be admitted to American schools. Often, they pay full price.

Many of the students losing their legal status are from India and China, which together account for more than half the international students at American colleges. But the terminations have not been limited to those from any one part of the world, lawyers said.

Four students from two Michigan universities are suing Trump administration officials after their F-1 student status was terminated last week. Their attorney with the American Civil Liberties Union, Ramis Wadood, said the students never received a clear reason why.

“We don’t know, and that’s the scary part,” he said.

The students were informed of the terminations by their universities via email, which came as a shock, Wadood said. The reason given was that there was a “criminal records check and/or that their visa was revoked,” Wadood said, but none of them were charged or convicted of crimes. Some had either speeding or parking tickets, but one didn’t have any, he said. Only one of the students had known their entry visa was revoked, Wadood said.

Students have filed similar lawsuits in several other states, arguing they were denied due process.

In New Hampshire, a federal judge last week granted a temporary restraining order to restore the status of a Ph.D. student at Dartmouth College, Xiaotian Liu, while he challenges the revocation of his visa.
In a break from past, feds cancel students' status directly

At many colleges, officials learned the legal immigration status of some international students had been terminated when staff checked a database managed by the Department of Homeland Security. In the past, college officials say, legal statuses typically were updated after colleges told the government the students were no longer studying at the school.

The system to track enrollment and movements of international students came under the control of Immigration and Customs Enforcement after 9/11, said Fanta Aw, CEO of NAFSA, an association of international educators. She said recent developments have left students fearful of how quickly they can be on the wrong side of enforcement.

“You don’t need more than a small number to create fear,” Aw said. “There’s no clarity of what are the reasons and how far the reach of this is.”

Her group says as many as 1,300 students have lost visas or had their status terminated, based on reports from colleges.

The Department of Homeland Security and State Department did not respond to messages seeking comment.

Foreigners who are subject to removal proceedings are usually sent a notice to appear in immigration court on a certain date, but lawyers say affected students have not received any notices, leaving them unsure of next steps to take.

Some schools have told students to leave the country to avoid the risk of being detained or deported. But some students have appealed the terminations and stayed in the United States while those are processed.

Still others caught in legal limbo aren't students at all. They had remained in the U.S. post-graduation on “optional practical training,” a one-year period — or up to three for science and technology graduates — that allows employment in the U.S. after completing an academic degree. During that time, a graduate works in their field and waits to receive their H-1B or other employment visas if they wish to keep working in the U.S.

Around 242,000 foreigners in the U.S. are employed through this “optional practical training.” About 500,000 are pursuing graduate degrees, and another 342,000 are undergraduate students.

Among the students who have filed lawsuits is a Georgia Tech Ph.D. student who is supposed to graduate on May 5, with a job offer to join the faculty. His attorney Charles Kuck said the student was likely targeted for termination because of an unpaid traffic fine from when the student lent his car to a friend. Ultimately, the violation was dismissed.

“We have case after case after case exactly like that, where there is no underlying crime,” said Kuck, who is representing 17 students in the federal lawsuit. He said his law firm has heard from hundreds of students.

“These are kids who now, under the Trump administration, realize their position is fragile,” he said. “They’ve preyed on a very vulnerable population. These kids aren’t hiding. They’re in school.”

Some international students have been adapting their daily routines.

A Ph.D. student from China at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill said she has begun carrying around her passport and immigration paperwork at the advice of the university’s international student office. The student, who spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of being targeted by authorities, said she has been distressed to see the terminations even for students like her without criminal records.

“That is the most scary part because you don’t know whether you’re going to be the next person,” she said.

Trump tariffs unnerve locals in Irish ‘pharma’ hub


By AFP
April 11, 2025


Locals in Ringaskiddy, Ireland, where pharmaceutical giants like Johnson & Johnson have transformed the economy, worry the good times could end under Trump's tariff war - Copyright AFP/File Arun SANKAR

Peter MURPHY

Vast pharmaceutical factories pepper the green landscape in southern Ireland, but the wind turbines next to the plants outside Cork are in the eye of Donald Trump’s global trade storm.

The area around the village of Ringaskiddy and its port in Cork harbour has emerged in recent decades as a base for US pharma giants where products such as Pfizer’s Viagra pills are made and shipped off to the United States and worldwide.

Pharmaceuticals are now the motor of Ireland’s economy, accounting for around 100 billion euros ($114 billion) in 2024, almost half of all Irish exports, and up around 30 percent from the previous year.

The sector also provides an estimated 20,000 well-paid jobs in County Cork, most of them around Ringaskiddy and the neighbouring commuter town of Carrigaline, and flushes a corporate tax bounty into the Irish exchequer.

But local people are sweating that the good times could end as Ireland has found itself in the crosshairs of the US president’s tariff war.

Trump has warned repeatedly that pharmaceuticals are in his sights and that special tariffs for the sector are imminent.

Drug manufacturing “is in other countries, largely made in China, a lot of it made in Ireland… Ireland was very smart. We love Ireland. but we’re going to have that,” he said last month.

This week, Trump trained his eye on China and announced a 90-day tariff pause for the rest of the world, just hours after he said the pharma companies are “going to come back” to the United States due to tariffs, fuelling panicked uncertainty about the future in Cork.

“There’s a lot of stress out there,” Audrey Buckley, a councillor in Ringaskiddy, told AFP overlooking a construction site where a new motorway will connect the factories to the port.

“Parents are saying to me, ‘Oh my God, should my daughter buy her first home, she’s in the process of going through a mortgage. Will she have a job in a year’s time?'”

Buckley remembers “the excitement” when Pfizer first appeared in the 1970s, kickstarting the area’s development.

She finished school in the 1980s, a decade marked by economic depression and high unemployment in Ireland, when many young people were forced to emigrate to find work.

“Now many of us are thinking like, will our own children have to emigrate again?” she said.



– ‘Doom and gloom’ –



At Ringaskiddy’s village bar “The Ferry Boat Inn” — dubbed by locals “the FBI” — daily chatter among customers gravitates toward Trump’s latest manoeuvres, according to bartender Kelly Davis.

“If everything was to be uprooted and brought back to America it would send shockwaves through the village,” the 39-year-old told AFP between pulling pints of Cork’s locally made Murphy’s stout.

On her way home after work, Shirin Banjwani, an analytics developer at one of the US-owned plants, admitted to AFP near Ringaskiddy port that she was “worried” about losing her job.

But the 29-year-old, originally from India, who works for Thermo Fisher Scientific, said the size of the plants means it would “take like five to six years” for them to shift to the United States if it happens.

“If Trump is planning to do that, it will take a lot of time,” she said.

Six kilometres (3.7 miles) up the road, the population of Carrigaline has soared in line with employment growth at the factories over the decades.

New residential developments have mushroomed around the town, its population doubling to 20,000 in two decades, up from 1,000 in the early 1970s.

“This town used to be a village. Once the pharmaceuticals came, it changed everything. It has boomed,” said Betty O’Riordan, a “Tidy Towns” group volunteer painting a park bench.

“A trade war will affect everybody, all those people with mortgages and high-purchase cars, where are they going to go?” the 70-year-old retired civil servant told AFP.

The owner of a swanky restaurant on Carrigaline’s main street declined to comment, saying only that “there’s too much doom and gloom already, no need for me to add more”.

In Cork city’s UCC university, Seamus Coffey, an economics lecturer, cautioned against doom-mongering.

“I think those factories are here for the time being. They’ll see out their life cycle in Ireland,” Coffey told AFP in the university’s quadrangle.

“If tariffs were to become a permanent feature of global trade, and if there are changes, we’ll see it further down the line with pipeline decisions about next investments,” he said.

UNDER REPORTED TARIFF

US says most tomatoes imported from Mexico to face 21% duty from July 14

OVER 50% OF TOMATOES SOLD IN U$ ARE FROM MEXICO

By Reuters

April 14, 2025

A seller organizes tomatoes at a stall in a street market in Mexico City, Mexico December 2, 2024 REUTERS/Raquel Cunha/File Photo

April 14 (Reuters) - The U.S. Commerce Department on Monday said most tomatoes imported from Mexico to the United States will face duties of 20.91% from July 14 as it withdraws from an agreement it said had failed to protect domestic tomato growers.
"This action will allow U.S. tomato growers to compete fairly in the marketplace," the department said in a release.

In 2019, Mexican tomato producers struck an agreement with President Donald Trump's first administration to avert an anti-dumping investigation and end a tariff dispute.

At the time, the United States said the agreement closed loopholes and included an inspection mechanism.

Reporting by Costas Pitas; Editing by Don Durfee

US government slapping 21 percent tariff on most tomatoes from Mexico

by Filip Timotija - 04/14/25 


The United States government announced that it plans to slap a nearly 21 percent tariff on most tomatoes coming from Mexico in the summer, arguing the current agreement has not “protected” U.S.-based tomato growers from “unfairly priced Mexican imports.”

The Commerce Department said on Monday that it plans to withdraw from the 2019 trade agreement with Mexico and that an “antidumping duty order” will be instituted on July 14.

“This action will allow U.S. tomato growers to compete fairly in the marketplace,” the Commerce Department said in a release on Monday.

During President Trump’s first White House term, the U.S. government struck an agreement with tomato producers from Mexico to prevent a possible 25 percent tariff on the commodity.

The 2019 deal included enforcement provisions, including an inspection mechanism to bar low-quality tomatoes from being imported and establishing prices for various types of the commodity.

In early 2019, during President Trump’s first term in the White House, the U.S. government threatened to withdraw from the existing agreement and levy duties against Mexico after complaints from growers in Florida who argued that Mexico City is performing price suppression of the crop and, therefore taking advantage of Washington.

Mexico, a major trading partner, is the U.S.’s largest importer of tomatoes, along with vegetables and fruits.

Mexico and the U.S. have been tangled in other disputes. Trump threatened earlier this year to levy additional tariffs against Mexico after the country missed the deadline to send over water to the U.S. from the Rio Grande River, stipulated by a 1944 treaty.

On Friday, Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum said Mexico will make an “immediate” delivery of the water to the farmers in Texas.

THE HILL

Mexico threatens tariffs on meat in 

re­tal­i­ation for U.S. targeting its tomatoes with 21% duties this summer

Mexican tomatoes are displayed for sale at a produce stand in Mercado Medellin in Mexico City.

 (AP Photo/Rebecca Blackwell, File)

BY Christina Santucci and Associated Press Nationwide
Apr. 15, 2025
\

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Mexican leaders warned that they could retaliate with tariffs on some American meat, a day after the U.S. announced plans to impose a 21% “anti-dumping duty” on most tomatoes from Mexico starting in mid-July.

What You Need To Know
Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum said Tuesday that her country could place tariffs on U.S. meats in response to duties announced on tomatoes from Mexico

“Mexico always has the possibility of applying sanctions in the case of the chicken or pork meat,” Sheinbaum said during a news conference

The Commerce Department said Monday that a 20.91% tariff would be placed on imports of most tomatoes from Mexico beginning July 14

The U.S. is Mexico’s top tomato export market with America importing $2.7 billion worth in 2023

Several elected officials from Florida cheered the planned tariff on tomatoes as a win for their state

“Mexico always has the possibility of applying sanctions in the case of the chicken or pork meat,” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said during a news conference Tuesday.

Sheinbaum denied that her country sends unfairly priced tomatoes to their northern neighbor and said she hopes to reach an agreement with the Trump administration to avert the tomato tariff within the coming 90 days.

On Monday, the Commerce Department said the it intends to terminate a 2019 agreement made during President Donald Trump's first term that suspended an investigation into whether tomatoes from Mexico were being “dumped,” or sold in the U.S. at less than a “fair value.” The 2019 agreement averted tariffs on fresh tomatoes and chilled tomatoes.

The withdrawal is slated to go into effect July 14, at which point a tariff of 20.91% would be placed on imports of most tomatoes from Mexico.

“The current agreement has failed to protect U.S. tomato growers from unfairly priced Mexican imports, as commerce has been flooded with comments from them urging its termination. This action will allow U.S. tomato growers to compete fairly in the marketplace,” the department wrote in a news release Monday.

The U.S. is Mexico’s top tomato export market with America importing $2.7 billion worth in 2023, according to U.S. Department of Agriculture report. Nearly a quarter of the tomatoes produced that year were from the Sinaloa state.

Scheinbaum said she believes the U.S. would continue to import tomatoes from Mexico even if the tariff went into effect this summer, and predicted that salads and ketchup would then rise in price. “There is no substitute,” she said of her country’s crop.

Michael Strain, the director of Economic Policy Studies at the D.C.-think tank American Enterprise Institute, also contended that the move would make tomatoes more costly for Americans.

“It is astonishing that the Trump administration is intentionally trying to make tomatoes more expensive,” he wrote on X.

But, several Republican lawmakers from Florida cheered the planned tomato tariff as a win for their state. Sen. Rick Scott called the announcement “a major win for Florida farmers and growers across the country.”

Rep. Vern Buchanan said in his statement, “This decision finally opens the door to strong, enforceable trade remedies that will protect American jobs, strengthen our rural economy and ensure our farmers can compete and thrive.”

Florida ranked second to California in U.S. tomato production in 2023.

AGOA: US-Africa trade accord hangs in the balance


By AFP

April 11, 2025


The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA) is a cornerstone of trade relations between the United States and African countries 

- Copyright POOL/AFP Andres MARTINEZ CASARES

Jean-Philippe CHOGNOT

The African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), whose future is in doubt since Donald Trump returned to the White House, provides duty-free access to the United States for certain African products.

The accord is up for review in September and its disappearance could lead American importers to look for other sources.

The recent turmoil unleashed by Trump’s tariffs blitz has only added to the uncertainty over the fate of AGOA.



– Preferential terms –



The AGOA is a cornerstone of trading relations between the United States and African countries.

The preferential trading agreement was launched in 2000 under Democratic president Bill Clinton and allows duty-free access on certain conditions, including political pluralism, respect for human rights and the fight against corruption.

To date, some 30 of the 50 countries on the African continent benefit from the accord, which covers a wide range of products, from clothing to cars.

In 2023, $9.26 billion worth of goods were exported under the accord, of which $4.25 billion were products from the oil or energy sector, according to the United States International Trade Commission (USITC).



– In the balance –



Washington has not officially cancelled the AGOA, which is due for renewal in September, but there is “no clarity currently” on its status, director of the Africa programme at the Chatham House think tank, Alex Vines, told AFP.

“Given Trump’s scepticism of multilateral frameworks, AGOA’s continuation could be legitimately under threat,” Ronak Gopaldas, analyst at the Institute for Strategic Studies, Africa, wrote before Trump’s election.

It was last renewed in 2015 and, before the election, a cross-party law submitted in April proposed to renew it until 2041.



– Under threat –



If Trump decides to move against the AGOA he has several options.

He could simply not renew the accord in September, or just take out some countries such as South Africa, which he has targeted.

“President Trump could cite the clause in the AGOA, which says that beneficiaries have to maintain, or their activities have to be in line with US security and foreign policy interests,” said Richard Morrow, a researcher at The Brenthurst Foundation.

He could also exclude certain industrial sectors from the accord, such as cars, which he has often described as a “bellwether for the American economy”, he said.



– Biggest beneficiary –



South Africa is the biggest non-oil exporter in the accord, earning as much as $3.6 billion in 2023.

Within AGOA, Washington exempted South African cars from customs duties.

After precious metals, it is the country’s second biggest export earner to the United States, earning up to $1.88 billion, according to the South African tax authorities.

Not renewing AGOA could devastate the sector.

Billy Tom, president of the sector’s employers’ organisation, Naamsa, said 86,000 jobs are directly tied to the accord within car manufacturers, 125,000 when including their sub-contractors.

“I don’t think that South Africa has got a chance of the renewal” of AGOA, said Neil Diamond, president of the South African Chamber of Commerce in the United States.

The anti-Pretoria rhetoric has been led by Trump and South African native Elon Musk, the world’s richest man who dominates the president’s inner circle.

Washington has hit out at a recent South African expropriation law, which it claims discriminates against the white minority.

Pretoria has in particular come under fire from Washington for leading a case at the International Court of Justice accusing Israel of “genocidal” acts in its Gaza offensive, which Israel has denied.



– Textiles, oil, farm products –



In terms of non-oil exports, Kenya lags far behind South Africa with $509 million, followed by Madagascar with $339 million and Lesotho at $167 million, the three countries mainly selling textiles to the United States under the accord, according to the USITC.

Nigeria is the accord’s main oil and energy exporter, worth $3.7 billion in 2023.

Other countries, such as Ghana, mainly export farm products under the accord.