Trump administration moves to cut all remaining federal contracts with Harvard

Trump administration moves to cut all remaining federal contracts with Harvard

By Nandita Bose and Nate Raymond WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuters) -The Trump administration plans to terminate the federal government's remaining contracts with Harvard University, according to a letter scheduled to be sent to federal agencies on Tuesday. The letter, from the U.S. General Services Administration, directs all federal agencies to review and potentially terminate or reallocate their contracts with Harvard University, citing concerns over racial discrimination in admissions, alleged discriminatory hiring practices, and failure to protect Jewish students from harassment. It also references the Supreme Court's ruling in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and recent campus incidents as evidence of Harvard's failure to uphold federal standards and values. A copy of the letter, first reported by the New York Times, was reviewed by Reuters. Two administration officials familiar with the matter said it will be sent to agencies on Tuesday. One of the officials said the federal government's remaining contracts with Harvard University are valued at approximately $100 million. Harvard did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The move is the latest indication of the Trump administration's intent to cripple Harvard, widely considered the nation's most elite and culturally influential university, by targeting its financial stability and global standing. Since last month, the administration has frozen approximately $3.2 billion in grants and contracts with the university and has attempted to block its ability to enroll international students. The administration has framed its actions against Harvard as a civil rights battle, accusing the university of liberal bias, illegal racial admissions practices, and tolerating antisemitism. Harvard has countered that the fight centers on its First Amendment rights, alleging the Trump administration seeks to control its staff, curriculum, and enrollment. In one lawsuit filed last month, Harvard is seeking to recover over $3 billion in federal funding. In another, filed last week, it is asking a federal court to restore its ability to enroll international students. The GSA letter directs agencies to submit a list of contract cancellations by June 6. Contracts for critical services would be transitioned to other vendors rather than canceled immediately, it said. (Reporting by Nandita Bose in Washington and Nate Raymond in New YorkEditing by Rod Nickel)

byDan Dunne

in

May 27, 2025

Trump administration moves to cut all remaining federal contracts with Harvard

Trump administration moves to cut all remaining federal contracts with Harvard By Nandita Bose and Nate Raymond WASHINGTON/NEW YORK (Reuter...

Read More

US drops COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy children, pregnant women

US drops COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy children, pregnant women

(Reuters) -The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has stopped recommending routine COVID-19 vaccinations for pregnant women and healthy children, U.S. health regulators said on Tuesday. Health Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in a video posted on social media platform X that the vaccines have been removed from the CDC's immunization schedule for those groups. Kennedy, a long-time vaccine skeptic whose department oversees the CDC, has been remaking the U.S. health system to align with President Donald Trump's goal of dramatically shrinking the federal government. The U.S. Food and Drug Administration last week said it plans to require new clinical trials for approval of annual COVID-19 boosters for healthy Americans under age 65, effectively limiting them to older adults and those at risk of developing severe illness. COVID vaccine makers Moderna and Pfizer did not immediately respond to requests for comment. (Reporting by Manas Mishra in Bengaluru; Editing by Arun Koyyur)

byDan Dunne

in

May 27, 2025

US drops COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy children, pregnant women

US drops COVID vaccine recommendations for healthy children, pregnant women (Reuters) -The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has st...

Read More

US Supreme Court rejects case about student's 'There are only two genders' T-shirt

US Supreme Court rejects case about student's 'There are only two genders' T-shirt

By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S. Supreme Court declined on Tuesday to hear a student's challenge on free speech grounds to a Massachusetts public school's decision to bar him from wearing a T-shirt reading "There are only two genders" due to concern about the message's effect on transgender and other pupils. The justices turned away an appeal by the student, who was 12 at the time of the 2023 incident, of a lower court's ruling upholding the ban as a reasonable restriction and rejecting his claim that the school's action violated the U.S. Constitution's protections against government abridgment of speech. The student, identified in court papers as "L.M." because he is a minor, sued officials at John T. Nichols Middle School and the town of Middleborough, seeking monetary damages. A trial judge and then the Boston-based 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against him. The 1st Circuit decision stated that "it was reasonable for Middleborough to forecast that a message displayed throughout the school day denying the existence of the gender identities of transgender and gender nonconforming students would have a serious negative impact on those students' ability to concentrate on their classroom work." The legal dispute implicates a 1969 Supreme Court precedent in a case known as Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District that lets public schools restrict student speech when it would "substantially disrupt" a school community. The issue of transgender rights is front and center in the U.S. culture wars. Since returning to office in January, Republican President Donald Trump has taken a hardline stance on transgender rights, targeting "gender ideology" and declaring that the U.S. government would recognize two sexes: male and female. The Supreme Court on May 6 permitted Trump's administration to implement his ban on transgender people in the military, allowing the armed forces to discharge the thousands of current transgender troops and reject new recruits while legal challenges play out. L.M., who was a seventh grade student at the time, wore the T-shirt reading "There are only two genders" to school in March 2023. His lawyers said in court papers he did so in order to "share his view that gender and sex are identical, and there are only two sexes - male and female." "L.M. hoped to start a meaningful conversation on gender ideology, a matter of public concern; protect other students against ideas that L.M. considers false and harmful; and show them compassionate people can believe that sex is binary," his lawyers wrote in a Supreme Court filing. A teacher reported the shirt to the school principal's office, noting that LGBT students were present at school that day and expressing concerns that the shirt could disrupt classes. The principal asked the boy if he would be willing to change his shirt and return to class, but he declined. The principal then called the boy's father, Chris Morrison, who opted to pick up his son from school rather than have him remove his shirt. Morrison, after complaining to school officials about the incident, was referred to the dress code in the school's student handbook. It states: "Clothing must not state, imply, or depict hate speech or imagery that target(s) groups based on race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, religious affiliation or any other classification." In May 2023, L.M. again wore the T-shirt to school, but covered the words "only two" with a piece of tape that read "censored," thus bearing the message: "There are (censored) genders." L.M. removed that shirt after being asked by school officials. During the proceedings, the school system's superintendent said that some students at John T. Nichols Middle School "have attempted to commit suicide or have had suicidal ideations in the past few years, including members of the LGBTQ+ community," and that some of those students' struggles were "related to their treatment based on their gender identities by other students." The boy, who brought the lawsuit along with his father and stepmother, are represented in the lawsuit by Alliance Defending Freedom, a conservative legal group that has represented clients in various high-profile cases before the Supreme Court. The plaintiffs sought a court order prohibiting school officials from barring his wearing of the T-shirt and declaring the disputed portions of the dress code unconstitutional. They also sought unspecified monetary damages. U.S. District Judge Indira Talwani, an appointee of Democratic former President Barack Obama, ruled in favor of the school officials. Her decision was upheld last year by the 1st Circuit, prompting the Supreme Court appeal. The Supreme Court, which has a 6-3 conservative majority, is expected to rule by the end of June in a major transgender rights case. During arguments in the case in December, the conservative justices signaled their willingness to uphold a Republican-backed ban in Tennessee on gender-affirming medical care for transgender minors. (Reporting by John Kruzel; Editing by Will Dunham)

byDan Dunne

in

May 27, 2025

US Supreme Court rejects case about student's 'There are only two genders' T-shirt

US Supreme Court rejects case about student's 'There are only two genders' T-shirt By John Kruzel WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The U.S...

Read More

Supreme Court turns away Native American lawsuit over copper mine on sacred land

Supreme Court turns away Native American lawsuit over copper mine on sacred land

WASHINGTON — TheSupreme Courton Tuesday declined to consider whether Native Americans can challenge a massive copper mining project in Arizona that would destroy a sacred site used for tribal ceremonies, a weighty dispute that pitted religious rights against business interests. The court rejected an appeal brought by the nonprofit group Apache Stronghold asserting that its members' religious rights will be violated if the Resolution Copper mine goes forward because it would obliterate Oak Flat, the site in question. The Trump administrationrecently announcedits backing of the project. The court order noted that conservative Justice Samuel Alito did not participate. It did not say why. Conservative justices Neil Gorsuch and Clarence Thomas said they would have taken up the case. Gorsuch, known for his backing of Native Americans in other cases, said in a dissenting opinion it was a "grievous mistake" not to hear the challenge. The focus of attention is a law passed by Congress in 2014, which transferred the land from federal ownership to Resolution Copper, a joint venture of mining companies Rio Tinto and BHP. Resolution Copper says the mine could supply around 25 percent of the nation's copper, with the metal in high demand for renewable energy projects and electric vehicles. Apache Stronghold said tribal members' religious rights were violated both under the Constitution's First Amendment and a federal law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Oak Flat has been used for years by Western Apaches, a group of Native Americans that includes various tribes including the San Carlos Apache Tribe, which is based on a nearby reservation. Oak Flat is within the Tonto National Forest, about 70 miles east of Phoenix. "Oak Flat lies within the tribe's ancestral territory and is central to traditional Apache religion as the home of Apache deities and the only place where Apaches can practice unique ceremonies," lawyers for the San Carlos Apache Tribe wrote in court papers backing the appeal. According to Apache Stronghold, the site is the dwelling place of spiritual beings called the Ga'an and acts as "a direct corridor to the Creator." The site is used for sweat lodge ceremonies to mark boys reaching manhood and the multi-day "Sunrise Ceremony" that celebrates girls reaching womanhood. An environmental study found that if the mine is built, locations used for various ceremonies would be destroyed, with the land subsiding to create a giant crater almost two miles wide. The case reached the Supreme Court after the San Francisco-based 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals narrowly ruled against Apache Stronghold earlier this year, concluding that the land transfer did not "substantially burden" the ability of tribe members to exercise their religious rights. A district court judge had earlier reached the same conclusion. Key factors in the case are that the land at issue was owned by the federal government, not any of the tribes, and was transferred by an act of Congress. The United States originally took control of the land in the mid 19th century. It signed an 1852 treaty with Apache chiefs that pledged to protect tribal interests, but as with other treaties with tribes, the government failed to live up to its obligations. Apache Stronghold's lawsuit also contained a claim under the 1852 treaty, but that issue is not before the Supreme Court. The court's 6-3 conservative majority regularly backs religious rights in cases that often involve claims brought by Christians. The Apache case was different in part because it involved Native Americans and had the attention of powerful interests eager to make the mining project happen. In court papers filed before President Donald Trump took office, former Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar urged the court not to hear the case, saying that while the government respects the tribe's religious beliefs "Congress has specifically mandated that Oak Flat be transferred so that the area can be used for mining." Furthermore, she added, there is no precedent for concluding that the government can violate religious rights by making decisions about its own land. But Apache Stronghold had some strong support of its own, including legal groups that have previously prevailed at the Supreme Court when representing conservative Christians, such as religious rights group Becket. Various religious groups, including the Presbyterian Church and the Episcopalian Church filed briefs urging the Supreme Court to take the case.

byDan Dunne

in

May 27, 2025

Supreme Court turns away Native American lawsuit over copper mine on sacred land

Supreme Court turns away Native American lawsuit over copper mine on sacred land WASHINGTON — TheSupreme Courton Tuesday declined to conside...

Read More

The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that's sacred to Apaches

The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that's sacred to Apaches

WASHINGTON (AP) — TheSupreme Courton Tuesday rejected an appeal from Apaches who are fighting to halt a massive copper mining project onfederal land in Arizonathat they hold sacred. The justices left in place lower court decisions allowing the transfer of the Tonto National Forest land, known as Oak Flat, to Resolution Copper, which plans to mine what it says is the second-largest known copper deposit in the world. The Trump administration has said it will push to complete the transfer. A group known as Apache Stronghold, representing the interests of certain members of the San Carlos Apache Tribe, has argued thatthe land transferwill result in the destruction of the site in violation of its members' religious rights. Apache tribes in Arizona consider Oak Flat, which is dotted with ancient oak groves and traditional plants, essential to their spiritual well-being. An estimated 40 billion pounds of copper could be mined over the lifetime of the mine, according to the U.S. Forest Service. The project has significant support innearby Superiorand other traditional mining towns in the area. The company estimates the mine will generate $1 billion a year for Arizona's economy and create thousands of local jobs. Resolution Copper is a subsidiary of international mining giants Rio Tinto and BHP. Congress approved a land swap in 2014 that would give Resolution Copper 3.75 square miles (9.71 square kilometers) of forest land in return for eight parcels it owns in Arizona. In the waning days of the first Trump administration, the U.S. Agriculture Department issued the required environmental review that would allow the land swap to proceed. Apache Stronghold sued in federal court to block it. With the change in administrations to President Joe Biden, the Agriculture Department, which includes the Forest Service,pulled back the reviewto further consult with Native American tribes. But the suit proceeded and a year ago, the federal appeals court in San Francisco split 6-5 to allow the land transfer to go forward, rejecting Apache Stronghold's arguments about religious freedom and its invocation of a 1852 treaty between the U.S. government and the Apaches. The five dissenting judges described the outcome as a tragic error that would result in "the utter destruction" of the sacred site. The Forest Service already has provided the 60 days notice that it intends to re-issue the environmental review, as required by a court order.

byDan Dunne

in

May 27, 2025

The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that's sacred to Apaches

The Supreme Court rejects a plea to block a copper mine on land in Arizona that's sacred to Apaches WASHINGTON (AP) — TheSupreme Courton...

Read More