A French researcher, employed by the CNRS, was denied entry to the United States and subsequently deported. American authorities cited messages on his phone expressing opinions critical of the Trump administration’s research policies as the reason for denial, classifying the opinions as “hateful” and even “terrorism.” The French government, while acknowledging US sovereignty over entry, deplores the incident, emphasizing the importance of freedom of opinion and academic freedom. Following an FBI investigation, charges were dropped.
Read More
Brown University medical professor Rasha Alawieh was deported to Lebanon despite possessing a valid US work visa and a judge’s order preventing her removal. The government cited “sympathetic photos and videos” related to Hezbollah and attendance at a Hezbollah leader’s funeral as justification. This deportation, alongside the deportation of over 250 immigrants to El Salvador, occurred despite judicial orders halting the removals, demonstrating a pattern of defiance towards court rulings. Alawieh’s case underscores escalating immigration policies targeting universities, particularly following pro-Palestinian protests.
Read More
The Trump administration’s sweeping cuts to US research funding have caused chaos for Australian researchers involved in joint projects, prompting accusations of foreign interference. A questionnaire sent to Australian researchers demanded justifications for funding and inquired about links to China, stances on gender ideology, and actions against “Christian persecution,” raising concerns about political interference in scientific research. The Australian government is engaging with the US to clarify the situation and protect Australian researchers, while Australian universities have expressed “extreme concern” and sought government intervention. Legal challenges to the questionnaire’s legitimacy are being considered.
Read More
The Trump administration’s cancellation of $400 million in grants and contracts to Columbia University is a complex and controversial issue. It raises questions about the motivations behind the decision, the potential consequences for the university and its research, and the broader implications for academic freedom and funding in the United States.
The sheer scale of the funding cut—$400 million—is staggering and immediately brings to mind questions about where that money might be redirected. Speculation runs rampant, ranging from the possibility of it flowing to politically connected entities to the suggestion that it might simply disappear into the vast complexities of government spending.… Continue reading
The assertion that federal funding will be cut off from colleges and schools that permit what are deemed “illegal” protests is a significant development, raising several key questions. The immediate reaction is one of concern regarding the potential chilling effect this could have on free speech and the right to assembly, both constitutionally protected rights. This action seems to directly contradict the principles of a democratic society where open dissent and the voicing of concerns, even those deemed unpopular, are not only tolerated but are vital to a functioning government.
This proposed policy raises concerns about the definition of an “illegal” protest.… Continue reading
Trump’s plan to “crush the academic left,” as it’s often framed, isn’t merely about silencing dissenting voices; it represents a broader strategy to reshape higher education, potentially with far-reaching consequences. It’s a calculated effort to control the narrative and limit access to information and critical thinking.
This perceived attack isn’t about specific political ideologies within academia; rather, it’s about dismantling any intellectual resistance to a particular worldview. The term “academic left” itself seems to be a deliberately vague label, designed to encompass anyone who challenges prevailing conservative narratives. This allows for a sweeping purge of anyone deemed “unacceptable,” without the need for precise definitions.… Continue reading
Driven by political hostility towards climate science under the Trump administration, prominent climate scientist Kevin Trenberth returned to his native New Zealand, citing diminished research funding and a politically charged environment. Similarly, researcher Rose Abramoff initially left for France due to self-censorship within the scientific community but later returned to the US, believing she could be more politically effective there. Both scientists highlight the challenges faced by climate researchers under administrations perceived as unsupportive of their work, emphasizing the need to resist self-censorship and continue advocating for climate action. While Trenberth opted for permanent relocation, Abramoff underscores the importance of remaining in the US to counteract future threats to climate research and policy.
Read More
President-elect Trump’s nominee to head the National Institutes of Health (NIH), Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, plans to link billions in federal research grants to universities’ adherence to his definition of “academic freedom,” potentially punishing institutions deemed insufficiently conservative. This initiative, reportedly inspired by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s rankings, aims to combat what Bhattacharya sees as academic conformity. He also proposes funding replication studies to address scientific fraud, creating a new journal with open peer review, and potentially limiting grant funding for specific journals and pausing certain virus research. Critics express concern that this approach could jeopardize crucial medical research funding.
Read More
In contrast to their 2016 campaign’s clear intentions to repeal the Affordable Care Act (ACA), Republicans’ 2024 healthcare plans remain ambiguous, despite Trump’s social media pronouncements and some GOP members advocating for significant ACA and Medicaid changes. While a direct assault on federal healthcare programs, like the failed 2017 attempt, is less likely due to past political repercussions, Republicans are still motivated by ideological beliefs and the need to offset proposed tax cuts. The biggest question remains the extent of proposed cuts to Medicaid and the potential impact of letting the ACA’s temporary subsidies expire in 2025, a move that could leave millions uninsured and significantly raise premiums for others.
Read More
Millions of Americans could lose their health insurance subsidies under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) as the 2021 American Rescue Plan subsidies are set to expire in 2025. Republicans have signaled they will not extend the subsidies, which have doubled enrollment in ACA plans, particularly in Southern states. If the subsidies aren’t extended, nearly 4 million people could lose their coverage by 2026, with further declines in enrollment in subsequent years. With a possible GOP sweep of Congress, significant changes to the ACA are anticipated, potentially including cuts to funding for outreach, Medicaid, and preventive services, although outright repeal of the law seems unlikely.
Read More
John Q. Hosedrinker 
Matt Underwood