Harvard strikes back at Trump administration | Planet America Wednesday

Planet America Summary: Harvard Funding Battle, Deportation Controversy, and Wisconsin Veto Power

Key Concepts:

• Academic Freedom vs. Government Overreach
• Anti-Semitism as a Political Tool
• Due Process and Immigration
• Executive Power and Legislative Intent
• Constitutional Rights and Protections

Harvard vs. Trump Administration: Funding and Academic Freedom

• The Conflict: The Trump administration threatened to withhold federal funding from Harvard University over alleged anti-Semitism, demanding the school report foreign student conduct violations, submit to audits of academic departments and DEI programs, and provide admissions data.
• Harvard's Response: Harvard refused most demands, citing concerns about regulating intellectual conditions and surrendering its independence. President wrote a letter stating the school "will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights."
• Obama's Support: Obama supported Harvard, criticizing the administration's "unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom."
• Funding at Stake: The Trump administration threatened to withhold over $2 billion in federal funding and potentially revoke Harvard's tax-exempt status.
• Tax Exemption Implications: Losing tax exemption would be "disastrous" for Harvard, impacting both direct tax savings and fundraising due to the loss of donor tax deductions.
• Legal Basis: The administration may attempt to use the Bob Jones University precedent (defunded for banning interracial dating) arguing that Harvard's alleged anti-Semitism violates "settled public policy."
• Foreign Student Visas: Homeland Security Secretary demanded detailed records on Harvard's foreign student visa holders, threatening loss of student and exchange visitor program certification. Foreign students comprise roughly 27% of Harvard's total enrollment.
• Professor Brooks' Perspective: Cornell William Brooks (Harvard Kennedy School) argues that Harvard was "circumstantially compelled" to oppose the Trump overreach. He criticized the demands for viewpoint audits, DEI office closures, and increased scrutiny of international students.
• Weaponizing Anti-Semitism: Brooks believes the Trump administration is "weaponizing" the issue of anti-Semitism to advance a political agenda, rather than sincerely addressing it.
• Scale of Intervention: Brooks argues that the Trump administration's actions (threatening tax-exempt status, multi-billion dollar fines, defunding) represent a difference in "character" and "degree" compared to previous administrations' actions regarding university funding.

Kilar Abrego Garcia Case: Deportation and Due Process

• The Case: Kilar Abrego Garcia, an undocumented immigrant from El Salvador, was deported despite a withholding of removal order due to a fear of persecution by a gang in El Salvador.
• MS-13 Allegations: The Trump administration designated MS-13 a terrorist organization and alleged Garcia was a member, posting a doctored photo of his hand with "MS13" photoshopped onto his knuckles.
• Lack of Due Process: Garcia was deported without further hearings or due process.
• Administration's Justification: Attorney General Pam Bondi labeled Garcia as one of the top MS13 members. The DOJ publicized Garcia's police file, including a domestic violence complaint.
• Constitutional Rights: Senator Chris Van Holland argued that Garcia's constitutional rights to due process were violated.
• Margarita Incident: El Salvador President tweeted a photo of Van Holland with Garcia, implying they were enjoying margaritas. Van Holland clarified that neither of them touched the drinks.
• Trump's Rationale: Trump claimed that giving everyone a trial would take "200 years" and require "hundreds of thousands of trials."
• Judicial Capacity: There are only 700 immigration judges who cleared 460,000 cases in the first nine months of the fiscal year.

Supreme Court Intervention: Venezuelan Deportations

• Alien Enemies Act: The Supreme Court ordered a pause on the deportation of Venezuelan men in North Texas, throwing into doubt Trump's mass deportation plans and his use of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act.
• Notice Requirement: The Supreme Court previously ruled that detainees must receive notice before being removed, allowing them time to seek relief in court.
• Dodgy Notice: The administration gave Spanish-speaking migrants a notice in English stating they would be deported to Venezuela (they were actually going to El Salvador).
• Supreme Court's Response: The Supreme Court issued a swift order directing the government not to remove any detainees, indicating a loss of faith in the government's promises.

Wisconsin's Veto Power: The 400-Year Funding Extension

• Line Item Veto: Wisconsin's governor has the power to use a line item veto to block any bill they don't agree with.
• The Veto: Governor Tony Ivers, a Democrat, used his partial veto power to extend public school funding for 400 years by deleting specific words and numbers from a budget bill.
• Legal Challenge: The Republican-controlled legislature challenged the veto, but the Wisconsin Supreme Court upheld it.
• Historical Context: Wisconsin has a history of governors using creative vetoes, including striking individual letters to create new words.
• Constitutional Amendments: Amendments were passed to prevent creating new words or sentences through vetoes, but they didn't explicitly ban crossing out numbers.
• Bipartisan Issue: The use of partial veto power has been a bipartisan battle in Wisconsin for decades.

Conclusion

The episode highlights several key conflicts: the battle between academic freedom and government overreach, the potential for anti-Semitism to be used as a political tool, the importance of due process in immigration proceedings, and the ongoing tension between executive power and legislative intent. The Wisconsin case serves as a reminder of the creative ways in which political actors can manipulate legal loopholes to achieve their goals. The Supreme Court's intervention in the Venezuelan deportation case suggests a growing skepticism towards the Trump administration's actions.