Trump Tightens Grip on Columbia U; Demands Reforms from 60 Other Colleges

By: Fern Sidman

In a significant escalation of its ongoing campaign to hold American universities accountable for its wholly inadequate responses to the dramatic uptick in anti-Semitism, the Trump administration has slashed an additional $30 million in federal grants to Columbia University, according to a report that appeared on Monday in The Washington Free Beacon. These new cuts deepen the financial pressure already mounting against the Ivy League institution, which is now facing a sweeping federal funding review that could potentially impact billions more.

This latest reduction follows an earlier move to cancel $400 million in federal grants and contracts, as first reported by The Washington Free Beacon. That initial decision was characterized by the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism as merely “the first round of action,” with more cuts expected in phases. The task force, which includes officials from various federal agencies, has since continued its audit of the university’s financial ties with the federal government — an audit that encompasses Columbia’s entire $5 billion in federal funding portfolio.

The $30 million in additional cuts announced on Friday came specifically from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), one of the core agencies participating in the administration’s task force. A source familiar with the review told The Washington Free Beacon that other departments are also evaluating grant allocations to Columbia and that further financial penalties may be forthcoming.

Among those directly impacted by the new round of funding cuts is Dr. Jeanine D’Armiento, a senior Columbia faculty member who chairs the University Senate Executive Committee. D’Armiento’s research programs reportedly account for approximately $2 million of the newly rescinded funds, according to information obtained by The Washington Free Beacon.

Dr. D’Armiento’s position is particularly significant due to her leadership role in the University Senate — one of the key institutional bodies responsible for oversight and student disciplinary policy. As tensions mounted on Columbia’s Morningside Heights campus over the past academic year, D’Armiento emerged as a central figure in resisting disciplinary measures against student protesters, many of whom were involved in demonstrations criticized for anti-Semitic rhetoric and disruptions to university operations.

According to The Washington Free Beacon, D’Armiento advocated for more inclusive engagement with student activists rather than firm disciplinary action. In communications obtained by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, D’Armiento reportedly urged then-Columbia President Minouche Shafik to “engage in dialogue” with the protesters, suggesting that students be included in shaping the very rules they were violating. Her messages to university leadership indicated a desire to soften institutional responses to what many saw as dangerously disruptive protests.

In one internal message cited by The Washington Free Beacon, Wanda Holland-Greene, vice chairwoman of Columbia’s Board of Trustees, wrote to fellow trustee Claire Shipman, expressing concern over D’Armiento’s alignment with the student activists: “She is clearly and closely connected to the students who are leading the protest,” Holland-Greene warned. “She says that we are fighting an ideological battle (anti-war) with logic (threats of discipline). What I heard her say is that we need to either speak to their idealism or prepare for their continued and coordinated escalation.”

The protests in question, which erupted last spring, led to a campus occupation of the university’s south lawn, forced the cancellation of in-person classes, and ultimately derailed Columbia’s graduation ceremony. These disruptions, and the university’s clear cut failure to confront anti-Semitic elements within the protest movement, have drawn intense scrutiny from lawmakers, advocacy groups, and now the federal government.

As reported by The Washington Free Beacon, the Trump administration sees its campaign to cut funding from Columbia as part of a broader initiative to challenge universities that are tolerant of anti-Semitic speech and hostile campus environments for Jewish students. The administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism has indicated that similar funding reviews may extend to other institutions if comparable concerns are identified.

Columbia University has not yet issued a public comment on the latest funding cuts, according to The Washington Free Beacon.

The administration has now taken a further step — issuing a formal letter to Columbia’s interim president, Katrina Armstrong, laying out strict preconditions for any negotiations over the restoration of lost funding.

The letter, sent Thursday, serves not only as a stark warning but also as a detailed roadmap for what the federal government expects from the university if it hopes to regain its financial support. According to The Washington Free Beacon, the administration described these requirements as “immediate next steps” that are a “precondition for formal negotiations” regarding Columbia’s financial relationship with the United States government.

Among the most notable stipulations outlined in the letter are strict enforcement of existing disciplinary policies, which the administration argues have been inconsistently applied in the face of increasingly disruptive and anti-Semitic campus protests; Implementation of a mask ban, designed to prevent protestors from concealing their identities and to facilitate accountability during demonstrations; and adoption of a comprehensive plan to reform the university’s admissions process, a measure that appears to reflect broader concerns about ideological bias in the student selection process.

These demands come amid growing federal scrutiny of Columbia’s institutional response to campus unrest, much of it centered around the university’s handling of student activism that has crossed into blatantly anti-Semitic rhetoric and behavior, according to federal officials and public critics.

As detailed in The Washington Free Beacon report, the administration’s letter represents a significant shift from simply withholding funds to now leveraging federal aid as a tool to compel institutional reform — an approach that is likely to reverberate across the higher education landscape.

At the heart of this broader controversy lies a stark internal division within Columbia’s own leadership ranks — a conflict made especially visible during a contentious University Senate meeting held on May 3, 2024.

A dramatic episode unfolded during that meeting when Dr. D’Armiento abruptly cut off the microphone of fellow Columbia professor Carol Ewing Garber, as was indicated in The Washington Free Beacon report. Garber had begun to address what the presence of “groups who are supporting terrorists” on campus, a statement that prompted immediate and forceful intervention by D’Armiento.

“There is danger in that statement,” D’Armiento declared. “I am trying to take our community a level down and that word is not going to do it. Maybe I broke the rules … but I cannot allow that kind of thing in a time like this.”

This moment, as reported by The Washington Free Beacon, encapsulated a broader struggle at Columbia over how to define — and respond to — protest activity that has crossed a line from free expression into dangerous extremism. D’Armiento’s decision to silence her colleague drew sharp attention to her influential role in shaping Columbia’s response to campus unrest, and it underscores why she has become a key figure in the federal funding controversy.

The administration’s growing impatience is clearly reflected in its newly articulated demands. The inclusion of a mask ban, in particular, signals a desire for greater transparency and accountability in student activism, which critics say has often been shielded by anonymity and tolerated without consequence.

Meanwhile, the proposed reform of Columbia’s admissions process introduces a provocative new front in the debate over university governance. While The Washington Free Beacon report did not specify the exact nature of the admissions changes being sought, the move hints at a broader critique from the Trump administration — one that views elite academic institutions as increasingly dominated by ideological agendas hostile to pluralism and free discourse.

The administration’s actions, backed by the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, are being closely watched as a potential blueprint for how federal funding can be used to exert pressure on academic institutions that have failed to uphold basic principles of accountability, order, and equal protection for Jewish students.

Columbia University, as of this writing, has not issued an official response to the latest letter or to the growing list of conditions attached to future federal funding. But the stakes are mounting quickly — not only for Columbia itself but for universities nationwide who may soon find themselves facing similar federal scrutiny.

A new chapter of scrutiny has opened at Columbia University as the prestigious Ivy League institution now faces a federal civil rights investigation, stemming from disturbing claims by two university janitors who were trapped and attacked by an anti-Israel mob and repeatedly forced to scrub swastikas off campus property in the months leading up to a violent campus protest.

According to an exclusive report that appeared on Monday in The New York Post, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has launched a formal probe into complaints filed by Lester Wilson and Mario Torres, longtime university employees who say they were subjected to discriminatory treatment, retaliatory harassment, and a dangerously hostile work environment — all exacerbated by Columbia’s failure to adequately respond to rising anti-Semitism and racial hostility on campus.

The two janitors, who each had more than five years of service at Columbia, allege they became victims not only of neglectful institutional oversight but of a terrifying physical assault during last spring’s takeover of Hamilton Hall, a building at the center of escalating campus unrest. According to documentation reviewed by The New York Post, the incident left both men physically injured and deeply traumatized, forcing them to leave their positions and seek justice under federal law.

“We welcome the EEOC’s decision to open an investigation into Mario’s and Lester’s charges of discrimination,” said former U.S. Attorney General Bill Barr, whose legal firm, Torridon, is representing the two men. Speaking to The New York Post, Barr added, “Columbia has a legal and moral obligation to protect the civil rights of its students and employees. It must be held accountable when it fails to do so.”

The janitors’ complaints, first filed in October 2024, center on repeated exposure to anti-Semitic and racist graffiti, particularly swastikas, that they were ordered to clean from Columbia’s campus buildings, especially Hamilton Hall. As the complaints describe, graffiti bearing white supremacist and anti-Semitic symbols began to appear shortly after the October 7 Hamas terror attack on Israel, which ignited global protests and a sharp spike in anti-Semitic rhetoric across academic institutions.

“Mr. Wilson recognized the swastikas as symbols of white supremacy,” his complaint stated. “As an African-American man, he found the images deeply distressing. He reported them to his supervisors, who instructed him to erase the graffiti.”

Wilson and Torres reported that no matter how many times they cleaned the hateful symbols, they reappeared, creating an endless and psychologically taxing cycle, The New York Post reported. Torres, who is Latino, reportedly estimated the number of swastikas he personally removed to be in the dozens — eventually reaching a point of emotional exhaustion and outrage.

The most harrowing episode recounted in the EEOC filings came during the April 2024 occupation of Columbia’s Hamilton Hall, when the two men were trapped and physically assaulted by protestors, some of whom hurled slurs such as “Jew-lovers” at them, according to The New York Post report. The violence, which unfolded just hours after Columbia President Minouche Shafik had declared the campus “unsafe for everyone,” exposed what the janitors’ legal team called a systemic failure to protect staff from escalating threats.

“Columbia had indeed become unsafe for everyone — including the two janitors who were trapped inside Hamilton Hall,” their complaints state. “And for these two men, Columbia had for months been a hostile environment in violation of Title VII.”

Their legal action invokes Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits workplace discrimination on the basis of race, religion, and national origin, and includes protections for employees who report such abuses. Wilson and Torres claim they faced retaliation for speaking out against anti-Semitic and racist conduct, alleging that their attempts to raise concerns were met with indifference, if not active suppression.

While the EEOC has not disclosed the precise timeline of its investigation, The New York Post report confirmed that the federal agency had already begun work on the case as early as last month. The probe represents yet another legal and reputational challenge for Columbia University, which is already embroiled in broader federal scrutiny over anti-Semitism on campus and its handling of student protests.

The janitors’ case has drawn national attention not only for its disturbing allegations but because it expands the narrative around campus unrest beyond students and faculty, spotlighting how university staff — often overlooked in media coverage — are also victims of escalating ideological violence.

As the federal investigation unfolds, Columbia University faces a growing chorus of demands for institutional reform, transparency, and accountability. The university has not yet issued a public response to the EEOC probe, according to The New York Post.

But for Wilson and Torres, the trauma remains real — as does their determination to see justice served.