Wednesday, April 16, 2025

Bernie Sanders holds 'Fighting Oligarchy' rally in LA


Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt. and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. lead the "Fighting Oligarchy" rally in Los Angeles on Saturday. Some 36,000 people attended.

Wade Sheridan




Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., speaks. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI



U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks to a crowd of 36,000 at the "Fighting Oligarchy" rally at Gloria Molina Grand Park in downtown Los Angeles on April 12, 2025. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI




Sanders is currently on tour around the country. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI




Ocasio-Cortez takes the stage. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI




Singers Maggie Rogers (L) and Joan Baez perform onstage. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI




Musician Neil Young performs. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI




Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez hug. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI




Left to right, Rogers, Baez and Young perform together. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI



A look at the 36,000 in attendance. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI




The scene at Gloria Molina Grand Park. Photo by Jim Ruymen/UPIJim Ruymen/UPI




Inside Bernie and AOC’s political revival

UTAH

Emma Pitts
Mon, April 14, 2025
DESERET  NEWS


Sen. Bernie Sanders, I-Vt., speaks during a Fighting Oligarchy: Where We Go From Here with Bernie Sanders rally at the Jon M. Huntsman Center in Salt Lake City on Sunday, April 13, 2025. | Tess Crowley, Deseret News

The “Fighting Oligarchy” rally on Sunday night in Salt Lake City resembled a revivalist gathering more than a political affair. Cheers erupted for 83-year-old Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders and his tour companion, New York Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, seen by their fans as leaders poised to guide America away from the authoritarian trajectory that Sanders argues it is heading towards under a Republican-led president, Congress, and U.S. Supreme Court.

Through music, dancing and chanting, a unified feeling of kumbaya was shared among the rallygoers. But after the first speaker started criticizing Utah political leaders, one audience member screamed, “Eat the rich,” followed by the whole crowd joining in. The mood shifted almost immediately — still unified, only less friendly.

The central message from the progressive politicians was that billionaires and other elites, the top 1% of the population, are governing the United States with President Donald Trump, and the working and middle-class need to rise up against them.

Quoting President Abraham Lincoln’s famous Gettysburg Address, “that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth,” Sanders told his audience that Lincoln’s message is what he’s standing up for 162 years later.

“That’s why we’re here. We do not want a government of the billionaire class by the billionaire class for the billionaire class; we want a government that represents all of us, not just the 1%,” he said.

Are progressive politicians the future of the Democratic Party? Many are wondering, especially since Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have been traveling from rally to rally across the U.S., drawing large crowds wherever they go. Sanders even made a guest appearance at the Coachella Music Festival, where he told the music lovers that the future of America is dependent on them, the younger generation.

Sanders is an independent, though he caucuses with the Democratic Party and ran for president as a Democrat.

The estimated 20,000 attendees on Sunday night showed that many Utahns align with Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez’s progressive policies. Several attendees told the Deseret News they found comfort in knowing they weren’t alone in their political beliefs, living in a Republican-dominated state.


Both politicians posted on social media following the 20,000-person rally at the University of Utah’s Jon M. Huntsman Center, with AOC calling the turnout in a red state “unbelievable.”




Voices from the rally: Q&As with some of the attendees


Jared Harmer

Q: Why are you here today?

A: I’m a big fan of socialism. Been involved in socialist and left-wing organizing for a few years now.

Q: Who are your heroes?

A: That’s a hard question. Currently, I’d say Bernie is my favorite person that has any power in the American political system. AOC is up there, too. Not a huge fan of the Democratic Party in general, so anyone who’s to the left of standard Democrats. ... I consider the top dogs in the Democratic Party to be part of the oligarchy.

Q: If you had a say of what really needs to be done or to change so American people can trust our government again, what would you say needs to be done?

A: A lot of things need to be done. A good start is taking money out of politics. The main issue is capital controls so much about our politics and life in general. ... I mean, I’m an econ guy, I work in finance, and my biggest thing is advocating for a wealth tax. I don’t think we should be taxing labor through income taxes. ... I think that’s a good place to start to attack at the real problem, which is wealth accumulation.



Q: The Trump administration has been in office for a couple of months. What policy/executive order do you feel like has affected you most as an American?

A: I’m a white, cis, het, male, so not a whole lot directly, I do have friends that are in minority groups. You know, trans people specifically directly impacted by his requirement that you need to align with your gender at birth, federally. So if you have a passport that previously had your correct, affirmed gender, you had to change it back. And I have friends who are here undocumented that I’m worried about.

Christine Helfrich

Q: Why did you choose to volunteer today?

A: I love Bernie. I’m 75 years old, and I first saw Bernie at This Is The Place monument nine years ago, and I walked with a broken foot for a mile and a half to see him. And I was crazy about him. I tried to run for delegate for him, but there were too many other people that had done much more work than I had that got it. I became friends with those people. They are my closest friends today. ... It’s just been wonderful to be part of the Bernie moveme

Q: What are your thoughts on them labeling the U.S. today as an oligarchy?

A: I have to think it’s true. I mean, we’re losing Sundance Film Festival. Part of that is because Park City has changed. The property in Park City has been bought up by millionaires and billionaires that they come to visit for a couple of weeks a year, but the rest of the time, their 20,000-square-foot homes are sitting empty, still using water to keep the landscaping alive. Meanwhile, people who live and work in Park City can’t find affordable housing. ... Anyway, I think we do need to take a deep breath and recognize that if we say we love families and we want to see children grow up in a healthy environment, we have to focus on, OK, do we have the tools to make that happen?

Q: How have you personally been affected by the Trump administration?

A: I’m a retired health care worker. I used to work on Huntsman Cancer, and it terrifies me that it’s shutting down research. So much of the Phase One research done on Huntsman affects new treatments around the world, and now those doctors, Ph.D.s, are fearful that they can’t fund their studies. So, it affects us locally, and 40% of the patients from Huntsman are out of state. So, it also affects the Intermountain West.

Raini Pachak



Q: Can you kind of just give a little bit of an explanation of why you’re here and about your sign?

A: I think Bernie Sanders and AOC are really just paying lip service. They kind of act as a controlled opposition against the idea that the two-party system can work in our favor, but it really can’t. It’s just designed to kind of ratchet us towards fascism, and they’re complicit to genocide, which is probably the worst thing they could be at this point.

Q: So you believe that most people in power are guilty of this? Are there people that you admire that hold political positions?

A: I think, in general, you don’t get very high in the political system to be able to. … if you have positions like this, you’re not allowed in politics.

Q: So what is your solution

A: We need to become educated on what’s happening. Mostly, it’s just education. I think once people become educated, we’ll change.

Q: Most Americans don’t trust mainstream media. So where is your source for knowledge to get educated?

A: Really, the history books, you can use ChatGPT, if you really just want to ask the truth about everything then in the fastest way possible but history, and there’s a lot of misinformation out there, so it is difficult these days.

Stacie Houser, Makena Houser and Seth Wagner

Q: What do you appreciate and admire about Bernie and AOC?

A: Stacie Houser — I just love that they’re willing to speak up and build community with all of us that feel alone.

Seth Wagner — He’s consistent. He’s been passionate his entire career. He is one of the few I feel like people out there that sticks to their word and has fought for what he believes in. It’s kind of nice to see.

Q: Do you feel like AOC is kind of the person to follow in his footsteps?

A: Seth Wagner — As of now, I don’t think anybody else in the Democratic Party is stepping up and trying to fill that void.

Q: They’re campaigning on the U.S. is an oligarchy. Tell me a little bit about that, do you feel the same way?

A: It feels like that right now. It’s just financially scary right now for our future medical help, you know, insurance, just kind of scary.

Q: With the Trump administration in office for a few months now, what has affected you guys the most about his administration?

A: Makena Houser — He’s just aggressive, like he just wants to change things that don’t have much backup to it. I think the aggressive change is scary.

Stephanie Stone

Q: Tell us a little bit why you’re here today.

A: I am not a resident of Utah. I’m a resident of New Mexico. I have family here. I spend a lot of time here. I care what’s happening in this world, and I am here for the resistance. … I’m here to spread love. I’m here for justice, for everything that we should stand for as humanity, as humans.



Q: They’re talking about how this is an oligarchy administration. What does that mean to you? And what are the best ways do you think for Bernie Sanders, AOC, for all the people that support them, to combat this?

A: We need to listen to those that are here, inspiring us right now. We need to band together. We need to create community. ... We need to do whatever we can to get rid of this administration. It’s deadly. It’s not going to be a safe place for any of us, not for my kids, not for my grandkids, not for you, if we don’t do something about this.



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


T
rump 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