In the past year, doctors have performed history-making transplants, placing genetically modified pig kidneys and pig hearts into patients. Now, a group of doctors and scientists in China report they have done the same with a pig liver. In a study published in Nature, the group describes transplanting a gene-edited pig liver into a brain-dead patient. At the request of the patient’s family, the study was terminated after 10 days and the pig liver was removed. The patient’s original liver was not removed, so the experiment served as a way to test whether a pig liver could supplement the function of failing livers for patients waiting for a transplant. Advertisement “The transplanted pig liver successfully secreted bile and produced liver-derived albumin, and we think that is a great achievement,” said Dr. Lin Wang, a surgeon at Xijing Hospital, Fourth Military Medical University and one of the senior authors of the paper, during a briefing. “It means the pig liver could survive together with the original liver in a human being—and would give additional support to an injured liver, maybe, in the future.” Pigs are promising sources of organs, but the human immune system rejects transplanted pig tissue. Scientists have been getting around this by genetically modifying the pigs that provide the organs. The donor liver in this case came from a pig that had received six modifications to certain genes in order to remove major pig proteins that would have led to rejection; the editing technique also added genes that made the liver appear more human to immune cells.

Every spring, well-known and accomplished figures deliver commencement addresses at college campuses around the country, offering graduates advice, wisdom and inspiration as they embark on their next chapter. Students graduating from the University of Maryland in May will be sent off into the world with a croaky message from a green, lanky puppet. Kermit the Frog is this year’s commencement speaker, the university announced on Wednesday. Kermit may not be well known for his soaring rhetoric, but he has spoken publicly about the challenges he has overcome to reach “the top of the frog heap” in his life, which began in a swamp before he moved to Hollywood and became a star. Perhaps one of his most valued contributions to the American cultural canon, the song “Bein’ Green,” details his journey to accept his bright visage, even though it means spending each day as “the color of the leaves.” Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT “I am thrilled that our graduates and their families will experience the optimism and insight of the world-renowned Kermit the Frog at such a meaningful time in their lives,” Darryll J. Pines, president of the University of Maryland, said of Kermit, known for his leading roles on “The Muppet Show” and “Sesame Street.” The university revealed Kermit’s graduation ceremony role in a video that did not initially identify him, but touted the unknown’s speakers credentials as an international superstar, best-selling author, environmental advocate, Peabody award winner and “friend to all creatures.” The world’s most famous amphibian then appears onscreen, flashing a big smile: “Uh, I guess it’s me,” Kermit said. The commencement speech on May 21, 2025, will be a homecoming of sorts for Kermit, whose creator, Jim Henson, graduated from the university in 1960 and where a bronze statue of Kermit and Mr. Henson sits in a campus garden. Mr. Henson made the first version of Kermit out of his mother’s old coat and a pingpong ball cut in half for eyes. Mr. Henson, who died in 1990, was the original voice behind Kermit, often referring to the slightly snarky but wise frog as his alter ego. “Nothing could make these feet happier than to speak at the University of Maryland,” Kermit said in a statement. “I just know the class of 2025 is going to leap into the world and make it a better place, so if a few encouraging words from a frog can help, then I’ll be there!” Editors’ Picks Is There a Least Bad Alcohol? His Life Savings Were Mailed to Him by Paper Check. Now, It’s Gone. How to Manage Your Blood Sugar With Exercise Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Much of Kermit’s wisdom and encouragement has been conveyed through song. Diana Ross, Frank Sinatra and Willie Nelson are among the dozens of artists who have covered his tracks, including “Rainbow Connection,” which urges people to follow their dreams. “Who said that every wish would be heard and answered /When wished on the morning star? / Somebody thought of that, and someone believed it /Look what it’s done so far.” Although commencement addresses are often given by well-known people, colleges have at times thought outside the box. Last year, D’Youville University in Buffalo had an A.I. robot speak at its commencement, drawing mixed reactions from students, faculty members and other attendees. And this won’t be Kermit’s first rodeo. In 1996, he delivered a commencement address to the graduating class of Southampton College, then part of Long Island University, where he received an honorary doctorate of amphibious letters for his helping raise environmental awareness. Many graduating students decorated their gowns with green stickers that read “Kermit ’96,” The New York Times reported, though not all students were thrilled to see a puppet at the podium. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT Still, if the past is any indication, Kermit will deliver a positive message to the University of Maryland Terps. At the 1996 commencement, Kermit’s speech included a few ribbits, which he translated for the audience. “May success and a smile always be yours,” The Washington Post reported he said, “even when you’re knee deep in the sticky muck of life.”

A doctoral student at the University of Alabama was detained by federal immigration authorities, the university said in a statement on Wednesday, one of more than half a dozen students who have been targeted by the Trump administration in recent weeks. The student was not named by the school, but online records from Immigration and Customs Enforcement indicate that Alireza Doroudi, an Iranian citizen, was detained by the agency. Alex House, a spokeswoman with the University of Alabama, which is in Tuscaloosa, Ala., said that the student was detained off campus. It was not clear why the student was targeted, and U.S. immigration officials did not immediately respond to questions on Wednesday evening. Earlier this month, Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia University graduate and leader of pro-Palestinian campus demonstrations who has permanent U.S. residency, was arrested by federal immigration officers in New York. Though he has not been charged with any crime, the Trump administration has described comments made by Mr. Khalil as antisemitic and argued that he should be deported. Advertisement SKIP ADVERTISEMENT And on Tuesday, Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish doctoral student at Tufts University in Massachusetts who had a student visa, was taken into federal custody. Sunil Kumar, the president of Tufts University, wrote in an email to students, staff and faculty members on Tuesday night that Tufts administrators had been told the student’s visa had been terminated. The Crimson White, a student-run newspaper at the University of Alabama, first reported on the detainment of Mr. Doroudi on Wednesday afternoon. According to a LinkedIn page listed as belonging to Mr. Doroudi, he studied mechanical engineering at the University of Alabama and specialized in metallurgical engineering, which focuses on metals used to produce industrial products. Last year, he wrote on LinkedIn that he was “thrilled to share” his first published paper as a Ph.D. researcher.

Despite distancing himself from Project 2025 on the campaign trail, President Donald Trump’s early actions have taken plenty of inspiration from the conservative policy playbook created by think tank the Heritage Foundation. A Time analysis conducted in January found that nearly two-thirds of the executive actions Trump issued during his first days in office mirrored, either in full or in part, proposals in the 900-page document. This includes withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement. Since then, Trump has continued to draw from Project 2025 when it comes to his cuts to the government’s climate efforts—from targeting national monuments and the weather service, to culling scientists from the Environmental Projection Agency. The deregulatory push mirrors the Heritage Foundation’s long history of opposing climate action. The think tank has also had a close relationship to the administration over the years. According to CNN, several former Trump staffers helped shape Project 2025. And during Trump’s first term, both the president and members of Congress cited a Heritage study on the economic costs of climate action that was found to be “strongly influenced by the subjective assumptions made by study authors,” according to a review by the World Resources Institute. (The report concluded that participation in the Paris Agreement would result in an aggregate GDP loss of over $2.5 trillion by 2035. That's compared to a 2024 estimate by the Climate Policy Initiative that puts the global cost of inaction at $1,266 trillion.) Here are the major ways that the Trump Administration is enacting the Project 2025 goals for targeting environmental regulations and climate action in the United States. Withdrawing from International Climate Agreements Project 2025 called for the U.S. to withdraw from the Paris Accords, the landmark climate initiative aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On his first day in office,Trump did just that, issuing an executive order to initiate the process. The playbook has also proposed that the U.S. withdraw entirely from the United Nations Framework on Climate Change (UNFCC), an intergovernmental body which facilitates negotiations on climate change. Trump has said that the U.S. ambassador to the U.N. would submit formal written notification of this, though it has yet to happen. Project 2025 also opposed U.S. participation in climate reparations funds, arguing that any fund administered by a non-U.S. organization “provides no assurance that U.S. interests will be protected.” Following through on this, in early March the United States withdrew from the board of the Fund for Responding to Loss and Damage, created to help developing countries respond to the impacts of climate change. Targeting the National Weather Service Project 2025 calls for the dismantling of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), which houses the National Weather Service, the National Ocean Service, the Oceanic and Atmospheric Research, and other agencies the group deemed “a colossal operation that has become one of the main drivers of the climate change alarm industry.” The document called for NOAA to be “broken up and downsized,” which the Trump Administration is in the process of doing. In February, the Trump Administration attempted to fire hundreds of NOAA employees. A federal judge issued a temporary restraining order against the move in March, but though the employees were reinstated by the Department of Commerce, the staffers were placed on administrative leave pending further litigation. The decision is already taking a toll. In mid-March, NOAA said it would reduce weather balloon launches—which provide key data for weather forecasting—in several locations due to staffing shortages. Reviewing National Monument Designations The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the president to protect federal lands that are of historic or scientific importance. Under the Biden Administration, the government used this act to establish, expand, or restore eight national monuments totaling more than 3.7 million acres. The Heritage Foundation nodded to this in Project 2025 by calling for the “review” of those monument designations, saying that President Biden “abused his authority” in protecting those lands. A recent study from the Center for American Progress and Conservation Science Partners, however, found that the establishment of those monuments played a significant role in reducing the “nature gap” and providing access to nature deprived communities. The Heritage Foundation also called for a repeal of the Antiquities Act. Trump targeted the Antiquities Act during his first term, directing the Secretary of the Interior to review national monuments that had been designated in the past two decades. Two national monuments in Utah were downsized as a result, though the Biden Administration restored its original boundaries. The Trump Administration has not yet issued any orders on the Antiquities Act, however the Washington Post has reported that the White House has plans to eliminate two national monuments in California established by the Biden Administration. Reshaping the U.S. Global Change Research Program Project 2025 calls for an Executive Order to “reshape” the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP), a federal effort to study the impact of human and natural forces on the environment. The organization is responsible for the National Climate Assessment, which researches the impact of climate change in the United States. It also puts together the National Nature Assessment, which looks at the state of U.S. lands, waters, and wildlife. In the weeks after Trump took office, three science reports relating to climate change—two of which are mandated by Congress—were removed from the USGCRP website, according to Politico. Reviewing FEMA’s Effectiveness The Project 2025 blueprint calls for “reforms” to the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), the organization responsible for responding to natural disasters in the U.S. Among the proposals include privatizing the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and shifting the majority of preparedness and response costs to states and cities. Trump has echoed this goal; on Jan. 24th, the president announced a council to assess FEMA and its effectiveness. The privatization of the NFIP would place the burden of responding to floods—and covering the costs incurred by these disasters—on cities, especially as flood insurance is not covered by standard insurance policies. As climate change worsens, floods are becoming more devastating. The number of flood-prone areas around the country is expected to grow by nearly half by the end of this century. The conservative blueprint refers to Alaska as a “special case” that “deserves immediate action” and calls for previously protected lands to be opened up for drilling and mineral extraction. The plan also calls for the end of wildlife and water resource protections and the approval of logging and infrastructure projects in the Tongass National Forest. “Alaska has untapped potential for increased oil production, which is important not just to the revitalization of the nation’s energy sector but is vital to the Alaskan economy,” the document says. Trump has signed an executive order implementing this, and the U.S. Interior Secretary Doug Burgum recently announced that the department would be taking steps to open up more acreage for oil and gas leasing and lift restrictions on building a pipeline and mining road in the state. Culling EPA Staff In a chapter focused on the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Project 2025 said that the EPA’s staff and activities, “far exceeded its congressional mandates and purpose.” The document also calls for “reform” of the Endangered Species Act. It calls for the delistment of the Grizzly Bear and Gray Wolf as endangered animals and wants an “end its use to seize private property, prevent economic development, and interfere with the rights of states over their wildlife populations.” It also plans to abolish the Biological Resources Division of the U.S. Geological Survey, an agency that provides scientific research to support the conservation of public lands and their resources. In March, Trump announced planned cuts to the agency, including the elimination of the Office of Research and Development, which would impact over 1,000 employees, including scientists. Also in March, the U.S. House of Representatives Natural Resources Subcommittee on Water, Wildlife, and Fisheries said it will consider legislation put forward to amend the Endangered Species Act. It will also consider a separate bill to remove the Gray Wolf from the endangered species list.

Abombshell report that top national security officials for President Donald Trump discussed war plans in a private group chat that accidentally included the editor-in-chief of the Atlantic has elicited fierce criticism from Democrats and media commentators who have framed it as a scandal for which heads should roll—but it’s largely been dismissed by a number of Republicans. In a story published on Monday, journalist Jeffrey Goldberg revealed that National Security Advisor Mike Waltz added him last month to a group chat on Signal, an encrypted messaging app, that also included Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, Vice President J.D. Vance, and other top national security and White House officials. In the chat, the officials deliberated over an attack on the Houthis in Yemen and Hegseth sent operational details of strikes two hours before bombs dropped. Hegseth has suggested the story is fake, calling Goldberg a “deceitful and highly-discredited ‘so-called journalist.’” But National Security Council spokesperson Brian Hughes confirmed to Goldberg that the messages “appears to be authentic” and the administration is “reviewing how an inadvertent number was added to the chain.” When asked about the report on Monday, Trump said “I don’t know anything about it. I’m not a big fan of the Atlantic.” While Politico reported that some in the administration are furious with Waltz and deliberating whether he should resign or be forced out, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said Monday that Trump still has “the utmost confidence in his national security team.” The Atlantic report comes days after the Department of Defense announced an investigation into leaks of sensitive information. The revelation of the leaked group chat set off a flurry of criticism from Democrats, including calls for consequences. DNC Chair Ken Martin said in a statement that Hegseth should resign or be fired: “Hegseth—and everyone else involved—put on a stunning display of recklessness and disregard for our national security,” Martin said. “This is one of the most stunning breaches of military intelligence I have read about in a very, very long time,” said Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer in a floor speech. Former Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg called it the “highest level of f--kup imaginable” in a post on X. “Wait. Pete Hegseth hasn’t resigned yet?” posted California Rep. Eric Swalwell. Illinois Sen. Tammy Duckworth posted that Hegseth “should be fired immediately.” In a statement posted on Threads, Illinois Rep. Jonathan Jackson also called for Hegseth’s resignation, adding that the incident is evidence of the Trump Administration prioritizing “ideological attacks over competence and accountability.” New York Times columnist David French, a former Army lawyer and self-described evangelical conservative who is a frequent critic of Trump, wrote: “There is not an officer alive whose career would survive a security breach like that.” French suggested that the breach, if committed by another officer, could even be investigated as potentially criminal and that “Nothing destroys a leader’s credibility with soldiers more thoroughly than hypocrisy or double standards. … If [Hegseth] had any honor at all, he would resign.” But some Republicans in Congress, which is meant to act as a check on and exercise oversight of the executive branch, have largely downplayed the incident, offering mild criticism if any. “A mistake was made. It happens,” Louisiana Sen. John Kennedy told reporters, adding that it’s “not keeping the American people up at night. … Trust me, this is not going to lead to the apocalypse.” Missouri Sen. Josh Hawley said on Fox News: “This is what the leftist media is reduced to ... now we’re griping about who’s on a text message and who’s not. I mean, come on.” North Carolina Sen. Thom Tillis said, “You got to know who you’re sending your text to,” but he also told reporters “it’s a 24-hour news cycle. … I’ve got a lot of confidence in Mike [Waltz]. This doesn’t undermine my belief that he’s a solid pick for the role.” Florida Sen. Rick Scott expressed similarly tepid concerns: “Clearly, they’ve got to, you know, make sure that they’re careful how they do this,” he told reporters when asked about the group chat. West Virginia Sen. Shelley Moore Capito said the incident warranted “some kind of internal investigation” to “make corrections,” but Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville said a congressional investigation wasn’t needed: “You can’t put just blame on just one person, other than the fact that the person in charge, that the Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, he’ll get it corrected. And you know, that’s just part of transition and growing,” Tuberville told CNN. Florida Rep. Brian Mast, who chairs the House Foreign Affairs Committee, seemed to echo Tuberville’s sentiment, telling reporters that the issue “wasn’t a systemic thing” and didn’t require a “special investigation.” South Dakota Sen. Mike Rounds added that he expected Democrats to raise the incident during an intelligence hearing on Tuesday, and that “some of my Republican colleagues may raise it just as an issue to be very concerned about.” Gabbard and Ratcliffe are among those who were already due to testify before the Senate Intelligence Committee on Tuesday. House Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters it was an issue of “systems and process, not personnel,” suggesting that disciplinary action against anyone involved in the chat would be the wrong move. “The administration is addressing what happened,” Johnson said. “Apparently an inadvertent phone number made it onto that thread. They’re gonna track that down and make sure that doesn’t happen again. … Clearly, I think the administration has acknowledged it was a mistake and they’ll tighten up and make sure it doesn’t happen again.” Still, the breach seems to have shaken up many others in the party. Nebraska Rep. Don Bacon spelled out the national security implications of the gaffe, telling reporters, “everybody makes mistakes, texting somebody, we’ve all done it. But you don’t put classified information on unclassified devices like Signal. And there’s no doubt, I’m an intelligence guy, Russia and China are monitoring both their phones, right. So putting out classified information like that endangers our forces, and I can’t believe that they were knowingly putting that kind of classified information on unclassified systems, it’s just wrong.” Texas Sen. John Cornyn said it “sounds like a huge screw up. I mean is there any other way to describe it? I don’t think you should use Signal for classified information.” And New York Rep. Mike Lawler posted on X: “Classified information should not be transmitted on unsecured channels—and certainly not to those without security clearances, including reporters. Period.” “We’re just finding out about it. But obviously, we’ve got to run it to ground and figure out what went on there. We’ll have a plan,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Mississippi Sen. Roger Wicker, who chairs the Senate Armed Services Committee, told reporters the committee “will be looking into this.” “It’s definitely a concern, and it appears that mistakes were made,” Wicker added, but he said that whether someone should be held accountable depended on the results of an investigation. Meanwhile, Maine Sen. Susan Collins reportedly called the incident an “extremely troubling and serious matter”; Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski told a HuffPost reporter, “there needs to be some accountability”; and Montana Sen. Tim Sheehy put it most bluntly: “Well, somebody f--ked up.”

The genetic testing and information company, 23andMe, announced on March 23 that it has filed for bankruptcy, after years of financial struggles and data privacy concerns. Filing for bankruptcy will allow the company “to facilitate a sale process to maximize the value of its business,” 23andMe said in a press release. The news also comes amid management changes; according to the press release, Chief Executive Officer Anne Wojcicki is stepping down from her role, effective immediately, but will continue to serve as a board member. The company’s board selected Chief Financial and Accounting Officer Joe Selsavage to serve as the interim CEO. Advertisement In the press release, 23andMe said it “intends to continue operating its business in the ordinary course throughout the sale process. There are no changes to the way the Company stores, manages, or protects customer data.” “We are committed to continuing to safeguard customer data and being transparent about the management of user data going forward, and data privacy will be an important consideration in any potential transaction,” Mark Jensen, chair and member of the Special Committee of the Board of Directors, said in the press release. Still, some officials are urging customers to consider deleting their data. Just a few days before the bankruptcy announcement, on March 21, California Attorney General Rob Bonta issued a consumer alert to 23andMe customers, advising them to consider deleting their data from the company’s website. “Given 23andMe’s reported financial distress, I remind Californians to consider invoking their rights and directing 23andMe to delete their data and destroy any samples of genetic material held by the company,” Bonta said in a press release. Read More: Want to Live Long? Lifestyle Matters More Than Genes Some technology experts also encouraged 23andMe users to delete their data. Meredith Whittaker, the president of the messaging app Signal, said in a post on X: "It's not just you. If anyone in your FAMILY gave their DNA to 23&me, for all of your sakes, close your/their account now. This won't solve the issue, but they will (they claim) delete some of your data." In October 2024, NPR reported on customers' concerns over what could happen to their private data amid the company's financial challenges. A 23andMe spokesperson told NPR that the company was committed to privacy, but wouldn't answer questions about what the company might do with customer data. Legal experts said that there are few federal protections for customers, and worried that the sensitive data could potentially be sold off or even accessed by law enforcement, NPR reported.

If there’s one thing you can say about Americans at this point in time, it’s that we’re stressed—and we’re constantly told by health experts to reduce or manage our stress because it’s killing us. But what if I told you that stress can actually be good for you—and that, sometimes, more stress is actually helpful. As a doctor and researcher in stress and healthy aging, I know that sounds nonsensical or, at best, counterintuitive, but that’s exactly what the fascinating new science of hormesis, or “good stress,” shows. Certain kinds of stress are not only beneficial; they are essential. They build resilience, support brain and metabolic health, and even promote longevity. This new approach to stress is one of the most exciting and upcoming areas of longevity and wellness research. Advertisement While it is unquestionable that chronic stress from situations like caregiving, unmanageable workloads, chronic illness, difficult relationships, and financial hardship can harm your health, so-called hormetic stressors are different. They are intermittent, acute bursts of stress, such as periods of fasting, vigorous exercise, or learning a new skill. From the Greek “to excite,” hormetic stressors activate your body’s innate ability to grow stronger and more mentally and physically resilient. Leveraging good stress—and learning the difference between “stress” and being “stressed out”—may be the most transformative and accessible self-help tool we have today. And perhaps also the most fun. The science of good stress So, what exactly is stress? Stress is any challenge that disrupts our body’s natural balance, or homeostasis. An intriguing discovery in stress biology is that recovery from stress doesn’t simply restore us to our previous state. In the process of re-establishing balance, we either net harm—which is the case with chronic stress—or we overcompensate and gain resilience, which underlies the health-enhancing benefits of hormetic stress. All stress leaves long-lasting effects that shape-shift our biology. But while chronic stress leaves us less resilient, good stress makes us stronger. Advertisement Holiday inbound tourism thrives Branded Content Holiday inbound tourism thrives By China Daily Stress ripples down to the level of our cells. Hormetic stressors—such as eating plant-based phytochemicals, high-intensity interval training (HIIT), cold and heat exposure, intermittent fasting that optimizes circadian rhythms, and intentional mental and emotional challenges—activate a highly conserved set of genes crucial for our survival called vitagenes (short for vitality genes). These genes carry the code that heals, repairs, and regenerates our body. They ramp up our antioxidant capacity, regulate inflammation, repair damaged DNA and proteins, recycle old and dysfunctional cells, and increase the energy-making mitochondria that make up our life force. You may be wondering why all this matters. The most common symptoms I encounter in my medical practice, including fatigue, brain fog, digestive issues, mood imbalances, and pain, are manifestations of cellular damage. They stem from damaged DNA, impaired mitochondria, oxidative stress, chronic inflammation, and improperly folded or clumped proteins. Over time, cellular damage leads to chronic conditions such as diabetes, heart disease, dementia, depression, and cancer. Even the alarming decline in life expectancy can be traced to how our modern environments and lifestyles are harming our cells.

It was chicken tenders night at Yale’s chapter of Hillel, the Jewish student group, and the basement dining hall was packed with boisterous, hungry students attracted by overflowing vats of kosher fried chicken and vegan mac and cheese. Some students kissed the mezuza on the way in. Others were not even Jewish, but came for the food and companionship, a sign of the pluralism that Hillel — the dominant Jewish campus organization in the United States — says it embraces. Yet under the surface, there were signs of strain, after months of divisive protests on campus over the war in Gaza. A silent question hung in the air, several students said: “Which side are you on?” Few American organizations have been touched by clashes over the war quite the way Hillel has. The movement, founded in 1923 at the University of Illinois, now has chapters at 850 colleges and universities around the world, from highly selective private schools like Yale to big state universities like Texas A&M. The Hillel movement, including Hillel International and the campus Hillel chapters, had $200 million in revenue in 2023, received from tens of thousands of donors. Hillel centers are where college students go to cement their sense of Jewish identity, or to discover it. Its slogan is “all kinds of Jewish,” and it aims to be welcoming to all. But as the conflict in Gaza continues, some Jewish students believe that Hillel is not critical enough of the Israeli government’s conduct of the war, and too defensive in its support of Zionism, a belief in the right of Jews to a Jewish state in their ancestral land of Israel. Hillel, for its part, is unapologetic. “Hillel as an institution has been and remains committed to the support of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, that fulfills the right of Jewish self-determination in an ancestral homeland,” Adam Lehman, Hillel’s chief executive officer, said in an interview. The shock of the Hamas attack of Oct. 7, 2023, against Israel has moved many Jewish students to explore what it means to be Jewish, fueling significant growth in interest in Hillel on campuses around the world. During the 2023-24 school year, as the conflict in the Middle East escalated, a record 180,000 students participated in Hillel activities at least once, 12,000 more than the year before, according to the organization. There was also an uptick in the number of “super-users,” who visited Hillel at least six times. Over the last year and half, though, the solidarity that came with that identity has cracked.The fissures can be felt in public life and in synagogues. And the division among Jews more generally is playing out among Jews on campus, as some complain that Hillel is too aligned with Israel, while others say that it is too open to critics of Israel. Many students find it hard to divorce themselves from Hillel completely, especially in this time when they may not feel safe expressing their Jewish faith and identity outside their own community. Some students, like Emanuelle Sippy, a senior at Princeton, look for a middle ground. She still goes to Hillel for prayer services, meals and lectures. But in the search for a more congenial left-wing political environment, she also helped to revive a small rival group, the Alliance of Jewish Progressives, on her campus. “There is a group of people — very close friends, people I respect and admire — who are fighting battles within these institutions like Hillel,” she said. “They might be showing up to events. Hillel might be counting them. It doesn’t mean they don’t have criticisms.” This is not the first time that there has been a schism among students at Hillel. Students at Harvard launched an Open Hillel movement in 2012, in protest against the parent organization’s policy against partnering with anti-Israel groups. In December 2013, students at Swarthmore Hillel declared themselves the first “Open Hillel” chapter in the nation, vowing to promote open inquiry, regardless of ideology.The current ideological split feels sharper, as campus protests for and against Israel have led to arrests, suspensions and lawsuits. When it comes to the campus Hillel, “a lot of students don’t feel comfortable going in for political reasons,” said Danya Dubrow-Compaine, a senior and a co-founder of Yale Jews for Ceasefire. There is also a growing generation gap. In a Pew survey conducted in February 2024, 38 percent of adults under 30 years old said Israel’s reasons for fighting Hamas were valid, down from 41 percent two years earlier. That compares with 78 percent of people 65 and older who said the same, up several points from the earlier survey. Elijah Bacal, a sophomore who is an organizer for Yale Jews for Ceasefire, said the institutional leadership of the Slifka Center, as Yale’s Hillel is known, has been slow to adapt. “I think there is a real, honestly, just like an out-of-touchness,” Mr. Bacal said.Hillel is still one of the first places Jewish students go when arriving on campus, to meet others, do homework and enjoy a meal with friends. “I was looking for a place where my intellectual life wouldn’t be siloed into the classroom, but would spill out to a broader community,” said Medad Lytton, a Yale senior. After Oct. 7, he said, he “felt a strong sense of peoplehood.” A singing circle at Slifka helped him connect with others to express his grief. “It’s kind of a second home for me,” he said of the center. Nili Fox, a junior at Washington University in St. Louis, was brought up in a religious Jewish family, and sought out Hillel as soon as she arrived on campus. After Oct. 7, Hillel was her “rock,” she said. “It has really been helpful to know that whenever I feel uncomfortable I have a place where I was supported and loved, no matter what,” Ms. Fox said. Other students are dismayed by what they perceive as Hillel’s uncritical view of Israel in the face of a complicated and morally challenging reality. Some students object to Hillel houses flying the Israeli flag, which they see as a symbol of a nation that has, from Ms. Sippy’s perspective, committed war crimes.Uri Cohen, the executive director of the Slifka Center at Yale, says the flag represents Hillel’s values. “There are some who don’t come because it crosses a line for them, and there are many who come,” Mr. Cohen said. “Slifka is very clear. We are a Zionist institution. We are also not checking anybody’s credentials at the door.” In January, Yale Hillel hosted a talk by Naftali Bennett, a former Israeli army commando, defense minister and prime minister, who was once considered a protégé of Benjamin Netanyahu, Israel’s current prime minister. Many Jewish students objected to Mr. Bennett’s hawkish politics. (At a later talk at Harvard Business School, Mr. Bennett joked that he would give exploding pagers to people who disagreed with him, according to The Harvard Crimson.) Mr. Bacal, the organizer with Yale Jews for Ceasefire, helped lead a peaceful protest against Mr. Bennett in the lobby of the Slifka Center. He did not contest Mr. Bennett’s right to speak, Mr. Bacal said, but he did not see why the event had been held in a spiritual place, a chapel where students went to pray and that contained an ark with a Torah in it. “I think it’s a real shame, because the Jewish community at college should welcome and represent all Jews on campus to the best of its ability, no matter where they are coming from,” he said.Another student, Netanel Crispe, a senior, said that he objected not to the speaker but to Hillel’s having allowed the protest against him. Mr. Crispe said that Slifka staff stopped him and several others from filming the protest. He faulted Yale Hillel for trying “to play to both sides in a way that doesn’t reflect core values.” Mr. Cohen, Slifka’s director, defended the invitation the center extended to Mr. Bennett, noting that his talk drew 300 people to a space that only held 100. “We did it out of our love for Israel and our love for Zionism, and the opportunity of giving access for our students to an influential world leader,” he said. To illustrate Hillel’s dilemma, Mr. Bacal, the protest leader, recalled how honored he was to lead Shabbat services for the first time. His parents came to town to be there, and friends attended. But it took place around the time of the Naftali Bennett event, and one of his friends stayed away in protest. She told Mr. Bacal she did not feel comfortable stepping into Slifka that week. “I totally get that,” Mr. Bacal said.

Colleges are expecting what could be the largest freshman class ever this fall at a moment of extraordinary turmoil, as campuses face financial pressures from the federal government and political conflict over diversity and other cultural issues. Admissions processes, upended by the Supreme Court decision to ban affirmative action, have been revamped. Budget pressures and worries about financial aid and tuition loom for colleges and families alike. Campuses have been grappling with protests and the sanctity of academic freedom. And that was before President Trump’s return to power. After he took office in January, his administration almost immediately began a campaign to close the Education Department and stop billions of dollars from flowing to colleges. On campuses, universities are shutting down laboratories and confronting civil rights investigations over antisemitism. As about 3.9 million students earn their high school diplomas and many of them head to college, the changes could affect their experiences in big and small ways. Here’s how the commotion might touch students, their parents and anyone else around college campuses this year. Different schools, different problems The United States has close to 4,000 degree-granting colleges and universities that offer everything from associate’s degrees in nursing to doctorates in history. But challenges are just about everywhere in higher education right now. The kind of federal budget cuts that the Trump administration is pursuing could be the most damaging to universities where research is integral to the campus’s culture and structure. That includes places like the University of Pennsylvania and Johns Hopkins University, but also schools like Kansas State University. Some have already announced layoffs or hiring freezes, and may be forced to rework their course offerings. It is unclear how much belt tightening there will be, and how it might affect undergraduates in the fall. Regional public universities often receive less attention but are very much the backbone of higher education for millions of people. They have not been as targeted by the Trump administration, but they still face fundamental challenges around state budget fights, increasing day-to-day costs and declining enrollments. On some campuses, students are finding reduced services and staffing, with fewer professors, diminished academic resources and buildings that are closed more frequently. Community colleges are generally far cheaper than their four-year counterparts and are still avoiding the biggest political fights around higher education; plenty of politicians, in fact, are pushing to make them free. But their troubles are deep and stubborn. Although some schools have reported enrollment growth for this semester, community colleges have suffered from slumped interest for years. Private colleges are a mixed bag. Many remain strong, if susceptible to criticism over their costs and political leanings. But dozens have closed in recent years, leaving students scrambling to find new academic homes. Is paying for college going to change? There is proposed change, and then there is actual change. Mr. Trump’s effort to dismantle the Education Department puts two federal programs in limbo: Pell Grants and student loans. Linda McMahon, the secretary of education, said during her confirmation hearing that she wanted to expand the Pell Grant program, which is for low-income students. It isn’t clear, however, which agency or entity would administer the grants if the Education Department were to go away. On Friday, Mr. Trump said that the Small Business Administration would “immediately” take over the federal student loan portfolio. The Student Borrower Protection Center called his idea “illegal, unserious, and a distraction.” Given the enormity of the loan program, any quick transfer seems highly unlikely. Until Congress or federal courts get involved — and both may happen before long — the application process for financial aid and loans won’t change. The FAFSA, short for Free Application for Federal Student Aid, has been working better so far this application season after a rough redesign of the application. But it’s not clear how recent Education Department layoffs will affect the process. The biggest wild card may be the colleges themselves and what sorts of grants and scholarships they’ll be giving out. Many schools are suspending hiring to save money and fretting over a possible decline in international students, who may fear coming to the United States right now. What isn’t clear is whether schools will ask students to pay more than they may have otherwise (because of concerns over budget hits from the loss of federal funding) or pay less (to get them to commit to coming in the first place). How campus culture is shifting Diversity, equity and inclusion programs had once seemed like a good idea to many universities, even a necessity, as they sought to increase their enrollments in a competitive landscape. But a backlash has driven state lawmakers to take up legislation to eliminate such programs, and now the Trump administration is also attacking them. Universities are responding in varying ways. Sometimes schools have simply renamed their D.E.I. operations. Other universities been more aggressive. In March 2024, the University of Florida fired its 13-member D.E.I. staff in response to a state ban, for example. On some campuses, students will very likely feel the differences. The University of Virginia pulled trainings on topics such as D.E.I. and microaggressions from its website. At the University of Houston, the campus newspaper announced that an L.G.B.T.Q. center was being shut after Texas banned diversity programming in colleges and universities. At the University of North Florida, an L.G.B.T.Q. center, a women’s center, an interfaith center and an intercultural center were all shuttered. At Missouri State University in January, students protested the elimination of an annual diversity conference as well as an “inclusive excellence” gala. There remain holdouts. In a recent meeting with the faculty Senate at Amherst College in Massachusetts, its president Michael Elliott called Mr. Trump’s orders ambiguous, and said that Amherst would make no cuts. Schools that have seen major protests over the war in Gaza could face blunt-force pressure from Washington to change discipline and other institutional policies related to protests, and even curriculum related to the Middle East. Republican efforts to curb diversity programming could extend into the classroom. Long before Mr. Trump began his second term, some states, including Florida, tried to sideline ideas from college curriculums that lawmakers considered left-leaning. That could lead to more limited course offerings that touch on race and gender. For now, the courses in Florida are still available but not required. Other efforts are in the works. A bill in Arizona, for example, would slash state funding for all state colleges if any instruction connected “contemporary American society” to ideas like whiteness or systemic racism. What does the affirmative action ban mean for students? The Supreme Court’s decision in 2023 to strike down race-conscious admissions has upended nearly 50 years of court precedent and university policies, and the effect on admissions especially at the nation’s most selective institutions may be unclear for years to come. Statistics are in for the class that entered in the fall, and they broadly show a decrease in the number of Black students enrolled. Some differences were stark, as at Harvard Law School, which enrolled 19 Black first-year students last fall, compared with 43 the year before. But there are some exceptions to the trend. And given the difficulty of comparing different counting methods across universities, officials have been reluctant to predict how the future will play out. Schools are trying to maintain diversity by stepping up financial aid and recruitment, particularly in rural areas. Several universities, including the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard, are offering free tuition for students whose families earn $200,000 and below. The court also left open the possibility that universities could consider race in the context of life challenges, especially as students presented them in application essays. But critics of affirmative action, like Students for Fair Admissions, which brought the Supreme Court case, are ready to challenge universities if they see any hint of any decisions based on race. Anti-affirmative action groups will also be scrutinizing measures like SAT scores, if they can get them, to see whether universities are using different standards for different races and ethnicities.

Just hours after opening its new program for American researchers called Safe Place for Science in reaction to Trump administration policies, Aix Marseille University received its first application. Since then, the university, which is in the south of France and is known for its science programs, has received about a dozen applications per day from what the school considers “scientific asylum” seekers. Other universities in France and elsewhere in Europe have also rushed to save American researchers fleeing drastic cuts to jobs and programs by the Trump administration, as well as perceived attacks on whole fields of research. At stake are not just individual jobs, but the concept of free scientific inquiry, university presidents say. They are also rushing to fill huge holes in collective research caused by the cuts, particularly in areas targeted by the Trump administration, including studies of climate change, public health, environmental science, gender and diversity.If the movement becomes a trend, it could mean the reversal of the long-term brain drain that has seen generations of scientists move to the United States. And while at least some Europeans have noted that the changes in the United States provide a unique opportunity to build stronger European research centers, most academics say that competition is not the short-term motivation. “This program is ultimately linked to indignation, to declare what is happening in the United States is not normal,” said Éric Berton, president of Aix Marseille University, which has earmarked 15 million euros (nearly $16,300,000) for 15 three-year positions. He said the number of openings “wasn’t much,” but the goal was to “give them a little hope.” In France, Aix Marseille University is considered a leader in the push to bring in American researchers. Since that program started, a cancer research foundation in Paris announced it was immediately putting up 3.5 million euros to welcome American cancer researchers. And last week, two universities in Paris announced they were offering positions to American scientists whose work has been curtailed or halted by the Trump administration. “We are researchers — we want to continue to work at the highest level in these fields that are being attacked in the United States,” explained El Mouhoub Mouhoud, the president of Université Paris Sciences et Lettres. The university plans to welcome 15 researchers who are already working on shared projects in targeted areas including climate science, health, humanities and gender studies, said Mr. Mouhoud. As a result, the projects would continue unfettered and the American researchers could enjoy “academic freedom to do their research,” he said. “That’s good for everyone,” Mr. Mouhoud said. The alarms at European scientific institutions began sounding as the Trump administration started slashing jobs and freezing science grants as part of its broad cost-cutting measures.Firings at U.S. centers deemed the pinnacle of science have been announced week after week including at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the National Science Foundation, the U.S. Geological Survey and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The National Institutes of Health, the world’s largest funder of biomedical research, fired 1,200 employees and put grant reviews on hold, essentially turning off the tap of government funding for research projects in labs across the country. The cuts come as some federal agencies have removed terms from websites and grant applications that are deemed unacceptable to the Trump administration, which is seeking to purge the federal government of “woke” initiatives. Among the terms considered taboo: “climate science,” “diversity” and “gender.” Taken together, the actions have sent a chill through academia and research institutes, with scientists worried not just for their jobs but the long-term viability of their research. “What we see today is actually censorship, censorship of fundamental values ,” said Yasmine Belkaid, president of the Pasteur Institute in Paris, who moved to France last year after 30 years in the United States, where she had led the National Institutes of Health’s Center for Human Immunology. “We could lose a generation of science, a generation of scientists, something that we cannot recover from,” she added. “It is our duty collectively to make sure that science on the whole is protected.” Philippe Baptiste, the French minister of higher education and research, has been among the most outspoken and active European leaders on the issue. Mr. Baptiste, who led the French National Center of Space Studies before joining the government, described the Trump administration’s decisions as “collective madness” that required a swift and robust response from around the world.“They are making decisions” he said, “that call into question whole swaths of research not just in the United States, but the world because there are a huge number of programs that we do jointly with the United States — on earth observation, on climate, on ecology, on the environment, on health data, on space exploration. It’s incalculable.” Speaking of scientists with the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with whom he worked closely in his past job, Mr. Baptiste said: “These people are of exceptional scientific quality, dealing with weather, climate and earth observation. And what’s the idea? To say that we can no longer work on these issues?” Mr. Baptiste has been working with the presidents of French universities to come up with a government program. He has also pushed for a Europe-wide response, including drafting a letter, also signed by government ministers in 11 other European countries, which demands a coordinated effort and dedicated funding from the European Commission for start-ups, research and innovation. More than 350 scientists signed a petition published this week in the French newspaper Le Monde, similarly calling on the European Commission to set up an emergency fund of 750 million euros to accommodate thousands of researchers working in the United States. A European Commission spokesperson said a meeting was being planned to coordinate the most effective response to the Trump administration cuts to scientific research.In Brussels, two sister universities — Vrije Universiteit Brussel and Université Libre de Bruxelles — said they planned to market to American students a program offering 36 postdoctoral positions open to international researchers from around the world. The positions, largely funded by European Union money, will focus on research in climate, artificial intelligence and other areas the schools view as socially important. In the Netherlands, the minister of education, culture and science, Eppo Bruins, announced that he wanted to set up a fund “in the very short term” to attract leading scientists in a variety of fields. While he did not mention Mr. Trump directly, he hinted at it in a letter to the Dutch House of Representatives. “The geopolitical climate is changing, which is currently increasing the international mobility of scientists,” he wrote. “Several European countries are responding to this and are going to attract international scientific talent. I want the Netherlands to continue to be at the forefront.” Ulrike Malmendier, a German economist who is member of Germany’s leading economic council, urged European governments to increase investment in science to attract out-of-work researchers from the United States. “The development in the U.S.A. is a huge opportunity for Germany and Europe,” Ms. Malmendier, who is a professor at the University of California, Berkeley, told Germany’s Funke media group. “I know that a lot of people are thinking about leaving.”