Editorials curated from leading publications including the Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, and New York Times.
March 21 – The Washington Post analyzes Donald Trump's confrontations with American universities
The shift towards a left-leaning bias within academia poses a significant challenge, undermining the fundamental principles of universities in both idea collection and dissemination. Surveys reveal a considerable number of students and faculty members hesitant to engage with contentious subjects, particularly conservatives, who often feel discouraged from expressing their views. Such limitations, including self-imposed ones, have compromised scholarly integrity and eroded public confidence in academic expertise.
Conservatives are understandably seeking avenues to reinstate ideological equilibrium within higher education, aiming to ensure that colleges serve the interests of the entire nation. However, the present administration's methods are misdirected, as its comprehensive assault on universities appears retaliatory, harmful, and ultimately counterproductive.
The White House recently declared its intention to revoke $400 million in federal grants and contracts from Columbia University, citing the institution's failure to manage on-campus antisemitism. Subsequently, the administration issued a letter outlining conditions for the funds' restoration, including centralizing disciplinary actions under the university president and placing the Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies department under “academic receivership.” These actions are part of a wider governmental effort to leverage regulatory and financial influence over universities. (In response, the university has committed to establishing an internal security force, prohibiting face masks in most areas, and appointing a senior vice provost to oversee the aforementioned department.)
Columbia's tepid response to the previous year's protests concerning the Gaza conflict, which occasionally involved vandalism or antisemitism, necessitates scrutiny to guarantee that the civil rights of Jewish students are protected with the same dedication as those of any minority. Nonetheless, targeting a specific academic department and meddling with the university's organizational framework infringes upon academic freedom.
Furthermore, the alleged shortcomings at Columbia do not justify an abrupt cessation of funding for the university's essential medical and scientific research, which accounts for $250 million of the $400 million in question. The involved scientists bear no responsibility for the university's perceived deficiencies, rendering this action unwarranted and potentially detrimental to the United States' renowned research infrastructure.
The prominence of U.S. research universities, supported by federal funding, is a key reason why Americans have been awarded more Nobel Prizes than any other country. These institutions also establish the U.S. as the world's leading hub for innovation and a magnet for international students. No other nation is as proficient in transforming raw talent and ideas into cutting-edge innovations. These universities serve as cornerstones for innovation clusters like Silicon Valley, thus driving the country's economic advancement.
This valuable engine is too critical to jeopardize for simple political objectives. If research is prematurely halted, the potential loss of significant medical and technological breakthroughs is considerable. Should the world's most talented researchers opt to pursue their endeavors elsewhere, in environments where government intervention does not threaten funding based on perceived transgressions, America would incur significant losses.
The administration should also reflect on the precedent they are establishing, considering how it might be exploited when a different party assumes power. What will remain of a university subjected to such pressures? The classrooms and lecture halls, where critical discussions on humanity's complex challenges occur, are just as important as the research infrastructure. While many institutions should enhance efforts to ensure that students feel secure in voicing diverse perspectives, employing similar political tactics from a different direction is not the solution.
Florida has already instituted similar crackdowns, leading left-leaning students and professors to report an atmosphere that stifles free expression, echoing concerns that conservatives have voiced for years. Faculty members have reportedly steered clear of potentially taboo subjects, such as "intersectionality," fearing they are being recorded by students, while a student publication reduced its coverage to safeguard its funding.
Conservatives, through their own experiences, understand the unacceptability of such restrictions. Universities are unable to nurture exceptional scholars or citizens if they lack the autonomy to explore the complete spectrum of ideas, some of which may be flawed or hazardous. Universities are essential in distinguishing truth from falsehood and wisdom from folly, a process that depends on open discussion, devoid of fear of retaliation.
March 22 – The New York Times analyzes the assaults on the Constitution
Unexplained pizza deliveries to the residences of federal judges carried a clear message: their locations were known. Simultaneously, the President, along with his aides and allies, has launched an intimidation campaign targeting the legal system, utilizing executive orders, social media, public statements, and even impeachment attempts. The goal seems to be to sow fear among judges, discouraging them from upholding the rule of law. This campaign extends to private-sector lawyers, with efforts to undermine firms disliked by the President. The breadth of these tactics necessitates a pause to examine the connections and understand the severity of the situation.
It is imperative to acknowledge and support those publicly opposing this campaign, including Chief Justice John Roberts, and to encourage more legal professionals to join them. The strength of the American system relies on the courage of its defenders. The integrity of the system of checks and balances, which has not faced such a challenge in decades, depends on greater fortitude from those who believe in it.
Federal judges have been primary targets, most recently Judge James Boasberg, who ruled against the administration's plan to deport migrants to El Salvador without hearings. The administration proceeded with the deportations and misrepresented the timeline. The President then labeled Judge Boasberg a “troublemaker” and “Radical Left Lunatic” who should be impeached. A Republican House member subsequently filed articles of impeachment, and Elon Musk announced contributions to House members supporting the action.
These intimidation tactics form a pattern. The President claimed that "rogue judges are destroying our country," while the Vice President suggested that “judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power.” Social media attacks against judges questioning the legality of government actions are also prevalent.
The President's non-governmental allies amplify these attacks, publishing personal details about judges' families. Federal marshals have warned of increased threats against judges. After one judge temporarily blocked the administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship, a bomb threat was made against him. Consequently, judges reportedly feel increasing anxiety about their safety.
Critiquing judicial decisions is reasonable and has historical precedent. The judiciary is a co-equal branch of government, not above the others. Both Republicans and Democrats have crossed lines when dissatisfied with judicial rulings. However, the President’s efforts at judicial intimidation are unprecedented in scale.
As President, he promotes a campaign of menace, insisting that only outcomes favorable to him are legitimate. His allies then dehumanize dissenting judges, instilling fear for their safety.
The attempts to influence law firms, though seemingly distinct, are linked. The President has revoked security clearances of lawyers at multiple firms for political reasons. These firms have employed lawyers who have represented Democrats, investigated the President, and litigated against individuals involved in the January 6th events.
The prohibitions against firms such as Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss prevent their lawyers from entering federal buildings and discourage contact with federal employees. This can cripple these firms, as their lawyers cannot effectively represent clients if they cannot interact with federal regulators, investigators, and prosecutors.
These actions are not mere retribution but attempts to undermine the legal system and freedom of speech. When hiring a lawyer becomes risky for those questioning the President, fewer individuals will challenge him, and those who do will face a significant disadvantage. “An informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar,” as Justice Anthony Kennedy stated. A judge has already blocked part of the order against Perkins Coie, citing “retaliatory animus.”
The response from law firms has been disappointing, characterized by silence or surrender. Paul, Weiss, which once sued the administration over its migrant child separation policy, reversed course, agreeing to donate $40 million in legal services to causes favored by the President in exchange for the executive order's rescission.
While leaders may see this as protecting their business, they are disregarding the broader implications. By yielding, Paul, Weiss increases the likelihood of similar attacks on other firms.
Over 600 associates at top firms have signed a letter criticizing their own firms' partners for not speaking out, emphasizing that such tactics are effective only if the majority remains silent.
Some firms are showing courage, such as Williams & Connolly, which has sued the administration on behalf of Perkins Coie.
The judiciary's response has been stronger, with judges confronting the administration's lawyers and seeking facts in court. Chief Justice Roberts defended the judiciary, stating that impeachment is “not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision.”
The President's testing of the legal system has only begun and requires heightened vigilance. If he continues to defy court orders, judges may need to hold his lawyers and aides in contempt. Chief Justice Roberts and his colleagues may have to become more assertive in protecting the legal system. Law firm leaders should demonstrate more courage, and members of Congress should assert their constitutional powers.
The President is susceptible to political and legal pressure and has previously retreated in the face of opposition. Defending the Constitution through collective action increases the chances of success.
March 21 – The Wall Street Journal examines Trump's strategy with the Supreme Court
The President dismissed Chief Justice John Roberts' defense of the judiciary, but the strategy of criticizing judges and pressuring the Supreme Court carries risks. The Chief Justice values the Court's reputation as a neutral arbiter and protector of the Constitution, disliking political involvement. The President's call for Judge James Boasberg's impeachment forced the Chief Justice to defend the judiciary.
The President claimed his administration would not defy court orders but continued to criticize the Court. He suggested that the Supreme Court must address the situation with radical judges to achieve national goals. The Court is entering a challenging period, with the administration deliberately testing legal boundaries to advance policy objectives.
Some of these projects align with long-held views of the Chief Justice, such as restoring executive power. However, others may be controversial, particularly concerning emergency rulings. The President demands that the Chief Justice overrule Judge Boasberg, leading to accusations of political pressure. The President may find that the more he speaks up, the more the Court resists his demands.
The President's attacks on the judiciary, as well as his urging of loyalists to blame the Chief Justice for Judge Boasberg’s actions, create additional risks.
The President should consider future Supreme Court appointments. Justices will likely consider his judgment in selecting their successors. The President has a Supreme Court favorable to his views, and trusting their judgment could yield better outcomes.
March 24 – The Boston Globe questions the Trump Administration's stance on Ukrainian children abducted by Russia
Ukrainian children abducted by Russian forces have become victims in the President's peace process. The abductions are seemingly part of Russia's Russification attempts. A Yale research team tracking the children's whereabouts has had its work halted, and its database is no longer available.
Abducting children as a weapon of war is criminal, and the government's attempts to erase evidence are shameful. A bipartisan congressional group has appealed to the Secretary of State to reverse course, emphasizing that the abductions are ongoing and that the Yale lab's evidence repository is vital.
The children, ranging in age from 2 to 17, have been systematically naturalized as Russian citizens and exposed to pro-Russia re-education. The President's administration has dealt a significant setback by halting work on the Yale database, and the move is seen by many as an attempt to appease Putin.
To steal children is a crime, and to ignore that crime is to be complicit. Failure to restart this program would be a stain on this nation's soul.
March 21 – The Guardian asserts that Putin is not interested in peace
Amid diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine, a UN report highlighted the war's horrors, including the impact on children. Hundreds of children have been killed, and many are internally displaced or refugees. The US decision to terminate a program tracking abducted children indicates indifference to Ukraine's fate.
Putin's demands reveal that he does not desire peace. His call for an end to foreign military aid and intelligence provision to Ukraine underscores the impediment. The US administration seems drawn to Putin. Russia is attempting to outflank US negotiators, aided by fantasies about Putin turning away from China. Europe's security guarantee has not materialized.
If the US cuts off military aid and intelligence to Ukraine, the consequences would be dire. While Washington cannot force Ukraine to accept a ceasefire, European leaders are contemplating a future without US security assurances. Russia's threat is looming, leading to debates on building regional strength or maintaining transatlantic ties. These choices will shape future generations.