Yesterday Science magazine had an exclusive news story that the NIH freezes all research grants to Columbia University, going beyond the previous \$250 million in biomedical research grant money. According to the story
In an 8 April email seen by Science, NIH’s Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration Director Michelle Bulls told grant administrators that HHS had initially ordered NIH to terminate the first “wave” of grants to Columbia and hold others while the school negotiated with the government. Now, she said, no NIH awards can be made to Columbia until the restriction is lifted. In 2024, Columbia received about $690 million in grant funding from NIH.
It seems likely that the source of this story is an NIH grant administrator who received this email.
The university responded later in the day with this:
At this time, Columbia has not received notice from the NIH about additional cancellations. As Acting President Shipman has said, the University remains in active dialogue with the Federal Government to restore its critical research funding.
The only thing we’ve been hearing from the acting president about the “active dialogue” is enthusiasm for the March 21 cave-in (see here and here) to demands from the Trump administration.
Two journalists at The Wall Street Journal over the past few weeks have been effectively acting as spokepersons for one or more of the Trump administration officials attacking Columbia. Today’s press release starts off
The Trump administration is planning to pursue a legal arrangement that would put Columbia University into a consent decree, according to people familiar with the matter, an extraordinary step that could significantly escalate the pressure on the school as it battles for federal funding.
A consent decree, which can last for years, would give a federal judge responsibility for ensuring Columbia changes its practices along lines laid out by the federal government. If such a decree is in place, Columbia would have to comply with it. If a judge determines the school is out of compliance, it could be held in contempt of court—punishable by penalties including fines.
and continues with threats to Columbia in case it might be thinking of resisting:
Columbia could fight the move in court; the Justice Department would need to prove that the arrangement is warranted. But a court case could take years, and Columbia would likely lose federal funding in the interim—and might ultimately lose. Opposing the move would also open the school up to required depositions and legal fact-finding, which could keep the school’s campus politics in the spotlight.
If there’s any problem with the idea of dictatorial powers being used to take an institution’s funds away, have them fire their president, and then put a representative of the dictator in charge, the WSJ reporters don’t seem curious about it.
I have no idea what happens next and what the trustees think of this. Unfortunately, it seems possible that we are where we are now because a significant element within the university has taken advantage of the current situation to push pro-Israel changes, and wouldn’t be unhappy with a partial takeover of the university to make sure they get what they want. This includes hiring new pro-Israel faculty, which is already underway: the first job ad for such a position is now up, with more promised in the cave-in.
Update: There’s a story about this at the New York Times. Unlike the WSJ reporters, the NYT reporters talked to a lawyer not working for Trump, who explained:
But if a consent decree is under negotiation, either the administration or the school would probably have to file a lawsuit in federal court, which would serve as a vehicle for turning any deal into an agreement that could be overseen by a judge, said Tobias B. Wolff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s law school who specializes in civil procedure and has written about consent decrees.
“Judges can’t just wave a wand and turn an agreement into a consent decree absent a lawsuit over which the court has proper jurisdiction,” Mr. Wolff said.
The NYT article also included some inside information not in the WSJ press release:
It is unclear whether the final version of any agreement would include a consent decree, and the White House has yet to sign off on the possibility of a consent decree, said two administration officials involved in the planning.
Update: The Chronicle of Higher Education has an article about the impact of stopping funding of NIH grants at Columbia. It tells the story of what’s happening in the biomedical research lab of Donna Farber. Supposedly because of the problem of “antisemitism” at the university, major medical research efforts like the one in this lab are in the process of being shut down.
NPR has a story about how, for students opposed to what the Israelis are doing in Gaza, fear and silence is a new campus reality. This focuses on Cornell rather than Columbia, but things are much the same here. Pro-Palestinian demonstrations have effectively been shut down for nearly a year, with those who in the past participated in such demonstrations now keeping quiet out of fear. If they are non-US citizens, they are rightfully terrified of their name being on a list, their visa being silently revoked, and ICE agents coming to drag them away to a prison in Louisiana. Amidst all of this, the university is claiming that its number one priority is combatting antisemitism on the campus.
Update: This is disturbing.
As it relates to this ongoing saga and previous posts, Peter — there is also this article in NPR from today regarding the “evidence” the administration has presented in the Mahmoud Khalil case: https://www.npr.org/2025/04/10/nx-s1-5356481/mahmoud-khalil-dhs-evidence-detained-palestinian-protests-columbia-antisemitism
Tsk, tsk, not “pro-Israel”, but “expansion of intellectual diversity among faculty”.
The Columbia Spectator uses this language:
“The University has also committed to the “expansion of intellectual diversity among faculty.” The University has already begun searching for faculty who will hold joint positions in the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies and the economics or political science departments, as well as SIPA.”
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/04/01/columbias-response-to-the-trump-administrations-demands-explained/
Anonyrat,
We’re being told by our acting president that she and the board of trustees are fully behind these new actions, that they think they’re a good idea, not just something they’re being forced to do. Taking this at face value it is their agenda to expand “intellectual diversity among faculty”, with top priority hiring (at a time of budget crisis, so virtually no hiring allowed) three new faculty more sympathetic to the current Israeli state. Taken together with their refusal to express any support for students being deported because of participating in pro-Palestinian demonstrations, all the evidence is that they are on board with at least a part of the Trump campaign to dramatically change the university.
I’d like to not believe this, to believe instead that they’re just lying cowards, only doing this on advice of legal counsel to try and get back the money, but we’re getting zero information other than worse and worse news about their acquiescence to the Trump panel demands, so this is getting harder and harder all the time.
It would be helpful to see the university go to court to fight back, on anything.
Gary Wilder writes in Inside Higher Ed about academic boycott of Columbia:
“Because Columbia is only the first target of a broader program to destroy the university, no academic worker, no American citizen, can remain indifferent to the authoritarian drama unfolding there. We are all implicated. In capitulating to the Trump administration’s demands in a bid to restore $400 million in federal funding cuts, Columbia has set a dangerous precedent for other universities to follow. ”
https://www.insidehighered.com/opinion/views/2025/04/11/case-boycotting-columbia-university-opinion
List of signatories (around 2 000 at the moment) and a link to sign on here:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Ly9mCidxILVCRsTqSz4YM5mUSrnXLnSMZOEgmUs0DfQ/edit?tab=t.0
As much as I’ve read, I still don’t understand — how did Columbia get into a position that allow the whims of one individual to pose an existential threat? Are all R1 universities in a similar position? I agree with you that the government’s tactics are authoritarian, but we’ve known for almost a decade that an unstable anti-intellectual could take the presidency. Why wasn’t Columbia better prepared for this? There is a lot of lip-service paid by the supposed guardians of liberalism (universities, the Democratic party) to the threats our democracy faces, but those institutions often seem unable to formulate or carry out any effective plan to counter those threats. As much as I fear for our future, I also find it hard to generate sympathy for Columbia when it seems to have fought the battle so poorly.
Syksy,
I hope the Columbia boycott helps to get the attention of the trustees/president. People should keep in mind that what has happened here is almost all the responsibility of the trustees, who now are running the university more or less as a junta with one of their own as figurehead. Even top administrators such as deans are not being consulted and have no idea what is going on. If someone decides they don’t want to participate in something Columbia related it would be helpful if they write to
officeofthepresident@columbia.edu
to explain this. The faculty have no say at all about what is going on and are being kept in the dark. Arguably they should be doing something, and it’s depressing that they aren’t.
Jeffo,
I have much the same questions, and to some extent writing these blog entries is my way of dealing with them, trying to figure out what is going on and why. Why US democracy has collapsed so fast, and why institutions like Columbia and major law firms have caved-in so quickly and without resisting is a question that historians will be debating for decades to come.
Peter,
This is one of the darkest events in history, and the way I see it some students have been trying to at least save whatever can be saved of US’s honor, at great personal cost. We all know what history a few decades or centuries later will have to say about this period. It’s comforting to read your stance on the matter.
I’d caution against unqualified language like “Columbia is only the first target of a broader program to destroy the university”, “fascism”, and “democracy has collapsed”. I’m as dismayed as anyone, but saying without qualification that we’re headed straight for the destruction of the university or whatever isn’t helpful. The surest (still very unsure) *initial* framing for what’s happening to the US university is, I think, that energized parts of the right want to dismantle what they see as an overweening legal regime — desegregation, affirmative action, Title IX, etc. — while pining for cathartic theatrical reversals like federal receivership of select institutions. Think reverse-image of the Boston busing crisis, not copy of Orban’s takeover of Hungarian higher ed. Those two nightmares overlap, but they’re not the same and we don’t understand the situation here better by ignoring the differences. Wholesale political takeover of US higher ed is a hard sell outside of certain MAGA factions, and it’s telling that, at least so far, the administration’s stated justification for going after Columbia is defense of a historically persecuted minority that the left has increasingly splintered over. This isn’t the first time revanchists have appropriated traditionally progressive tropes for regressive ends, and as often is the case it hints at real political constraints. Not only the US majority but a majority of Trump voters don’t like thinking of themselves as pining after Jim Crow, theocracy, oligarchy, autocracy, or the wholesale dismantling of the New Deal or rule of law. I’m not saying we’ll definitely be spared those things, but it’s significant that Trump has never run on an explicit policy platform (the GOP had been tending in that direction a long time). The energies that drive Trump’s coalition also divide and embarrass it, making vagueness crucial to his appeal. Just consider that some regular commenters on this very blog embrace Trump while denying the risks and distancing themselves from their more unseemly fellow travelers. On the evidence, I’d guess that those commenters are childishly resentful and delusional, not fascists, and in this respect representative, not outliers. I’d be interested to hear from them about Columbia, if they want to share their thoughts and Woit allows it. (Apologies for the long post, I have tried to keep it short.)
This letter from Harvard is promising:
Dear Members of the Harvard Community,
For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities to help pay for work that, along with investments by the universities themselves, has led to groundbreaking innovations across a wide range of medical, engineering, and scientific fields. These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer. In recent weeks, the federal government has threatened its partnerships with several universities, including Harvard, over accusations of antisemitism on our campuses. These partnerships are among the most productive and beneficial in American history. New frontiers beckon us with the prospect of life-changing advances—from treatments for diseases such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, and diabetes, to breakthroughs in artificial intelligence, quantum science and engineering, and numerous other areas of possibility. For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.
Late Friday night, the administration issued an updated and expanded list of demands, warning that Harvard must comply if we intend to “maintain [our] financial relationship with the federal government.” It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner. Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
I encourage you to read the letter to gain a fuller understanding of the unprecedented demands being made by the federal government to control the Harvard community. They include requirements to “audit” the viewpoints of our student body, faculty, staff, and to “reduc[e] the power” of certain students, faculty, and administrators targeted because of their ideological views. We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
The administration’s prescription goes beyond the power of the federal government. It violates Harvard’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI. And 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.
Our motto—Veritas, or truth—guides us as we navigate the challenging path ahead. Seeking truth is a journey without end. It requires us to be open to new information and different perspectives, to subject our beliefs to ongoing scrutiny, and to be ready to change our minds. It compels us to take up the difficult work of acknowledging our flaws so that we might realize the full promise of the University, especially when that promise is threatened.
We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight antisemitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address antisemitism on our campus. We plan to do much more. As we defend Harvard, we will continue to:
nurture a thriving culture of open inquiry on our campus; develop the tools, skills, and practices needed to engage constructively with one another; and broaden the intellectual and viewpoint diversity within our community;
affirm the rights and responsibilities we share; respect free speech and dissent while also ensuring that protest occurs in a time, place, and manner that does not interfere with teaching, learning, and research; and enhance the consistency and fairness of disciplinary processes; and
work together to find ways, consistent with law, to foster and support a vibrant community that exemplifies, respects, and embraces difference. As we do, we will also continue to comply with Students For Fair Admissions v. Harvard, which ruled that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act makes it unlawful for universities to make decisions “on the basis of race.”
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. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community. Freedom of thought and inquiry, along with the government’s longstanding commitment to respect and protect it, has enabled universities to contribute in vital ways to a free society and to healthier, more prosperous lives for people everywhere. All of us share a stake in safeguarding that freedom. We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.
Sincerely,
Alan M. Garber
Antibellows,
Looking around the internet trying to find information about what is going on at Columbia I’m well-versed in MAGAite rants about Columbia and other universities, don’t particularly want to host them here.
The current situation here is the product of a relentless highly successful campaign of lies about this university and others. For years now, the main information sources of a large part of the population (e.g. Twitter and Fox News) have been filled with lies, designed to stoke resentments and get people to see this university as an evil enclave of violent Marxist anti-semites. Go to Twitter and you’ll find endless calls to literally burn Columbia to the ground.
What does the Trump administration actually want to do? Who knows, yes they have no platform, their politics is purely negative, they have no interest in building anything, they just want to destroy the parts of society they see as their opponents. They have demonstrated that they recognize no legal constraints on their power. I don’t think the description of this as Fascism and a collapsed democracy is an exaggeration.
How far will they go? The obvious answer is “as far as they can”. Institutions like Columbia need to fight back. Accepting the principle that Trump can personally defund and economically destroy anyone or any group that won’t do what he tells them is a horrible mistake. Thinking that his followers will at some point splinter and constrain him not to go “too far” seems to me like wishful thinking.
John Baldwin,
Thanks! That’s great news. Making the clear statement
“We have informed the administration through our legal counsel that we will not accept their proposed agreement. The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”
is exactly what Columbia should have done on March 21st. If the rumors are true that the Columbia trustees are planning to announce today a further step giving control of the university to Trump, hopefully they’re reading the Harvard statement and realizing that there’s a very different way forward. Do they want to go down in history as the people who bowed down to the dictator exactly at the time that their peers were starting to fight back?
Great news re: Harvard. May the powers that be at Columbia grow a spine. Peter, re: your reply to my comment, I’ll just point out that I made no predictions, least of all about MAGA splintering. I wrote partly to caution against loose language in a situation like this one. I do think “who knows what they want?” is too strong. You yourself mention some things they very clearly want, and to your list I’ll add, at least where it comes to Trump, grifts and vengeance. Anyway, thanks as always for maintaining this great forum.