Connect with us

News

Cornell Reaches $60 Million Deal with Trump Administration to Restore Federal Research Funding

Published

on

Cornell University has agreed to a $60 million settlement with the Trump administration, joining several other Ivy League institutions that have struck deals to restore federal research funding by accepting the administration’s interpretation of U.S. civil rights laws.

The agreement, announced Friday by Cornell President Michael Kotlikoff, ends ongoing federal investigations into alleged civil rights violations at the university and unlocks more than $250 million in previously frozen research funds.

Kotlikoff described the deal as a “critical step” toward resuming the university’s research operations, which he said had been severely disrupted by the funding freeze. “The suspension of research support has affected faculty, delayed projects, and placed long-term academic programs at risk,” he said in a statement.

Under the terms of the settlement, Cornell will pay $30 million directly to the federal government and another $30 million toward research benefiting American farmers. The agreement also commits the university to comply with the administration’s interpretation of federal civil rights laws covering antisemitism, racial discrimination, and transgender issues.

Cornell’s deal follows similar agreements reached by Columbia, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania in recent months. The Trump administration has accused several top universities of allowing antisemitism and promoting what it describes as “divisive” diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies.

The Justice Department will now use a memo banning DEI and transgender-inclusive programs as a required training resource for Cornell faculty and staff. The university must also provide detailed admissions data to ensure that race is no longer considered in student selection, in line with the 2023 Supreme Court ruling that ended affirmative action.

See also  Russian Strikes on Ukrainian Hospital and Residential Areas Result in Multiple Casualties

Education Secretary Linda McMahon praised the deal, calling it a “transformative commitment” that prioritizes merit and academic rigor. “These reforms are a huge win in the fight to restore excellence to American higher education,” she said in a post on X.

U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi also welcomed the agreement, saying it demonstrates that universities accepting federal funds must adhere strictly to civil rights laws and eliminate discriminatory DEI programs.

The Cornell chapter of the American Association of University Professors expressed mixed reactions, noting that while the agreement avoids some of the more stringent provisions found in similar university settlements, it still poses potential threats to academic freedom. “If you make a deal with someone who’s extorting you, that only encourages future extortion,” said chapter president David Bateman.

Cornell President Kotlikoff maintained that the agreement preserves the university’s “academic freedom, independence, and institutional autonomy” while rebuilding its partnership with the federal government.

The deal, which spans through 2028, requires the university president to personally certify compliance with the agreement on a quarterly basis.

News

EU Must End ‘Naivety’ on Trade and Confront China’s Industrial Strategy, Says French Minister

Published

on

France’s Minister for Foreign Trade, Nicolas Forissier, has called on the European Union to abandon what he described as “naivety” in its approach to global trade, urging a tougher stance on countries accused of distorting markets through industrial policy and trade practices.

Speaking in an interview with Euronews’ 12 Minutes With programme, Forissier said Europe must respond more firmly to what he described as the weaponisation of trade dependencies, warning that China in particular could damage its own long-term interests by undermining European industry.

“The Chinese have to understand that they won’t win anything if they destroy the European industry and then the European market, which is an essential market for them,” he said. “We must no longer be naive.”

His comments come as the European Commission prepares to hold an “orientation debate” next week on how to respond to a surge of low-cost Chinese imports. The discussion is expected to shape possible new trade defence measures, with further talks likely when EU leaders meet in Brussels in mid-June.

Forissier said the shift in thinking was not limited to China alone but applied to any country using commercial leverage to gain strategic advantage. “It is not only China,” he said. “It is all the countries that weaponise trade.”

Among the proposals under consideration is a requirement for EU companies to diversify supply chains, sourcing components from at least three different suppliers in order to reduce dependency on any single foreign market. Asked whether he supported such a measure, Forissier replied: “Yes, we have to.”

See also  Israel’s Right to Act: Global Stakes Rise as Iran Nears Nuclear Capability

Other options include targeted tariffs on sensitive industries such as chemicals, alongside stronger use of anti-dumping and anti-subsidy tools to counter imports priced below domestic market levels. These measures are designed to address concerns over overcapacity in China’s industrial sector and its impact on European manufacturers.

The debate is taking place against a backdrop of widening trade imbalances. EU goods imports from China exceeded exports by €359.3 billion in 2025, marking an increase of nearly 20% compared with the previous year.

China has already warned it could retaliate if the bloc imposes new restrictions, raising concerns about potential escalation in trade tensions between two of the world’s largest economies.

France has repeatedly pushed for a more assertive European trade policy, arguing that state subsidies, export controls on raw materials and industrial overproduction in major economies are distorting global markets.

Forissier stressed that Europe must maintain open dialogue with Beijing while defending its own industrial base. “We try to respect the Chinese,” he said. “The Chinese have to respect us, and this is the message European institutions have to send.”

Continue Reading

News

US Says Iran Talks ‘Borderline’ as Pakistan Pushes Diplomacy Amid War Tensions

Published

on

US President Donald Trump has said ongoing negotiations over the conflict involving Iran are teetering on the “borderline” between reaching a diplomatic agreement and a return to renewed military strikes, as tensions continue to rise across the region.

The remarks came as Pakistan’s army chief Field Marshal Asim Munir arrived in Tehran for fresh talks aimed at de-escalating the US-Israeli conflict with Iran. His visit follows a series of high-level diplomatic engagements involving Pakistani officials and Iranian leadership in recent days.

Munir was received in Tehran by Iranian Interior Minister Eskandar Momeni, alongside Pakistan’s Interior Minister Mohsin Naqvi, who has also travelled to the Iranian capital multiple times this week for meetings with senior officials.

Despite the renewed diplomatic activity, Iran has downplayed expectations of a breakthrough. Foreign ministry spokesman Esmaeil Baqaei said the visit did not signal any decisive shift in negotiations, describing the differences between the parties as “deep and extensive,” according to Iran’s ISNA news agency.

Speaking at a NATO foreign ministers’ meeting in Sweden, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said there had been limited progress in the discussions but cautioned against optimism.

“There’s a little bit of movement and that’s good,” Rubio said, adding that he did not want to exaggerate developments. He also warned that Washington retains “other options” if diplomacy fails, echoing Trump’s earlier comments that military action remains on the table if Iran does not agree to terms.

Trump has previously stated that he paused consideration of a strike due to what he described as “serious negotiations” taking place, but has repeatedly warned that the fragile ceasefire reached in mid-April could collapse.

See also  North Korea Resumes Balloon Campaign Against South Korea Amid Rising Tensions

Iran’s Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi said Tehran remained committed to talks despite what he called repeated breaches of diplomacy by Washington. He said Iran was participating “with a responsible approach and with all seriousness” in an effort to secure what he described as a fair outcome, according to Iranian state media.

A key point of contention remains the Strait of Hormuz, a strategic maritime route through which a significant share of global oil and gas supplies pass. Iranian actions in the waterway and US responses have heightened fears of wider economic disruption.

Iran has effectively restricted access through the strait, while US Central Command has reportedly blocked Iranian ports and redirected commercial vessels since mid-April. The European Union has since expanded its sanctions framework targeting those involved, calling the blockade contrary to international law.

Rubio said allied nations were also discussing contingency plans in case negotiations fail, warning that the situation may require a “plan B” if diplomatic efforts collapse.

Continue Reading

News

US Green Card Rule Change Forces Most Applicants to Apply From Abroad

Published

on

A sweeping policy change in the United States has upended a long-standing immigration process, requiring most foreign nationals seeking green cards to leave the country and complete their applications from abroad.

Under the new directive issued Friday by US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS), individuals in the United States on temporary visas — including work, student and tourist permits — will generally no longer be able to adjust their status to permanent residency while remaining in the country. Instead, they must return to their home countries and apply through US consulates, except in limited “extraordinary circumstances.”

USCIS spokesperson Zach Kahler said the policy was intended to realign the immigration system with its original framework.

“From now on, an alien who is in the U.S. temporarily and wants a Green Card must return to their home country to apply, except in extraordinary circumstances,” Kahler said. He added that the change would reduce incentives for people to remain in the US after visa denials.

The decision marks a significant departure from decades of practice, under which many migrants have been allowed to apply for permanent residency from within the United States. That pathway has been commonly used by spouses of US citizens, workers, students, and individuals with family ties in the country.

The process of obtaining a green card often takes months or even years, raising concerns that applicants may now be forced to leave jobs, homes and families while waiting for approval abroad.

Immigration attorneys and advocacy groups said they were still assessing the scope of the policy and how it would be enforced. Many also warned that practical barriers could make compliance difficult, particularly for applicants from countries where travel is restricted or where US consular services are limited or unavailable.

See also  Warsaw in the Running for New EU Customs Office Amid High-Stakes Competition

Shev Dalal-Dheini of the American Immigration Lawyers Association said the move appeared to disrupt established procedures. “USCIS is trying to upend decades of processing of adjustment of status,” she said, noting widespread uncertainty over who would be affected.

Jessie De Haven of the California Immigration Project said the policy could discourage eligible applicants from proceeding altogether. “It’s really hard to tell how this is going to be applied,” she said. “I do think it might have a chilling effect on people applying.”

The announcement forms part of a broader immigration crackdown under the Trump administration, which has sought to tighten legal pathways while increasing enforcement measures against irregular migration.

Officials have framed the change as an effort to close loopholes and strengthen oversight of the immigration system. Critics, however, argue it could lead to prolonged separations for families and create new obstacles for lawful immigrants seeking permanent residency in the United States.

Continue Reading

Trending