You could spend the hours before a date obsessing over your hair, makeup, or outfit. Or you could channel that energy into brainstorming what to ask the stranger you’re splitting a basket of breadsticks with to figure out if you might want to eat dinner together forever. “There's so much disappointment in dating today, and one of my goals is to empower people to remember how much of their dating life is in their control,” says Damona Hoffman, a celebrity dating coach, host of the podcast Dates & Mates, and official love expert of The Drew Barrymore Show. “It’s really important that you express yourself clearly and get to know the person across from you, so you have the best chance of having that relationship continue or identifying if it's not a match.”

Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance, supplies vaccines to nearly half of the world’s children. For decades, governments, institutions, and private groups around the world have provided the funding it needs to buy, stockpile and distribute vaccines at reduced cost for lower and middle-resource countries. But leaked documents, first reported by the New York Times, reveal that the Trump Administration has created lists of funding projects it plans to stop supporting, including Gavi.

Rabbi Sharon Brous was growing increasingly alarmed at the Trump administration’s strong-arm tactics, like its attacks on higher-education funding and bullying of law firms, all in the name of protecting Jews. So early last month, she delivered an impassioned sermon titled “I Am Not Your Pawn” to her Los Angeles congregation. Hours later, the next shoe dropped. Immigration agents began detaining activists and foreign students who had been involved in pro-Palestinian protests. “This is not going to protect Jews,” Rabbi Brous said in an interview. “We’re being used.” Across the country, American Jews have watched with alarm or enthusiasm as an effort to address campus unrest over the war in Gaza has transformed into a campaign to deny elite universities billions of dollars in funding, to press major law firms into pro bono work on “antisemitism” and to deport foreign students even tangentially involved in the protests last spring. “We have to combat antisemitism as vigorously as we can,” said Matt Brooks, the chief executive of the Republican Jewish Coalition, adding that with President Trump in office, there is “a new sheriff in town.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT The divisions mirror those that have long split Jewish communities and have grown deeper since the Hamas attacks of Oct. 7, 2023, and the broad campus protests that followed Israel’s devastating response in Gaza.But where most Jews share concerns about antisemitic speech in some of the protests, many within the community have become convinced that things may have gone too far. A video of plainclothes immigration agents surprising and arresting a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University on the streets of Somerville, Mass., had particularly disturbing resonance for some in the Jewish community. The student, Rumeysa Ozturk, had co-written an opinion essay for a student newspaper demanding the university take a stand against Israel’s war in Gaza. For many in a community that has suffered more than its share of unjust arrests, disappearances, deportations and deadly violence over the centuries, the video evoked painful memories from Jewish history. That it was done in the name of defending Jews made it worse. Two pro-Israel groups, Canary Mission and Betar, have even been involved in singling out pro-Palestinian protesters to target. Editors’ Picks What a New American Citizen Learned on Route 66 Simple Sandals Are Always a Good Investment Is ‘Reef Safe’ Sunscreen Really Better? “I stood up. I was sitting down. I stood up involuntarily,” said Orna Guralnik, an Israeli American clinical psychologist and therapist, describing her reaction to watching the video. “It’s outrage and fear.”Such arrests have “woken people up to the cynical way that the fight against antisemitism is used,” added Dr. Guralnik, who has gained fame with her television show “Couples Therapy.” “It contrasts everything that a liberal person believes in.” In her practice, she said her American Jewish patients were “confused and really conflicted.”Though the federal crackdown has so far targeted critics of Israel, some think the Trump administration’s actions uncomfortably echo previous eras of bigoted nationalism that gave way to overt antisemitism. “Find me a moment in history when Jews anywhere benefited from a mix of rampant nationalism and repression,” wrote the journalist Matt Bai in a Washington Post opinion piece on Tuesday. “You’ll be looking awhile.”By saying that the harsh actions of the federal government have been in the name of protecting the Jewish community, the Trump administration has, intentionally or not, put a spotlight on Jews that makes many uncomfortable. “Anytime you put Jews in the middle on an issue, it’s not good for the Jews,” said Jonathan Jacoby of the Nexus Project, a progressive Jewish group that has been searching for a way to combat antisemitism without suppressing political debate. “That’s a classic antisemitic position that antisemites like to put Jews. So they can be scapegoated.” At the same time, the Trump administration continues to enjoy the backing of many Jewish groups, including those in the mainstream of social and political life. The Anti-Defamation League, which for more than a century has worked to combat antisemitism, quickly put out a statement in support of the arrest last month of an activist at Columbia University, Mahmoud Khalil, saying his detention “serves as a deterrent to others who might consider breaking the law on college campuses or anywhere.” The statement said it assumed Mr. Khalil would be given “due process.” Mr. Khalil, a legal permanent resident from Syria with a pregnant American wife, has not been charged with a crime. He has been held for nearly three weeks in a facility in Louisiana, where he was taken after his arrest on March 8 in New York. The Orthodox Union, an umbrella organization representing religious Jews, has been broadly supportive of the Trump administration’s actions. In a statement, its executive vice president, Rabbi Moshe Hauer, called for the fight against the “anarchy, hate, intimidation, and violence that have infected the campuses” to be carried out “the American way, firmly, resolutely, legally.” A White House spokesman did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Mr. Brooks, of the Republican Jewish Coalition, said that the answer to antisemitism cannot be doing nothing and called the notion that the federal government’s actions put American Jews in any greater danger “absolutely absurd.”On the streets of American cities with large and diverse Jewish communities, feelings have been much more ambivalent. Rabbi Jeremy Kalmanofsky, who leads a socially progressive but religiously Conservative Jewish synagogue in Manhattan, said he had been stopped days ago on the sidewalk by a congregant who expressed how distressed she was that “people are being disappeared from street corners in the name of fighting antisemitism.” “My community is very, very skeptical of the genuineness of the administration’s antisemitism rhetoric,” Rabbi Kalmanofsky said. “I think that the Jewish people are the worse for the wear if the foundations of a constitutional order and civil rights and civil liberties and higher education are diminished,” he said, referring to attacks on the legal system and universities. Amy Spitalnick, chief executive of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, a pro-democracy group, said she also doubted the motivation behind the push to combat antisemitism because it has involved the selective application of due process rights based on people’s identities and beliefs. “It’s about exploiting concerns about antisemitism to undermine democracy,” she said. But saying so publicly has been an occasionally fraught experience. Rabbi Kalmanofsky posted on Facebook his objection to the treatment of Mr. Khalil, not because he agreed with the activist’s views on Israel, which he said he finds objectionable, but because his arrest represented a potential threat to everyone.“If this legal resident can be arrested and deported for exercising First Amendment rights, then anyone can,” he wrote, offering “kudos” to the federal judge in the case who blocked the deportation and is also a member of his synagogue. The at-times heated discussion over his post surprised the rabbi. “The correct question is does America benefit from him being here,” one commenter replied, speaking of Mr. Khalil. “If the answer is no, then he should be deported.” In Los Angeles, Rabbi Brous of IKAR, a nondenominational Jewish congregation, lamented that for many people, Jewish or not, it has become difficult to hold two competing ideas at the same time, and far easier to retreat into defined ideological camps. She said she wanted to be clear that two things were true: “There is a real antisemitism problem in our time and the universities have become very fertile ground” for its normalization. And, she added, this administration’s attacks “do not emerge from a genuine desire to keep Jews safe.” “What may feel today like a welcomed embrace is actually putting us at even greater danger,” she said in her sermon on March 8. One of her congregants, Shifra Bronznick, watched online from New York, and it resonated deeply with her. She said she told dozens of people about it, telling them: “You must listen to this sermon.”

The landslide sweep for the Republican party during last year’s election is set to be tested on Tuesday during a special election for Wisconsin’s Supreme Court. The race has become the most expensive judicial race in U.S. history, with investments nearing $100 million as the candidates, Donald Trump-endorsed Brad Schimel and liberal-backed Dane County Judge Susan Crawford, face each other. The winner will decide the supermajority of the court, which is currently liberal. The impact of the Wisconsin race could be felt at a national level, as the state’s Supreme Court is set to rule on issues from abortion rights to congressional redistricting, the latter of which would impact the makeup of the U.S. House of Representatives in particular. Republicans hold a slim 218 to 213 majority, with four vacancies currently at play. Another special election in Florida—for the seats of National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, the man behind the Signal chat leak to The Atlantic Editor-in-Chief Jeffrey Goldberg, and former Rep. Matt Gaetz, who resigned in his failed pursuit of the position for attorney general—has already put Republican control at risk. Elon Musk, the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) head and CEO of X, along with groups that support him, have donated about $20 million to support Schimel, with Musk even handing out checks for $1 million to two Wisconsin voters on Sunday. “If the [Wisconsin] supreme court is able to redraw the districts, they will gerrymander the district and deprive Wisconsin of two seats on the Republican side,” Musk said on Sunday. “Then they will try to stop all the government reforms we are getting done for you, the American people.” Election day in Wisconsin is April 1st. Here’s what to know. Who are the candidates? The Wisconsin election will decide the ideological makeup of the court in a swing state that elected Trump for President in 2024, but voted for former President Joe Biden in 2020. Musk is backing Schimel, the former Attorney General for Wisconsin and a self-described “top cop,” according to his election website. He promises to be “tough on crime,” per his campaign slogan, and positions himself in opposition to the “rogue judges across the nation putting their radical agenda above the law.” He is also endorsed by Trump. Schimel’s opponent, Crawford, is a Circuit Court Judge who says she is running to “protect the basic rights and freedoms of Wisconsinites under our constitution.” A former prosecutor and private practice attorney who previously represented the Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Crawford says she wants to fight to protect basic rights that are under threat by a right-wing agenda. She is endorsed by four current Wisconsin Supreme Court Justices, U.S. Senator Tammy Baldwin, and organizations such as the Wisconsin Education Association Council and Emily’s List. Why does Elon Musk care so much about this race? Musk, who called the race critical for the “future of civilization” at an America PAC event on Sunday, has been a key contributor to the race. Individual campaign contributions can only amount to $20,000, but so far, Musk has donated at least $3 million to Wisconsin’s Republican Party. Other groups fueled by Musk’s dollars have contributed more than $20 million in the race. Crawford has been overtly critical of the billionaire’s actions. “Elon Musk would really like to buy himself a seat on the Wisconsin Supreme Court,” she said. “He wants to put somebody there that he thinks he can have some influence over and access to.” Tesla is currently embroiled in a lawsuit regarding dealer licenses after the company’s dealer license was denied in 2024 because of a state law barring manufacturers from owning dealerships, according to Wisconsin Public Radio. The case could potentially reach the state’s Supreme Court. Is Musk really handing out $1 million checks to voters? On Sunday, Musk handed out a million-dollar check to two registered voters in the state. Musk first used this tactic during the general election, where he also gave voters a million-dollar prize if they registered to vote in swing states. Election law experts suggested then that the act was illegal because federal law forbids people from paying or accepting payments to register to vote. Wisconsin Attorney General Josh Kaul filed a lawsuit on Friday to prevent Musk from handing out the exorbitant payments to voters, though an appellate court denied his request. Is George Soros involved in this race? Philanthropist George Soros, a well-known liberal donor who is often the subject of right-wing conspiracy theories, has given $2 million to the state’s Democratic party. Musk blamed Soros on Sunday when he was interrupted while speaking in Wisconsin, saying it was "inevitable at least a few Soros operatives would be in the audience."

Tension had been building at Princeton University as pro-Palestinian demonstrators occupied a white-columned, Greek Revival-style building at the center of campus and the police moved in. An angry crowd had surrounded a bus where two demonstrators were being held after officers led them out of the building. “It was a tense time as there were hundreds of protesters that were attempting to interfere with lawful arrests,” reads a police report from that day, April 29, 2024. David Piegaro, then a Princeton junior, was there filming with his phone. Mr. Piegaro says he was not one of the protesters, and he opposes much of their language and tactics. He described himself as a pro-Israel “citizen journalist” who was concerned by what he saw as the university’s insufficient response and wanted to bear witness by recording. By nightfall, he was one of more than a dozen students charged with wrongdoing at the elite New Jersey school. He joined the roughly 3,100 people arrested or detained last spring on campuses across the country amid a wave of student activism over the war in Gaza. Trespassing charges are pending against the pro-Palestinian protesters arrested at Princeton that day. But Mr. Piegaro, who was charged with assaulting a police officer after he was blocked from entering a campus building, was the first person to go to trial. On Tuesday, the Princeton Municipal Court judge who presided over Mr. Piegaro’s two-day trial in February found him not guilty. “Incidentally colliding with an outstretched arm may have been unwise, or even defiant, but it does not amount to reckless disregard,” the judge, John F. McCarthy III, said as he announced the verdict. “The defendant, in my opinion, showed poor judgment in a tense moment, but it does not rise to the level of criminal recklessness.” The Trump administration has made a dramatic show of punishing or trying to punish college-age protesters who have spoken out against Israel’s military response in Gaza, where the death toll has surpassed 50,000 people. The administration has either detained or threatened to deport at least nine international students or faculty members, including a Tufts University graduate student who had co-written an opinion piece in the student newspaper criticizing the university’s response to pro-Palestinian demands. She was taken into custody last week. But the arrest and trial of Mr. Piegaro, who was born and raised in New Jersey, underscored the complexity of the issues facing university administrators and the police as they strive to balance respect for free expression with questions about what constitutes hate speech. Mr. Piegaro, 27, is older than most undergraduate students. He began studying at Princeton after serving for several years in the U.S. Army, where he worked as an intelligence analyst with a top-secret security clearance. He is Jewish and said he was troubled by the deadly attack on Israel by the terror group Hamas, which killed about 1,200 people, and the tactics of the growing pro-Palestinian movement on campus. He said he was not, however, involved in the protests or counterprotests. And one of the charges brought against him — aggravated assault — was far more serious than the trespassing citations filed against 13 other Princeton students charged that day. As Mr. Piegaro’s case moved through the criminal justice system, three of the charges he initially faced, including aggravated assault, were dropped or reduced. He and his lawyer, Gerald Krovatin, said he twice refused offers to plead guilty to a lesser charge, convinced of his innocence and unwilling to voluntarily mar his record with a conviction of any kind. He went to trial on a lower-level assault charge, equivalent to a misdemeanor, that carried a potential penalty of six months in jail and a $1,000 fine. “I really believe I’m the victim,” Mr. Piegaro said in an interview. “I really don’t think I did anything.” The run-in that led to his arrest involved the head of the school’s campus security department, Kenneth Strother Jr. Mr. Piegaro, upset that more than a dozen of the protesters had been released with citations, had begun recording two of their faculty advisers, who were speaking with Mr. Strother and walking toward Whig Hall, which is adjacent to the building that had been occupied, Clio Hall. Mr. Strother barred Mr. Piegaro from trying to follow them in, and Mr. Piegaro can be heard on the video he recorded asking Mr. Strother, who was not in uniform or wearing a badge, his name and position. “Don’t touch me,” Mr. Piegaro says before the video abruptly ends. Seconds later, Mr. Piegaro said, he found himself tumbling down the front steps of the building.What happened in between was the crux of the dispute. According to Mr. Strother, whose account appeared in the police report, Mr. Piegaro “pushed himself” into Mr. Strother, who “grabbed Mr. Piegaro by his arm and told him he was under arrest.” Mr. Strother said that he lost hold of Mr. Piegaro, who was resisting arrest, causing Mr. Piegaro to fall down the stairs. Mr. Piegaro says he was the one who was assaulted. Sarah Kwartler, a graduate student who had gone on two dates with Mr. Piegaro several years ago and recognized him, testified that she stopped to watch part of what unfolded. She said she saw Mr. Strother holding Mr. Piegaro “like an open pair of scissors,” losing his grip and dropping him, according to a summary of the testimony submitted to the judge. Mr. Piegaro then rolled to the bottom of the stairs, Ms. Kwartler said, where he was handcuffed and arrested. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Complaining of soreness, Mr. Piegaro was taken to a hospital and evaluated for broken ribs and a concussion. Mr. Strother, who did not reply to requests for comment, was uninjured, according to the police report. Mr. Krovatin, Mr. Piegaro’s lawyer, had argued that the decision to initially charge his client with aggravated assault, in addition to several other crimes, smacked of disparate treatment when compared with the lower-level trespassing charges leveled against the protesters. “The fact remains that the only student charged with three indictable offenses on that day was a Jewish U.S. Army veteran,” Mr. Krovatin said, adding, “I don’t get why Princeton hasn’t pulled back on this.” A spokeswoman for Princeton, Jennifer Morrill, said before the verdict that the university deferred to the judgment of the municipal prosecutor and the municipal judge. She drew a distinction between Mr. Piegaro’s assault case and the trespassing charges filed against the protesters. With regard to the trespassing charges, she said, “The university is not a party to — and has not intervened in — those court proceedings, though the university has consistently said that it supports an outcome that would minimize the impact of the arrest on these individuals.” She added, “The university has no comment on the separate charges filed against an individual in connection with his interaction with a police officer.” Two of the pro-Palestinian demonstrators arrested at Princeton last April declined to comment. Princeton’s municipal prosecutor, Christopher Koutsouris, did not return calls or emails. After Mr. Piegaro was arrested, he was barred from student housing and prevented from entering campus for about two weeks. He spent a few days living with Rabbi Eitan Webb, a Jewish chaplain and director of Princeton University’s Chabad House. Rabbi Webb, in an interview, recalled a “pressure-cooker effect” on campus last spring. “In that environment, speaking specifically to the events of that day, when you have a whole host of public safety officers, administrators — I think doing their best — it’s not surprising that mistakes would get made,” Rabbi Webb, who attended Mr. Piegaro’s trial, said before the verdict was announced. The trial featured competing accounts of the confrontation, and Mr. Piegaro said simply that he was “relieved” by Tuesday’s verdict. Unlike many universities, Princeton quickly quashed efforts last April by pro-Palestinian demonstrators to erect tents on campus. At least two people were charged after they refused to take down tents. The takeover of Clio Hall on the night Mr. Piegaro was arrested lasted only about two hours after students were given a deadline to exit and told that they would face arrest. The school has also managed to avoid much of the turmoil that has engulfed the presidents of several other prominent universities, including some who were summoned to testify before Congress about their schools’ responses to antisemitism on campus. On Tuesday, however, the Trump administration paused an undisclosed portion of the university’s federal funding. Other top schools, including Harvard, Columbia and the University of Pennsylvania, have faced similar cuts as a result of perceived failures identified by the administration. “We are committed to fighting antisemitism and all forms of discrimination,” Princeton’s president, Christopher L. Eisgruber, wrote in an email notifying the university community that “several dozen” federal grants had been suspended. “And we will cooperate with the government in combating antisemitism.” “Princeton,” he added, “will also vigorously defend academic freedom and the due process rights of this university.” Last month, after Columbia agreed to concessions in an effort to preserve $400 million in funding, Mr. Eisgruber said that he was concerned that using federal research grants as a cudgel could cause long-term harm to academic freedom. “I think once you make concessions once, it’s hard not to make them again,” he told “PBS NewsHour.” A day before the funding cuts became public, Ms. Morrill reiterated that Princeton’s “expansive commitment to free speech — which includes peaceful dissent, protest and demonstrations — remains unwavering,” while noting the school’s rules governing the time, place and manner of such demonstrations. The campus continues to bustle this week with signs of vigorous academic debate. On Wednesday afternoon, Princeton is holding a forum on academic freedom and “whether, when, and how universities should take institutional stances on social and political issues.” Later this week, a conference is set to take place on the history, theory and politics of the “anti-Zionist idea.” Keith A. Whittington, a longtime Princeton professor who is teaching this year at Yale Law School, is one of three academics participating in Wednesday’s forum. Professor Whittington, a free speech scholar, was on Princeton’s campus the day the pro-Palestinian demonstrators occupied Clio Hall but did not witness Mr. Piegaro’s arrest. “It just sort of indicates how fraught things are on campuses, and how volatile these situations are,” Professor Whittington said. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT In the moment, he said, facts can be difficult to parse. “That’s why you have trials,” he said. Mr. Piegaro expects to graduate in May and is hopeful the verdict will help ease the pressure he has felt over the last 11 months. In addition to a degree in economics, there is one other thing he still hopes to get from Princeton. “I want an apology, honestly,” he said.

The Trump administration has turned campaign promises to target universities into devastating action, pulling hundreds of millions in federal funds from Columbia University and the University of Pennsylvania. On Monday, the Trump administration went after Harvard, the world’s wealthiest university, announcing that it would review about $9 billion in contracts and multiyear grants. It accused the university of failing to protect Jewish students and promoting “divisive ideologies over free inquiry.” Harvard had been bracing for the development. In recent months, it had moved cautiously, seeking compromise and, critics said, cracking down on speech. The approach riled some who worried that Harvard was capitulating at a moment of creeping authoritarianism. Though it remains unclear how much the university will actually lose, if anything, the move on Monday shows that the conciliatory approach hasn’t fended off its critics yet. In the days leading up to the Trump administration’s announcement, faculty members called on the university instead to more forcefully defend itself and higher education more broadly. In a letter, more than 700 faculty members called for Harvard to “mount a coordinated opposition to these anti-democratic attacks.” “As much as a body blow from the administration would hurt us, Harvard has the capacity to withstand the blow,” said Steven Levitsky, a Harvard political science professor who circulated the letter. But a lot of money could be in question, and the stakes at Harvard underscore the excruciating dilemma faced by leading universities and civic institutions, from law firms to nonprofits: Should they work to protect themselves, as many seem to be doing, or stand on principle? “That every-man-for-themselves response is about to cost us our democracy,” said Dr. Levitsky, who studies authoritarian regimes. As President Trump’s inauguration approached, Harvard hired Ballard Partners, a lobbying firm with deep ties to Mr. Trump. On the first full day of the Trump presidency, the university announced it was adopting a highly debated definition of antisemitism — which labels certain criticisms of Israel, such as calling its existence racist, as antisemitic — a move encouraged by the new administration but slammed by free speech advocates. As the spring went on, pro-Palestinian actions spurred campuswide messages, even as Harvard remained quiet when a former Israeli prime minister visited and joked about giving student hecklers pagers, said Ryan Enos, a Harvard political science professor. (The comment was an apparent reference to the exploding pagers Israel used to target Hezbollah last fall.) Under pressure, Harvard recently suspended a partnership with a Palestinian university while agreeing to start a new partnership with an Israeli one. Then last week, two leaders of Harvard’s Center for Middle Eastern Studies were pushed out of their positions after a Jewish alumni group complained about programming, according to faculty members. To some faculty members, the move was more evidence that Harvard was capitulating at a moment of creeping authoritarianism. “It’s pretty transparent what’s going on,” Dr. Enos said. “Harvard is trying to put on a posture that mollifies its critics.” Many say Harvard’s actions make sense, given the money at stake. And to many on the right and even some on the left, Harvard’s recent actions are a correction. Harvard has often been criticized by conservatives who say that left-leaning politics permeate the campus and make it hard for different views to be heard. For years, it has also become a target for conservatives who say efforts to make higher education more inclusive of racial minorities have been excessive. Harvard, along with the University of North Carolina, was drawn into a Supreme Court case over its consideration of race in admissions, for instance. It ultimately lost in the conservative-leaning court, leading to a national ban on race-conscious admissions. Last year, amid pressure, Harvard’s largest division ended a requirement that job candidates submit statements about how they would contribute to diversity. As the war in Gaza set off student protests and debate over university responses, some have pushed for the federal government to use its power, and its purse strings, to force additional change. Others, like Jeffrey Flier, the former dean of the Harvard Medical School, have called the Trump administration’s attack on higher education “an existential threat.” But Dr. Flier said the assault was occurring in part because of higher education’s failure to take seriously the free expression concerns of conservatives and even political moderates. He said that Harvard and other universities had tolerated behavior toward Jewish students that they would not have if it had been directed at other minorities and had generally created an unhealthy environment for the expression of heterodox views. Dr. Flier said Harvard had begun to address some of those issues — moving away from commenting on political issues, for example — before Mr. Trump took office. “We were beginning to go in the right direction,” Dr. Flier said. “There was a vibe shift. And an awareness shift. And that all got shifted again by the Trump administration’s massive, uncalled-for, pretextual attacks.” Bowing to federal pressure has not proved to be a solution, either. Last week, Columbia’s interim president resigned — the second leader there to do so in a year — amid intense internal and external pressure over the Trump administration’s demands on the university. Dylan Saba, a lawyer with Palestine Legal, noted that Columbia had fallen in line with many Republican demands before Mr. Trump took office and had taken an especially aggressive stance against pro-Palestinian activists, including denouncing scholars by name at a congressional hearing. It did not placate Mr. Trump and produced even more student activism, Mr. Saba said. “In seeking a painless way out, they ended up producing a much bigger conflict,” he said. Amid the speed and chaos of Mr. Trump’s assault on higher education, colleges have not figured out how to respond in a way that will satisfy their antagonists — if there is one. Some faculty members wonder whether the conciliatory approach has only emboldened critics. Even for universities with sizable endowments, the financial hits the administration has promised could be painful. Harvard’s endowment is more than $50 billion. Johns Hopkins University, which also has a large endowment, recently announced it would cut more than 2,000 employees because of reduced federal funding. Harvard did not respond to a request for comment. Earlier this spring, Alan Garber, Harvard’s president, wrote in communication to the campus that community members should “rest assured that Harvard is working hard to advocate for higher education in our nation’s capital and beyond.” Harvard has been a longtime target of Republicans who want to take it down a notch. In the days after the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel, which killed 1,200 people, student groups released a statement holding Israel responsible for the assault. In response, Harvard’s president at the time, Claudine Gay, released a tepid statement denouncing the attack. Amid pressure, she followed it with a stronger message, but Harvard was one of three colleges whose leaders were questioned by Congress in 2023 about their efforts to combat antisemitism. A month after a widely panned performance, Dr. Gay was out. Ongoing protests, unrest and lawsuits have kept Harvard in the public eye, though they have quieted considerably since last spring. In the fall, pro-Palestinian demonstrators staged a silent “study-in” in a library, and the university temporarily banned them from the space. In lawsuits over the last year, Jewish students said that Harvard had allowed hatred and discrimination to go unchecked and that it still had a long way to go to fix endemic problems. They accused Harvard of ignoring antisemitism, by allowing chants like “from the river to the sea” and the showing of the film “Israelism,” a documentary critical of Israel. This winter, Harvard was placed on a list of 10 universities the Trump administration was taking special interest in. “The sharks circle when they smell blood in the water,” said Kenneth Roth, a former director of Human Rights Watch and a fellow at Harvard, who wants Harvard to fight better to allow robust debate and academic freedom. The announcement on Monday did not make it clear what other steps the university would have to take to be in good standing with the federal government. Some universities have been more vocal amid the federal onslaught. A Georgetown law dean responded forcefully earlier last month to Washington’s top prosecutor, a Trump loyalist, saying his efforts to control the university’s curriculum were unconstitutional. Brown’s president wrote recently that it would defend its academic freedom in the courts, if need be. And Princeton’s president recently condemned the attack on Columbia, calling it “the greatest threat to American universities since the Red Scare of the 1950s.” Other universities also appear to be taking a more cautious approach. Last month, the University of California system announced it would end the use of diversity statements in hiring — a practice that had been under fire from conservatives for years. Michael V. Drake, the president, had told faculty leaders he didn’t want the system to be “the tallest nail” and stand out, according to Sean Malloy, a professor who was in the meeting. A spokesman for the system said the meeting was meant to be confidential, and that Dr. Drake was relaying a sentiment he had heard on a trip to Washington. And Dartmouth College recently hired a former chief counsel for the Republican National Committee as its vice president and general counsel, to help “understand and navigate the legal landscape surrounding higher education,” President Sian Leah Beilock said in a statement. Noah Feldman, a Harvard law professor, said it was only rational for Harvard, or any university, to try to negotiate a solution with the Trump administration, given the arbitrary nature of Mr. Trump’s actions against higher education and the number of jobs on the line. Professor Feldman, who has criticized Mr. Trump’s actions, said Harvard had acted responsibly, given the political climate. “Sometimes people who are eager for the university to get up and make big statements have a slightly unrealistic conception of what the real-world effect of those statements would be,” he said.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio has ordered diplomats overseas to scrutinize the social media content of some applicants for student and other types of visas, in an effort to bar those suspected of criticizing the United States and Israel from entering the country, U.S. officials say. Mr. Rubio laid out the instructions in a long cable sent to diplomatic missions on March 25. The move came nine weeks after President Trump signed executive orders to start a campaign to deport some foreign citizens, including those who might have “hostile attitudes” toward American “citizens, culture, government, institutions or founding principles.” Mr. Trump also issued an executive order to begin a crackdown on what he called antisemitism, which includes deporting foreign students who have taken part in campus protests against Israel’s war in Gaza. Mr. Rubio’s directive said that starting immediately, consular officers must refer certain student and exchange visitor visa applicants to the “fraud prevention unit” for a “mandatory social media check,” according to two American officials with knowledge of the cable. The fraud prevention unit of an embassy’s or consulate’s section for consular affairs, which issues the visas, helps screen applicants. The cable described the broad parameters that diplomats should use to judge whether to deny a visa. It cited remarks that Mr. Rubio made in an interview with CBS News on March 16: “We don’t want people in our country that are going to be committing crimes and undermining our national security or the public safety,” he said. “It’s that simple, especially people that are here as guests. That is what a visa is.” The cable specifies a type of applicant whose social media posts should be scrutinized: someone who is suspected of having terrorist ties or sympathies; who had a student or exchange visa between Oct. 7, 2023, and Aug. 31, 2024; or who has had a visa terminated since that October date. Hamas attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing 1,200 Israelis and taking about 250 hostages. That ignited a war in which Israel has carried out airstrikes and a ground invasion of Gaza that have killed more than 50,000 Palestinians, according to Gazan health ministry estimates. The dates specified by Mr. Rubio in the cable indicate that one of the main aims of the social media searches is to reject the applications of students who have expressed sympathy for Palestinians during the war. Editors’ Picks What a New American Citizen Learned on Route 66 Simple Sandals Are Always a Good Investment Is ‘Reef Safe’ Sunscreen Really Better? The cable also states that applicants can be denied a visa if their behavior or actions show they bear “a hostile attitude toward U.S. citizens or U.S. culture (including government, institutions, or founding principles).” Such wording could spur foreign citizens to self-censor many kinds of speech to avoid jeopardizing their chances of getting a visa. And U.S. consular officers could find it difficult to judge an applicant’s past statements and social media posts, especially if they do not know the proper context. Some foreign citizens who have a critical view of U.S. policies might forgo applying for a visa, which is a stated preferred outcome of Mr. Rubio’s. The requested visa types that would set off extra scrutiny are F, M and J — student and exchange visitor visas, the cable said. The details of the cable were first reported by The Handbasket, an independent news site. A State Department spokesperson, when asked for comment, said the agency did not discuss internal deliberations. They pointed out that in 2019, the department changed visa application forms to ask for information about social media accounts. On Tuesday, the former president of Costa Rica, Oscar Arias, told reporters that the U.S. government had sent him an email saying it was suspending a visa in his passport that had allowed him entry to the United States. Weeks ago, Mr. Arias said on social media that Mr. Trump was behaving like “a Roman emperor.” Mr. Arias, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, is the most prominent foreign citizen to have his visa revoked so far. As a senator from Florida, Mr. Rubio pressed the Biden administration’s State Department, run by Antony J. Blinken, to cancel the visas of students involved in campus protests against Israel’s military campaign in Gaza. Since becoming secretary of state in late January, Mr. Rubio has revoked perhaps 300 or more visas, many of them belonging to students, he told reporters last Thursday. He said he had been signing letters daily revoking visas. “My standard: If we knew this information about them before we gave them a visa, would we have allowed them in?” he said. “And if the answer is no, then we revoke the visa.”Earlier that day, responding to a reporter’s question, Mr. Rubio said the students were “going beyond demonstration. They are going and they are creating a ruckus. They are creating riots, basically, on campus.” “Every one of them I find, we’re going to kick them out,” he added. A State Department spokesperson said in an email in mid-March that “all available technology” was being used to screen visa applicants and visa holders. The spokesperson was replying to a question from The New York Times about whether the department was using artificial intelligence to scan databases and social media posts to find holders of visas that, in the eyes of Trump aides, should be revoked. After signing the revocation letters, Mr. Rubio sends them to the Department of Homeland Security. The department has dispatched agents to detain some of the foreign citizens who have been stripped of their visas or, in a few cases, their status as a permanent U.S. resident, commonly known as a green card holder. In early March, Mr. Rubio notified homeland security officials that he had revoked the permanent residency status of Mahmoud Khalil, 30, who had recently earned a graduate degree from Columbia University and was born in Syria, and Yunseo Chung, 21, an undergraduate at Columbia who was born in South Korea. He cited a statute of immigration law that allows him to recommend for deportation anyone whose presence would have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States.” Mr. Khalil is married to an American citizen, and Ms. Chung has lived in the United States since she was 7. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Last week, a half-dozen federal agents clad in black, some wearing masks, snatched Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish graduate student at Tufts University, off a street in Somerville, Mass., and took her to a detention center. Mr. Rubio said afterward that he had revoked her student visa. Ms. Ozturk wrote an essay for a student newspaper last year calling for university support of Palestinian rights and divestment from Israel. “At some point I hope we run out because we’ve gotten rid of all of them,” Mr. Rubio said last Thursday. “But we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.” He added, “I encourage every country to do that, by the way, because I think it’s crazy to invite students into your country that are coming onto your campus and destabilizing it.”

Since returning to the White House, Donald Trump has chosen his words carefully when it comes to Taiwan. When a reporter pressed him on the U.S.-allied self-governing island that China claims as its own on Feb. 26, Trump refused to give a straightforward answer. “I never comment on that,” Trump said at the White House after being asked if the U.S. would ever allow China to take control of Taiwan by force. “I don't want to ever put myself in that position.” Trump’s lack of specific commitments as President isn’t a new strategy for the U.S. relationship with Taiwan, but observers say there are other clues as to how his administration may approach the issue. When asked by TIME last year if the U.S. should defend Taiwan if China invades, Trump leaned into the longstanding U.S. policy known as strategic ambiguity. “I’ve been asked this question many times and I always refuse to answer it because I don’t want to reveal my cards,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to give away any negotiating abilities by giving information like that to any reporter.” Reflecting his transactional and more insular approach to foreign policy, Trump told Bloomberg Businessweek last June that Taiwan should pay the U.S. for defense, especially after how the island “took” the U.S. semiconductor business: “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” It’s not unlike his recent dealings with Ukraine, in which Trump has shown willingness to negotiate with Russian President Vladimir Putin and potentially try to facilitate the ceding of Ukrainian territory to avoid further fighting. Kevin Chen, associate research fellow at Nanyang Technological University’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies in Singapore, previously told TIME that China may be able to take Taiwan “without too much U.S. interference” if Beijing is able to strike a similar deal with Washington. Taipei is not risking it. As Trump has repeated comments about wanting more investment from Taiwan, President William Lai Ching-te said that his government “is willing to cooperate with the U.S. in every aspect” and has promised to increase its own defense spending to 3% of its GDP. Here’s what to know. The basic history of U.S.-China and U.S.-Taiwan relations After the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949, two governments laid claim to China: the People’s Republic of China (PRC) which took over the mainland, and the Republic of China (ROC) which defected to the island of Taiwan. The U.S. initially recognized the ROC, but in 1972, when then-President Richard Nixon visited the mainland, the U.S. and the PRC government issued a communique that took a step forward in normalizing relations, including on the issue of Taiwan. The PRC asserted that “Taiwan is a province of China,” and in turn, the U.S. acknowledged that the Chinese—across the mainland and Taiwan—maintain there is “one China,” and that Washington will not challenge that principle and will let the Chinese settle the dispute themselves. This has come to be known as the “one China” policy, which Washington and many other countries maintain some version of. In 1979, to further placate Beijing and improve ties, the U.S. formally switched diplomatic relations with China from the ROC to the PRC, through another joint communique. However, not wanting to abandon its relationship with Taiwan altogether, the U.S. said in the 1978 communique that it will maintain “cultural, commercial, and other unofficial relations” with the island government. In 1979, the same year the switch went into effect, Congress passed the Taiwan Relations Act, which stated that peace and stability in the region covering Taiwan and China is “in the political, security, and economic interests” of the U.S. and that the switching of diplomatic ties from Taipei to Beijing rests on expectations that “the future of Taiwan will be determined by peaceful means.” Under the law, the U.S. is expected to provide Taiwan with defense arms, but it did not explicitly say Washington would come to Taipei’s defense in the event of an attack. (The U.S. and Taiwan had a mutual defense treaty since 1955, but the U.S. unilaterally ended it in 1979.) The provision of arms to Taiwan courted the ire of the PRC, so the U.S. under President Ronald Reagan in 1982 clarified through another communique that it “does not seek to carry out a long-term policy of arms sales to Taiwan” and that it “intends to gradually reduce its sale.” The Reagan Administration knew this would in turn worry Taiwan and so, weeks before issuing the clarification, gave Taipei what is now known as “Six Assurances”: that a date to end selling arms to Taiwan has not been reached; that the U.S. did not agree to consulting the PRC prior to selling arms to Taiwan; that the U.S. will not mediate between Taipei and Beijing, that the Taiwan Relations Act will not be revised, that the U.S. position on Taiwan sovereignty has not changed, and that the U.S. will not pressure Taipei into negotiating with the PRC. The U.S. has since maintained unofficial relations with Taiwan, with the Taiwan Relations Act, the Six Assurances, and what’s come to be known as the Three Communiqués serving as the bedrock for these ties. As de facto embassies, Taiwan has the Taipei Economic and Cultural Representative Office in D.C., with 12 other offices throughout the states and U.S. jurisdictions, while the U.S. has its counterpart office, the American Institute in Taiwan (AIT), a non-profit corporation in Taipei mandated by the Taiwan Relations Act. Ties during Trump’s first term One of the hallmarks of the first Trump Administration was a tougher stance towards China compared to his predecessors, through tit-for-tat tariffs and an Indo-Pacific strategy that aimed to curb Beijing’s growing influence in the Western Pacific. Alongside this, U.S.-Taiwan relations became more robust. In 2018, Congress passed the Taiwan Travel Act, which authorized high-ranking officials from both Taipei and Washington to visit each other, after years of not doing so to avoid upsetting China. Beijing condemned the law, saying it violates the “one China” principle and could damage U.S.-China relations, but the visits went ahead—and have continued. Taiwan’s then-President Tsai Ing-wen stopped over in New York and Denver in July 2019, meeting with U.S. lawmakers along the way. And in February 2020, then-Vice-President Lai attended the National Prayer Breakfast. Then-Health Secretary Alex Azar visited Taiwan in 2020 to tout the island’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic, to Beijing’s chagrin. (After Trump’s term, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi further angered Beijing by visiting in 2022.) During the first Trump administration, defense sales to Taiwan were also the highest in years: the U.S. made some $18 billion in Foreign Military Sales to Taiwan, including a major $8 billion sale of 66 fighter jets. By contrast, President Barack Obama’s eight years in office saw $14 billion in Foreign Military Sales to Taiwan (though there was another $6.2 billion in Direct Commercial Sales), while Joe Biden’s four-year presidency sold just over $8 billion. While China has also pressured other countries to abandon relations with Taiwan to diminish the island’s diplomatic profile and has condemned Taiwan’s inclusion in international forums like the World Trade Organization, the Trump Administration in 2020 enacted the Taiwan Allies International Protection and Enhancement Initiative (TAIPEI) Act, which states the U.S. should advocate for Taiwan’s membership in international organizations. Under Trump 2.0, a focus on finances—and potential dealmaking on both sides of the Taiwan Strait Russell Hsiao, executive director of the Global Taiwan Institute think tank in D.C., tells TIME that the second-term Trump Administration has so far honed in on three aspects of the U.S.-Taiwan relationship: the trade deficit, the reshoring of semiconductor manufacturing, and defense-burden sharing. “For Trump, ultimately, what he cares about [is] the balance of trade,” says Chin-Hao Huang, associate professor at the National University of Singapore’s Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy. A major source of the record-high $73.9 billion trade deficit the U.S. has with Taiwan comes from U.S. imports of semiconductors, the computer chips vital to industries like AI. Taiwan is home to the world's largest contract chipmaker, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC), and although the Biden Administration tried to improve domestic manufacturing through policies such as the CHIPS Act, Trump has claimed that Taiwan “stole” the U.S. chip business, which Taipei has denied. Trump has since threatened a minimum of 25% tariffs on imports of computer chips. Some of Trump’s colleagues in the House have urged the abandonment of the “one China” policy to foster deeper business ties and a free trade agreement with Taiwan. Huang thinks that’s unlikely, however, because Trump generally prefers protectionist policies. “Trump's ultimate red line is he wants to see jobs come back to the United States,” says Huang. “He wants to see the semiconductor industry in the United States thrive again. So this means investment.” As for defense, while Trump has said little, the people in his orbit have offered more clues as to how the Administration may approach Taiwan. Trump’s now Vice President J.D. Vance suggested last year that the U.S. should take a more proactive role in Taiwan’s defense, telling the New York Times: “We should make it as hard as possible for China to take Taiwan in the first place.” He also previously told Fox News that the U.S. should prioritize preparedness for military conflict with China over other ongoing conflicts: “America is stretched too thin. We do not have the industrial capacity to support a war in Ukraine, a war in Israel, potentially a war in East Asia if the Chinese invade Taiwan, so America has to pick and choose,” he said. “The Chinese are focused on real power. They’re not focused on how tough people talk on TV or how strong our alleged resolve is. They’re focused on how strong we actually are, and to be strong enough to push back against the Chinese, we’ve got to focus there.” In early February, the State Department removed the phrase “we do not support Taiwan independence” from its fact sheet on Taiwan. It’s not the first time the Department has done so, removing the phrase in 2022 but reinstating it following protest from China. The State Department said it was a routine update, but Beijing protested again against the latest wording change, saying the U.S. has “gravely backpedaled” on the issue of Taiwan. “As is routine, the fact sheet was updated to inform the general public about our unofficial relationship with Taiwan,” a State Department spokesperson told NBC in a statement, adding: “The United States remains committed to its one China policy.” Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on February 20 that U.S. commitments to Taiwan are clear: “We are against any sort of compelled, forced change of status. That’s been our policy; that remains our policy.” And Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth said in early February that despite the Administration’s “America First” policy, he’s keen to bolster alliances in the Indo-Pacific region, adding: “We want to send the signals to China that that area will be and continues to be contested.” During a trip to Asia in late March, Hegseth, in a joint press conference in Tokyo with his Japanese counterpart, emphasized that the U.S. remains committed to “sustaining robust, ready and credible deterrence in the Indo Pacific,” including in the Taiwan Strait. A secret Pentagon memo, obtained by the Washington Post, mentioned prioritizing deterring China’s takeover of Taiwan. In it, Hegseth reportedly wrote: “China is the Department’s sole pacing threat, and denial of a Chinese fait accompli seizure of Taiwan—while simultaneously defending the U.S. homeland is the Department’s sole pacing scenario.” China has launched multiple large-scale military drills around the island thus far in 2025, citing recent statements by the U.S. and Taiwan as provocation. State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce condemned the latest drills, saying: “In the face of China’s intimidation tactics and destabilizing behavior, the United States’ enduring commitment to our allies and partners, including Taiwan, continues.” Some in the Trump Administration, however, suggest a more cautious approach. Elbridge Colby, a known China hawk and nominee for undersecretary of defense for policy, echoed Trump in pushing Taiwan to increase its own defense spending while also advising that the U.S. “avoid unnecessarily poking Beijing on a ‘core issue’ for them.” During his confirmation hearing in early March, Colby suggested that the island government should bring its military spending up from 2.5% to 10% of its GDP. Nicholas Lardy, a non-resident senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, tells TIME he would be “very surprised” if Trump were to significantly change the status quo: “The reality is the policy of ‘one China’ and strategic ambiguity has served very very well for decades.” Lardy also notes that U.S. public opinion is strongly against China. “There’s a very widespread view that they have been unfair on trade and other issues,” he says. Data from an October 2024 survey by the Chicago Council on Global Affairs suggests Americans are generally in favor of providing Taiwan support, at least short of direct military intervention. At the same time, Steve Tsang of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London says Trump has touted being against war and would not risk Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “humiliation.” “I haven’t seen any evidence that Trump cares much about Taiwan for being a shining example of a U.S.-sponsored democracy,” Tsang tells TIME. “The evidence I have seen is that Trump is first and foremost for Trump, for which he would want to maintain a working relationship with Xi, so he could do some kind of a deal that would project Trump as a winner.”

Ahusband and expectant father; a former high school valedictorian; an architect and adjunct professor of urban planning, and a former Fulbright Scholar with a passion for child education. All legally residing in the U.S. They’re also just some of the targets of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in recent weeks as part of a campaign by President Donald Trump’s Administration to detain and deport noncitizens over their pro-Palestinian campus activism. “This is the first arrest of many to come,” Trump said in a post on Truth Social, following the arrest of Palestinian graduate student Mahmoud Khalil. “If you support terrorism, including the slaughtering of innocent men, women, and children, your presence is contrary to our national and foreign policy interests, and you are not welcome here. We expect every one of America’s Colleges and Universities to comply.” At least 300 international students who are “destabilizing” college campuses have had their visas revoked, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said at a press conference on March 27. “Maybe more, it might be more than 300 at this point,” Rubio said. “At some point I hope we run out because we’ve gotten rid of all of them, but we’re looking every day for these lunatics that are tearing things up.” The effort has raised questions about free speech and the rights of legal noncitizens, and it’s prompted legal challenges and protests in support of the targeted students. CNN’s Jake Tapper said in a post on X on March 31 that, when asked about the evidence against the international students being targeted, a senior state official told him on background that “every individual who has had their visa recently revoked by this administration has displayed problematic behavior that would have made them ineligible for a visa if they would have disclosed this information during the vetting process.” The effort has raised questions about free speech and the rights of legal noncitizens, and it’s prompted legal challenges and protests in support of the targeted students. Here’s what we know about some of the students who have been targeted by ICE so far: A student at Minnesota State University, Mankato An international student at Minnesota State University, Mankato, was detained at an off-campus residence on March 28, the school’s president Edward Inch said in a campus-wide email on March 31, without naming the student. According to the school’s student newspaper, no reason was given for the student’s arrest and the university had not received any information from ICE. “Our international students play an important role in our campus and community,” the statement said. “This actions hurts what we try to accomplish as a university—supporting all learners to receive the education they desire to make the impact they want in their communities.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz posted on X that he is working to get more information from DHS, after another international student in Minnesota was detained on March 27. “The University of Minnesota is an international destination for education and research,” he wrote. “We have any number of students studying here with visas, and we need answers.” Rumeysa Ozturk A federal judge in Massachusetts ruled on March 28 that Turkish international student Rumeysa Ozturk can’t be deported without a court order. Ozturk, 30, was on a valid F-1 visa for her PhD studies at Tufts University in Boston when she became another high-profile target of ICE after her arrest, which witnesses caught on video, outside her home in Somerville, Mass., on the night of March 25. Ozturk was walking alone on a sidewalk, on her way back home after meeting friends for iftar, a meal to break fast at sunset during Ramadan, when a plainsclothes officer, wearing a hat and a hoodie, approached her, surveillance video obtained from a neighbor and posted on X on Wednesday shows. The officer grabbed Ozturk by the arms, causing her to yell out, before five other plainsclothes officers approached her. One officer pulled out a concealed badge and confiscated her cell phone. The officers told her, “We’re the police.” A person off camera could be heard saying, “You don’t look like it, why are you hiding your faces? How do I know this is the police?” while the officers—who wore cloth face masks—escorted Ozturk to a black SUV. The entire encounter lasted just under two minutes. Ozturk obtained a degree in psychology and Turkish language and literature from Istanbul Şehir University before coming to the U.S. in 2018 on a Fulbright Scholarship to earn a master’s in developmental and child psychology from Columbia University’s Teachers College, according to her LinkedIn. Passionate about children’s media and education, her LinkedIn says, she’s published research into the representation of refugee characters in children’s animated TV, interned at a consulting firm advising entertainment studios on children’s content and development, and taught courses on media and education to high school students. Last year, Ozturk co-authored an op-ed in Tufts’ student newspaper, The Tufts Daily, backing the Tufts Community Union Senate’s call for the university to “acknowledge the Palestinian genocide, … dislose its investments and divest from companies with direct or indirect ties to Israel.” After she was detained, Ozturk’s attorney filed a petition asking that Ozturk remain held in Massachusetts, which was granted. Nevertheless, ICE transferred her to Central Louisiana ICE Processing Center, which is notorious for unsanitary conditions, harsh punitive measures, and “a culture of abuse,” according to CNN and the ACLU. Jeff Migliozzi, communications director for advocacy group Freedom for Immigrants, told CNN that ICE detention centers are intentionally remotely located, making them “effectively black boxes.” Judge Denise Casper gave the government until April 1 to respond to an updated complaint filed by Ozturk’s attorneys. In the meantime, the government cannot deport her without a court order while her case is being heard. “No charges have been filed against Rumeysa to date that we are aware of,” Ozturk’s lawyer, Mahsa Khanbabai, told the AP. The Turkish Embassy in Washington, D.C., said in a statement on X that the embassy is monitoring Ozturk’s situation and is in touch with the State Department and ICE. Yunseo Chung ICE cannot arrest 21-year-old Yunseo Chung, a judge ruled on March 25, granting a temporary restraining order against the government after her attorneys filed a lawsuit against the Trump Administration for trying to deport her in spite of her legal status. “After the constant dread in the back of my mind over the past few weeks, this decision feels like a million pounds off of my chest. I feel like I could fly,” Chung said in a statement provided to TIME. “I’m so, so grateful to my legal team and my community of professors, students, and staff at Columbia that have given me strength at every turn.” At seven years old, Chung emigrated to the U.S. with her family from South Korea and became a lawful permanent resident, according to the lawsuit. She was valedictorian at her high school and enrolled in 2022 at Columbia University, where she was studying English and gender studies. The 21-year-old reportedly attended—but was not a leader of—a sit-in at Barnard College protesting the expulsion of students who had participated in pro-Palestinian activism on March 5, according to the lawsuit. When an apparent white supremacist bomb threat was called (later determined to be a hoax), police officers instructed protesters to exit the building. Chung was caught in the rush to exit, the lawsuit says, and was arrested, charged with obstruction of governmental administration, given a “desk appearance ticket,” and released. She was suspended from Columbia as a result of the arrest on March 7. On March 9, ICE agents searched her parents’ home in an attempt to find her, the lawsuit alleges. The agents also obtained a warrant against “harboring noncitizens” to search her Columbia dormitory. A law enforcement official told her lawyer that her permanent resident status was being revoked. A DHS spokesperson told the Columbia Spectator, Columbia’s student newspaper, that Chung “engaged in concerning conduct, including when she was arrested by NYPD during a pro-Hamas protest at Barnard College. She is being sought for removal proceedings under the immigration laws.” Chung had previously participated in, but not organized or led, protests and events at the Gaza Solidary Encampment on Columbia’s campus last spring, according to the lawsuit. She also faced disciplinary proceedings from Columbia for vandalism after putting up posters with photos of members of Columbia’s Board of Trustees with the words, “Wanted for Complicity in Genocide.” After a review, the university found Chung had not violated any policies, the lawsuit says. The complaint filed by Chung’s attorneys alleges that the administration is demonstrating a “pattern and practice of targeting individuals associated with protests for Palestinian rights for immigration enforcement” and described the government’s actions as an “unprecedented and unjustifiable assault on First Amendment and other rights…” As of March 31, the Trump Administration has not appealed the temporary restraining order. “Yunseo no longer has to fear that ICE will spirit her away to a distant prison simply because she spoke up for Palestinian human rights,” Ramzi Kassem, one of Chung’s lawyers, said in a statement to TIME. “The court’s temporary restraining order is both sensible and fair, to preserve the status quo as we litigate the serious constitutional issues at stake not just for Yunseo, but for our society as a whole.” Campus Protests Immigration Flyers in support of Badar Khan Suri at Georgetown University in Washington, D.C., on Mar. 25, 2025. Jose Luis Magana—AP Suri, who lives in Arlington, Va., was, like Ozturk, approached by masked men outside his home after an iftar gathering. Suri’s lawyer, Nermeen Arastu, told CNN that the officers were “brandishing weapons.” The agents identified themselves as members of DHS and told Suri that the government had revoked his visa, according to a lawsuit filed for his immediate release. The lawsuit alleges that the government is seeking to deport Suri under a rarely used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act that gives the Secretary of State the authority to deport noncitizens for whom the Secretary has “reasonable ground to believe” their presence or activities in the U.S. “would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences.” “During his time on campus, I am not aware that Dr. Suri has engaged in any illegal activity, nor has he posed a threat to the security of our campus. He has been focused on completing his research,” Joel Hellman, dean of Georgetown’s School of Foreign Service, wrote in a statement on March 21. Suri has no criminal record and has not been charged with any crime, according to the lawsuit. Rather, the lawsuit alleges Suri has been targeted because his wife, a U.S. citizen, is of Palestinian heritage and because of her past “constitutionally protected free speech.” The couple has “long been doxxed and smeared,” the petition says, including being posted on an anonymously-run blacklisting website. Nader Hashemi, a professor of Middle East and Islamic politics at Georgetown, told Democracy Now! That Suri is “not a political activist. He was just a very serious young academic focusing on his teaching and his research.” Department of Homeland Security spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin confirmed Suri’s detention after it was first reported by Politico. In a post on X, McLaughlin called Suri a “foreign exchange student at Georgetown University actively spreading Hamas propaganda and promoting antisemitism on social media.” McLaughlin added that Suri has “close connections to a known or suspected terrorist, who is a senior advisor to Hamas.” Suri’s wife, Mapheze Saleh, was formerly employed at Qatari-based news outlet Al Jazeera, and her father served as a political adviser to the “Prime Minister of Gaza” (the late Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh, according to the New York Times) until 2010, according to a court declaration filed on March 20. A federal judge ruled on March 20 that the Trump Administration could not deport Suri while his case challenging his detention is being reviewed in court. Suri was held at the Alexandria Staging Facility in Louisiana before being transferred to the Prairieland Detention Facility in Texas, which has also faced complaints about its conditions. Suri’s arrest and detention prompted protests on March 26 by Georgetown University students and academics calling for his release. Taal participated in pro-Palestinian protests last year, causing him to be suspended twice and at risk of losing his student visa. He also faced backlash after posting on X: “colonised peoples have the right to resist by any means necessary” after the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel. In a Nov. 2023 interview with CNN, Taal said, “I can say clearly categorically I abhor the killing of all civilians no matter where they are and who does it. I love life. I don’t love death. That’s what I am as a human being. Why is it the association because I’m a Muslim and I’m a Black person, I have to condemn a proscribed terrorist organization before having an opinion on genocide?” Taal was banned from campus for the remainder of the spring 2025 semester after protesting at a career fair attended by defense contractors. Taal sought to preemptively block immigration enforcement against him by filing a lawsuit against the Trump Administration on March 15. The complaint, representing Taal and two other student activists, said the plaintiffs “fear government retaliation” for engaging in “constitutionally protected expression critical of U.S. foreign policy and supportive of Palestinian human rights.” Taal, a PhD student in Africana studies, was asked to surrender to ICE agents six days later. His attorneys, including Eric Lee, filed an emergency request blocking his detainment or deportation while the court reviews the constitutional challenge. But after a judge denied a first motion to immediately block his deportation, Taal said in a March 31 post on X that he will voluntarily leave the U.S. “Given what we have seen across the United States, I have lost faith that a favourable ruling from the courts would guarantee my personal safety and ability to express my beliefs. I have lost faith I could walk the streets without being abducted,” Taal wrote. “This is of course not the outcome I had wanted going into this, but we are facing a government that has no respect for the judiciary or for the rule of law.” Around 200 students and faculty protested on Cornell’s Ithaca campus earlier in March in support of Taal. “I wish I could be with you all in person, but the situation has got to the point where it is no longer safe,” Lee read from a statement by Taal at the start of the protest. “Momodou Taal is a test case to determine whether the government can come to your house, grab you and put you in jail for criticizing the United States government and its policies,” Lee said after a hearing on March 26. Leqaa Kordia Leqaa Kordia was arrested in Newark, New Jersey, on March 14, according to a DHS statement, which said that the West Bank Palestinian had overstayed her student visa, which was terminated in January 2022 for “lack of attendance.” Kordia was among those arrested in April 2024 for her involvement in campus protests. As of March 31, she is being held at the Prairieland Detention Center in Alvarado, Texas, according to ICE records. Mahmoud Khalil Mahmoud Khalil was arrested at his home by ICE agents on March 8, 2025, and remains in custody as of March 31 at a Louisiana detention facility. He was born in Syria to Palestinian refugees. Initially meant to study aviation engineering in Syria, he fled the country’s civil war to Beirut, Lebanon, and graduated from the Lebanese American University with a degree in computer science in 2018. He worked with several nonprofits in the Middle East, including Jusoor, a Syrian-American educational nonprofit, and the Syria Chevening Programme at the British Embassy in Beirut, which offers international scholarships to study in the U.K.—a role that former British diplomat Andrew Waller, and Khalil’s colleague at the time, said required an extensive background check. Khalil moved to the U.S. in 2022 to attend Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs, completing his master’s degree studies in December 2024. He married an American woman—making him eligible for a green card—who is eight months pregnant with their first child. The 30-year-old was involved in several of the protests against the war in Gaza at Columbia University last spring, and he led negotiations between student protesters and university officials. Detractors say Khalil was a prominent leader of Columbia University Apartheid Divest, a student group calling for Columbia to divest from its financial ties to Israel and which has been accused of antisemitism though the group rejects the label. Last year, Khalil was suspended for one day from Columbia after police cracked down on students occupying a campus building. He told the BBC at the time that he was acting only as a protest negotiator and had not participated in the student encampment because he had been on a student visa. The university rescinded the suspension after finding they had no evidence against him. “It shows how random the suspension was,” he said at the time. “They did that randomly, and without due process.” The White House has alleged without evidence that Khalil distributed pro-Hamas materials at a protest and that he failed to disclose his work with the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine Refugees (UNRWA) on his green card application. The UNRWA, a U.N. agency that provides aid and relief to Palestinians in Gaza and the West Bank, was banned by Israel last year for allegedly “spreading antisemitism” and having members who took part in the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack. Khalil worked as an unpaid intern with UNRWA in 2023 but was never on staff, the agency told CNN. A judge temporarily blocked the attempted deportation of Khalil on March 10, pending review of his case. Lawyers for Khalil also filed a lawsuit challenging his detention by ICE, and a New York judge ruled his case should be transferred to New Jersey instead of Louisiana, which the Trump Administration pushed for, as well as reaffirmed the previous ruling blocking his deportation. Khalil and seven other students filed a lawsuit against Columbia and the House Education and Workforce Committee on March 13 in an effort to prevent the disciplinary records of students—including around the student occupation of Hamilton Hall—from being turned over to the Republican-led committee. Ranjani Srinivasan Ranjani Srinivasan, a 37-year-old architect, came to the U.S. from Chennai, India, as a Fulbright recipient in 2016, became a PhD candidate at Columbia in 2020, and began teaching as an adjunct professor at New York University last fall. She was in the 5th year of her doctoral degree at Columbia University’s Department of Urban Planning when ICE agents knocked at her door on March 7. Srinivasan learned that her student visa had been revoked by the Department of State via an email on March 5. She sought help from Columbia’s international students office and was told she was in legal status, according to a letter published on political scientist Norman Finkelstein’s website. But when three ICE agents came to her Columbia University apartment without a warrant two days later, she became worried, according to the New York Times. Her roommate, an American citizen, refused to let the agents in. Finding little recourse through the university’s hotlines, Srinivasan left for a safer location. On March 9, ICE terminated her SEVIS status and the university de-enrolled her, according to the letter. Facing the risk of detention and deportation, Srinivasan left the U.S. for Canada. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem posted on X airport surveillance footage showing Srinivasan at LaGuardia Airport in New York. “When you advocate for violence and terrorism that privilege should be revoked and you should not be in this country,” Noem wrote in the post, adding that Srinivasan chose to “self deport.” Srinivasan’s lawyers denied the allegations against her, according to the Times. In her letter posted to Finkelstein’s website, Srinivasan maintained that she only attended “a handful of low-level protests,” and, according to the Times, she signed several open letters related to the war in Gaza. She was arrested by police last year on the day that students occupied Hamilton Hall, but said she had only been walking through the crowd to return to her apartment. She received two summonses—for obstructing vehicular or pedestrian traffic and for refusing to disperse—but her case was dismissed, her lawyers told the Times. “They’re making me out to be some sort of protest leader, which I’m not,” Srinivasan told Indian news site The News Minute. “I am just a PhD student who has too much work. Even if I wanted to go to a protest, I mostly don’t have time because I’m busy grading papers.”

The New York Times is looking to hear from international students in the United States about how the Trump administration’s immigration policies have affected them. We want to hear your thoughts about the policies, any challenges you have encountered and how you have adapted to the changes. We will read every submission and reach out if we’re interested in learning more and possibly publishing part of your story. We won’t publish any submission without contacting you and hearing back. We won’t use your contact information for any purpose other than to get in touch with you, and will not share it outside our newsroom.