TL;DR

• Dr. Ian Lipkin warns Columbia’s research enterprise is “weeks, not months” from collapse after catastrophic federal funding cuts—jeopardizing decades of global public health leadership.
• His lab’s innovations have shaped pandemic response worldwide, from identifying West Nile virus to advising Saudi Arabia on MERS and developing COVID diagnostics used 25 million times—all with minimal institutional support.
• Lipkin is racing to finish “the box,” a real-time, field-deployable pathogen detector that could revolutionize global disease surveillance at a fraction of the cost and timing of current methods—but lost NIH funding.
• Beyond outbreaks, his team is pioneering research on chronic illness, neurodegeneration, and long COVID, using immune-environment tracking and diagnostics to prevent illness before it begins.
• Without urgent reconciliation between Columbia and the federal government, America risks losing its scientific edge—and Columbia risks ceasing to be a research university in any meaningful sense.

ICYMI: We are starting to see a welcome change in how Columbia’s official communications networks are approaching its broader messaging efforts. Last week, the official Columbia Alumni Association launched the Take Action initiative. It asks the broader community to “inspire and inform” which we have done and will continue to do in the spirit of advocating for Columbia University’s core mission of excellence in teaching, learning, research, and patient care and restoring it to its rightful pre-eminence in American—and global—higher education. If you read this newsletter, please sign up for Take Action—more communications from the University, and a changing attitude towards transparency, is always welcome.

This week, the Stand Columbia Society is pleased to share a conversation with Dr. Ian Lipkin, internationally renowned epidemiologist and longtime professor at the Mailman School of Public Health where he holds the John Snow Chair of Epidemiology. He is also a Professor of Neurology and of Pathology in the Vagelos College of Physicians and Surgeons and the Director of the Center for Infection and Immunity, the Center for Solutions for ME/CFS and the Global Alliance for Preventing Pandemics. For more than two decades, Dr. Lipkin has helped Columbia and the world confront some of the most complex biological threats of our time, from emerging pandemics to chronic illnesses still not fully understood.

A scientist with the instincts of a first responder and the bearing of a public servant, Dr. Lipkin has quietly led efforts that span continents and disciplines. In this interview, he reflects on the path that led him from filmmaking to infectious disease research, the urgent lessons of past outbreaks, and the fragile infrastructure that sustains American scientific leadership—and along the way runs into Elizabeth Holmes of Theranos and receives a medal from a Franciscan Catholic university.

With clarity, candor, and a deep sense of duty—to the public, to the truth, and to Columbia—Dr. Lipkin reminds us that great science is not only a pursuit of knowledge, but a defense of the common good.

1. Let’s start with you. Tell us a bit about your journey: how you came to Columbia, how you got into studying infectious diseases, and what sort of work you carry on now.

“At the center of all our work is a question: why are people getting sick? Once we understand that, we can build real solutions.”

I started college thinking I’d go into cultural anthropology, film or theater. Then I took a course in inorganic chemistry out of curiosity, and it completely changed my trajectory. One course turned into another, and before I knew it, I was headed to medical school.

I was initially drawn to tropical medicine, imagining work overseas, helping people in places with limited access to care. I completed three years of internal medicine, but when I finished, there wasn’t much demand for the skill set in work overseas. So I pivoted.

My interest in the brain led me back to neurology. While training at UCSF, HIV emerged, then called GRID (Gay-Related Immune Deficiency). Many physicians were afraid to treat patients out of stigma and fear because we didn’t yet know how it spread. I became one of the few in my program willing to take them on, and I ended up treating hundreds. It took two years to identify the virus. That experience convinced me we needed better tools to detect infectious agents faster.

So I returned to basic science, joining the Scripps Clinic for six years of deep work in neurobiology and molecular virology. There, we developed the first exclusively molecular method (subtractive cloning) for discovering unknown pathogens—a foundation for much of my later work.

In 1999, we were asked by the CDC and the New York State Department of Health to investigate a mysterious outbreak of encephalitis in New York. It turned out to be something never seen before in the Western Hemisphere: West Nile virus. We identified it within three days.

That work caught the attention of Allan Rosenfield, then dean of Columbia’s Mailman School, and Josh Lederberg, the former president of Rockefeller University. Allan invited us to help build a program for pandemic preparedness. We moved from the University of California to build a new program at Columbia in global infectious disease discovery and surveillance that could identify and respond to public health threats in real time.

During our transition, 9/11 happened. Then came the anthrax letters. Suddenly, biodefense wasn’t abstract. Columbia ended up leading a 28-institution consortium—developing vaccines, diagnostics, monoclonal antibodies, many of which remain relevant today.

Over the last 25 years at Columbia, we’ve built a body of intellectual property critical to public health. During COVID, we created a test that we licensed to SummerBio that was used more than 25 million times. It generated revenue, yes, but more importantly, it helped meet an urgent national need.

At the center of all our work is a question: why are people getting sick? Once we understand that, we can build real solutions. We’ve identified more than 2,500 viruses, pioneered new methods for pathogen detection, and supported dozens of global responses. And we’ve done it without much institutional support, unlike our peers.

Even so, we’ve built something world-class. When the WHO, CDC, or Department of Defense needs help identifying a pathogen, they often turn to us. We’re proud of that, and we see it as a responsibility we carry not just for Columbia, but for the country.

2. You’ve been at the center of some of the most extraordinary outbreaks, including SARS in China, MERS in Saudi Arabia, and of course, COVID. In fact, you even won the Mendel Medal for some of your work. What was it like to work across pandemics?

“If you do your job well, no one knows. Success looks like prevention. And prevention rarely gets the credit it deserves.”

Over the past few decades, I’ve had the opportunity to be on the front lines of some of the most serious infectious disease outbreaks around the world. A big part of that is because we’ve developed molecular diagnostic tools that allow us to detect infectious agents quickly and accurately. When speed matters, people call us.

One of the most pivotal experiences came in 2003, during the SARS outbreak in China. I was invited by China’s Minister of Health, Minister of Science and Technology, and the Vice President of the Chinese Academy of Sciences to help direct their national response. My colleague Thomas Briese and I were the only foreign scientists officially invited in by the Chinese government. We worked closely with them to contain the outbreak and helped develop the surveillance methods that became the foundation of their response.

What the Chinese government chooses to do with those tools we have no control over. But our philosophy has always been consistent: we support the World Health Organization and promote open access to the best technologies, wherever they’re needed. That kind of openness makes the world safer for everyone. To be clear, I have no relationship with the Chinese government. But when public health is at risk and they ask for help, I respond—just as I would for any country.

We’ve done similar work in more than 30 countries, from Brazil to the Democratic Republic of the Congo to Zambia. In Saudi Arabia, during the emergence of MERS, their Ministry of Health brought us in. I went with three colleagues to Riyadh, then to a village called Bisha, where the first known case had been identified. We interviewed the patient’s family, coworkers, and local officials. One interesting detail: he owned four pet camels. We sampled camels across the country and found that three-quarters had antibodies to the virus, especially the young ones. We even traced it back in time and discovered the virus had been circulating in Saudi Arabia for at least a decade before anyone noticed.

We also studied slaughterhouses. Some used high-pressure water systems to clean meat, and in those, we found no viral contamination. But others didn’t and the viral load there was significant. We concluded that the virus was likely spreading through contact with young camels and contaminated camel meat. That work led to real changes in public health practices in the region.

In late 2019, I was in Egypt when I got a call from a Chinese contact of a respiratory illness emerging in Wuhan. I immediately reached out to colleagues at the China CDC to offer access to any of our diagnostic methods. I didn’t hear back from my contact until December 31, when I was told that a novel coronavirus had been identified, but that it wasn’t thought to be very infectious. They were wrong, of course. I didn’t think they were being disingenuous, just their read was wrong.

In January, I traveled from Guangzhou to Beijing and made several public health recommendations. Many of them were ultimately adopted, though at the time, some people called them obvious. Hindsight always makes things look easier than they are. 

When I returned to New York in early February, most of the focus in the U.S. was on travelers arriving from China. But the real influx in New York was coming from Europe. That mistake—focusing on the wrong geographic source—reminded us that borders don’t matter when it comes to infectious disease. Surveillance has to be global.

People also forget that the early testing kits in the U.S., produced by the CDC, had problems. That’s why we built our own tools. I traveled to China to understand how the virus was spreading, and when I returned, I debriefed with officials at the CDC, NIH, and FBI. I’ve always tried to be fully transparent with what I see, because I believe deeply that public health is a matter of national interest. This isn’t about politics. It’s about keeping people safe.

Let me give one more example. In 2008, we were asked to investigate an outbreak of a highly lethal virus between Zambia and South Africa in what’s now known as Lujo hemorrhagic fever (for “Lusaka-Johannesburg”). We identified the pathogen and an effective treatment within days and helped bring the outbreak to a halt. There were five confirmed cases. Four of those people died. The only one who survived was the individual we managed to treat. That was the deadliest pathogen I’ve ever encountered.

And this points to one of the greatest challenges in public health: if you do your job well, no one knows. Success looks like prevention. And prevention rarely gets the credit it deserves.

As you pointed out, I received the Mendel Medal in 2014. This was a very moving moment for me. It’s awarded by Villanova University, a Catholic institution founded by the Franciscans. The current Pope is actually a Villanova graduate. I’m Jewish, so it felt a little unexpected at first. But when the priest who was coordinating the award called me, he asked two questions.

First: is science fundamentally opposed to religion? I told him no. There’s still so much we don’t understand, and I have great respect for people of faith. Second: why do we do the work we do? I said it’s about public health. Our goal is not just to develop profitable technology, but to reduce suffering and save lives. I have no objection to people being well-compensated for their work. But at the end of the day, our mission is to make people healthier.

The values that guided Gregor Mendel—curiosity, ethics, service—are the same ones that guide us at Columbia. It was an honor to receive the medal and to speak about what matters. And it was especially meaningful because Mendel is the father of modern genetics. I was very honored by this.

3. Can you give us a sense of the key projects and initiatives that your lab is working on right now?

“There are commercial firms charging $2,000 for a 72-hour turnaround. We can do it in 14 hours—aiming for 4 to 6 hours at $50 per test. That changes everything.”

One of the projects I’m most passionate about right now is a portable diagnostic device we’ve been developing—I call it “the box”— that delivers real-time pathogen detection in field hospitals, ERs, or outbreak zones. Instead of waiting days for lab results, clinicians will get answers in just hours. In infectious diseases as in cardiology or neurology, there is a short grace period when early accurate intervention can have a dramatic impact on morbidity, mortality and health care costs. “The box” is the equivalent of endovascular intervention in heart attacks or strokes.  

It’s built on a method we pioneered in 2015 called “capture sequencing” that was featured in Scientific American. Most labs sequence hundreds of millions of random fragments. We target only what matters—binding to known or likely pathogens and skipping human DNA. It’s faster, cheaper, and far more precise. Where others need 300 million reads, we can do better with 2 million. And since we eliminate human data, there are no privacy concerns.

We can run it on a laptop. Today, there are commercial firms charging $2,000 for a 72-hour turnaround. We can do it in 14 hours, aiming for 4–6 hours at $50 per test. That changes everything. Think about what this means in practice: a child with meningitis who needs a spinal tap. A transplant patient with a sudden fever. A suspected outbreak in a rural clinic overseas. Instead of waiting days and treating empirically, we can pinpoint the problem and treat it precisely. It’s small enough for an emergency room. It’s deployable in a conflict zone. It doesn’t need to be sent to a central lab. It decentralizes and democratizes diagnosis and surveillance.

We were on track for NIH support, but the grant was cut. Regardless, we’re pushing ahead because this needs to exist.

We’re also leading work on chronic illness—especially Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (CFS) and long COVID. At least 3 million people in the US have ME/CFS.  In addition to the personal cost to those who suffer, the disease has a  massive economic impact (estimated to cost the country $50 billion per year before COVID). The numbers of people with long COVID are higher still.  We’ve been at the forefront of this research, even before the pandemic, and it’s frustrating that institutional support has lagged.

We’re exploring the role of early-life infections in Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, autism, and even some cancers. Years ago, we began a birth cohort study to track exposures during pregnancy and early childhood. That’s helped us identify immune-environment interactions linked to autism. Similar patterns may hold in other neurodevelopmental or degenerative diseases.

We’re also studying Gulf War veterans suffering from long-term symptoms. Our tools let us investigate these chronic conditions with new precision and potentially, to intervene earlier.

This area of research is not only scientifically rich, it’s a gold mine—literally and figuratively. If we combine diagnostics with genetic screening, we could prevent illnesses long before symptoms emerge. This is exactly what Columbia’s global mission should be about, and we’re proud to be pushing it forward.

4. I’ll be honest, this idea of a “box” sounds like a “real” version of Theranos.

“Everything about the place felt curated… But there was never real transparency. And in science, transparency is non-negotiable.”

*laughs* I actually met Elizabeth Holmes early on. I visited Theranos in 2015 and spent the day with her. Even then, it was clear something didn’t add up. She was eager to show me how well their Edison system worked, and I said, “Great, let’s run a test.” But in addition to the pinprick of blood, she wanted to draw blood from my arm on-site.

I suggested we do it differently. Let’s do the pinprick here, but draw my blood independently, at a certified facility, and then compare results. She refused. That’s when I started to question what was really going on.

Everything about the place felt curated. Sleek lighting, the Edison machine, high-gloss surfaces—it looked more like a stage set than a functioning lab. She was making broad claims about their chemistry platform, and at one point, she even asked us to send her Zika samples so she could prove it would work. But there was never real transparency. And in science, transparency is non-negotiable.

So no—what we’re building is the opposite of Theranos. It’s real, it’s peer-reviewed, it’s validated in the field. We’ve published our methods. We’ve used them across 30 countries. This isn’t vaporware. It’s a tool designed by scientists, tested by clinicians, and built for public health

5. You are a Professor at the Mailman School of Public Health. Can you give us a sense of how Mailman and broader CUIMC is funded and operated?

“If we don’t win grants, we don’t survive. That’s the model for medical research in the United States for decades.”

The Mailman School of Public Health, like much of Columbia’s medical campus, is what we call a “soft money” institution. That means the vast majority of our funding comes from competitive federal grants. We don’t have a hospital attached to the school. We don’t have patients, grateful or otherwise. And we’re not sustained by large donations or endowments.

We do have tuition-paying students, and we’re proud of the training we provide. But tuition revenue covers only a small fraction of what it takes to run a serious research program. The reality is, if we don’t win grants, we don’t survive. That’s been the model for medical research in the United States for decades.

6. Given the federal funding cuts, how have you and your colleagues been impacted, and what does this mean for your work?

“We’ve lost all of our grants… I genuinely don’t know if our science will survive.”

The federal funding cuts have been devastating. We’ve lost all of our grants. As a result, we’ve had to let go of 25 percent of our team: highly trained, deeply dedicated professionals who are not easily replaced. These are people who’ve helped us identify new pathogens, develop diagnostics, and respond to global crises. Now they’re being snapped up by institutions overseas. I was in the UK a few months ago, and for them it’s a godsend: they’re gaining talent on the cheap that we trained at enormous expense

The reality is, we’re losing our competitive edge. Without funding, we can’t do our work. We can’t pay our staff. We’ve even been told we need to give up a third of our lab space. It’s hard to understand how we’re supposed to do the same caliber of work under shrinking conditions and less funding, fewer people, less room to operate.  

At this point, the only resources we can spend are donations, which have come from members of my own family, from people who believe in our mission, and from supporters who care about our work in long COVID, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and infectious disease surveillance in low- and middle-income countries.

We’re just two years out from a once-in-a-century pandemic, and already I hear people say they have “COVID fatigue.” I understand that sentiment. But the virus doesn’t care whether we’re tired. And COVID won’t be the last. We’re seeing new strains of HIV, tuberculosis, and other organisms that are less responsive to existing treatments. If we let surveillance collapse, we’re setting ourselves up for another crisis, maybe worse than the last.

The same is true in food security. A few years ago, the Norwegian government asked us to investigate a virus that was killing salmon. The price of salmon spiked globally until we arrested the outbreak. Later, we were brought in to investigate widespread tilapia deaths, and we discovered yet another new virus, one that has since been recognized as a serious global threat.

Most people don’t know this, but the collaboration between Columbia and Israeli scientists on the tilapia discovery was ranked by the U.S.-Israel Binational Agricultural Research and Development Fund (BARD) as tied in the top three breakthroughs in the 40 year history of the agency. I got a nice letter from BARD’s executive director on that a few years ago.

Much of this work hasn’t received the attention it deserves, even within Columbia. That’s just the nature of public health: if you do your job well, no one knows. Nevertheless, I’m proud of what we’ve built here, and I’m grateful for the opportunities we’ve had. But I do worry that those opportunities may not be available to the next generation. At the moment, I genuinely don’t know if our science will survive.

Other labs have spun out companies. We’ve licensed our technology but we haven’t gone the commercial route. We’ve focused on public health. But without stable support, even the best intentions can’t sustain a research enterprise.

7. In your view, how did we get here? Harvard and Columbia were seemingly singled out while other universities seemed to have avoided the draconian funding cuts we have encountered.

“No one has the right to prevent others from doing their work. A university can and should protect free expression. But it also has to function.”

Let me start with a caveat. I don’t know exactly how these decisions were made or who was in the room at the highest levels, whether in government or at Columbia. But from where I sit, it’s not hard to see how the events of the past year have contributed to where we are now.

It’s well known that the University Senate—where I once served—wasn’t helpful. As a result, Columbia appeared to the outside world as unwilling or unable to enforce its own rules. 

Many of us at the medical center watched with growing concern. Decisions made largely by a small number of faculty and students on another campus have come back to haunt the entire university. They are still mostly unaffected, while our research programs are under threat. It sent the wrong message: that we were not in control of our own institution.

Let me be clear. I support the right to protest. I believe people should be free to express their views. But no one has the right to prevent others from doing their work. A university can and should protect free expression. But it also has to function.

Whatever the original intentions were, the consequences are now unavoidable. The research mission of this university is at risk. 

What’s at stake here isn’t just Columbia’s reputation. It’s the work we do for the country and the world. And that work can’t continue under these conditions.

8. We are seeing tectonic shifts across how the government funds research, including cutting ICR rates to 15% across the board. How does our national academic research enterprise respond to this sort of disruption?

“One area that’s often misunderstood is indirect costs. People hear that term and assume it’s a slush fund. It’s not… A flat 15 percent rate doesn’t even come close to covering those responsibilities.”

Our ability to contribute globally—and to protect American lives and interests—is directly tied to federal funding. Without that support, we will not survive as a research institution. It’s that simple.

One area that’s often misunderstood is indirect costs. People hear that term and assume it’s a slush fund. It’s not. Indirect costs cover utilities, security, building and lab maintenance, insurance, legal compliance. Yesterday, we had a review of our biosecurity procedures. When we receive a specimen that could be dangerous, we don’t just open the box. We need secure containment, trained personnel, regular drills, and audits. All of that is funded through indirect cost recovery. A flat 15 percent rate doesn’t even come close to covering those responsibilities.

Even if we restored direct funding, the math still doesn’t work. Institutions can’t safely or sustainably conduct high-level research on infectious diseases without proper infrastructure support.

There’s also a long-term issue people don’t like to talk about: the talent pipeline. STEM education in the U.S. is falling behind what’s available overseas. And the kind of scientists we need—virologists, bioengineers, data specialists—take decades to train. You can’t rebuild that workforce overnight. If we lose them now, we may not get them back.

Meanwhile, as people step away from this work, Columbia is one of the few places still in a position to lead. We’ve built long-standing relationships around the world—in places as different as Saudi Arabia, India, Israel, China and the Democratic Republic of Congo—because we’re seen as honest brokers. We don’t impose. We don’t extract. We share knowledge to help everyone respond faster and better. That’s how we’ve gained access to places where even governments struggle to operate.

I understand the skepticism that sometimes comes up when we work in China or other politically sensitive regions. But we’ve always operated transparently. Everything we develop is meant to raise the floor for global public health. It’s in our own national interest. Because whether a virus emerges in a wet market or a war zone, it can be on our shores within hours. We have over 100 countries with nonstop flights into the East Coast alone.

The risks are higher than ever. Climate change is expanding the range of ticks and mosquitoes, extending transmission seasons, and introducing new disease vectors. Water shortages are bringing back cholera even in developed countries. People are hunting wild animals for food, increasing the risk of zoonotic spillover.

There’s also growing evidence, including satellite imagery, that Russia and North Korea are revitalizing their bioweapons programs. After the fall of the Soviet Union, many of us were shocked to find just how extensive those programs were in places like Novosibirsk. Now, with modern bioengineering, it’s possible to recreate something like smallpox using equipment you can buy online. I recently wrote about this in the Financial Times. It’s not just rogue states, we’re also seeing “citizen scientists” trying to engineer pathogens at home.

So what’s the path forward? It starts with investing in surveillance and countermeasures. That means diagnostic tools, early detection systems, and trained teams ready to respond anywhere in the world. Columbia has the talent and credibility to lead that work. We’ve earned the trust of governments precisely because we don’t abuse it.

This isn’t about partisanship. It’s not about Republican or Democrat. It’s about national security and public safety. Agencies like the NIH, CDC, and Department of Defense have always understood that. But now, we’re seeing more and more of the burden shift to private foundations. And even that support is beginning to dry up.

We’re doing everything we can to train the next generation through the Global Alliance for Preventing Pandemics (GAPP), which you can support here.We’re building local capacity so countries can respond on their own. But we can’t carry this alone. And I don’t know of any other organization doing this kind of work at the scale we are. 

9. If you could say something to three different audiences—the Columbia Trustees, Trump administration, and those among your colleagues who disagree on the importance of federal funding and want to take a more confrontational tack, what would you say? 

“We are weeks, not months, away from collapse in some areas.”

To the Columbia Trustees: The research enterprise at Columbia is on life support. That’s not rhetoric. It is reality. We are weeks, not months, away from collapse in some areas. This is an urgent moment, and it requires a spirit of reconciliation and shared purpose. I believe we all want the same thing: to see Columbia thrive. But if we don’t come to terms soon on some sort of rapprochement with the government, the damage may be irreversible.

To the Trump administration: I say this not as an activist or partisan—because I am neither—but as someone who has spent a lifetime working to reduce threats to American health, security, and prosperity. I’ve collaborated with the Department of Defense, the NIH, the CDC, the FDA, and the USDA over decades. Those partnerships have been immensely valuable for our country. We want to continue that work. But we can only do so if this research infrastructure remains intact. America is blessed with immense expertise, but we need your support to ensure it continues to benefit the American people.

To colleagues who disagree: I understand that not everyone is close to this. But many researchers feel there is a dangerous lack of understanding from our colleagues who are purely engaged in pedagogy or those whose research does not require physical facilities. Unless we come to terms with federal funding, Columbia will no longer be a research university in any meaningful sense, and our lost work could put millions of lives at risk. Our labs don’t run on tuition. Most of my team teaches one or two courses a year. That accounts for just 5-10% of their income.

If federal funding doesn’t return, my center will shut down. And with it goes not just a research program, but the institutional reputation and intellectual capital that Columbia depends on to attract talent that comes here to change the world.

10. Last question—given what is going on today, what can the Columbia friends and family do to support you and the scientific community at CUIMC? 

“We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re asking for a shared recognition that science is one of Columbia’s greatest contributions to the world, and that it’s worth preserving.”

What we need most right now is help keeping our team together. That means faculty, technicians, coordinators, everyone who makes it possible for us to bring world-class science to bear on the most urgent problems facing public health. We remain hopeful that federal support will be restored, but in the meantime, we can’t afford to wait. The work is too important, and the window is closing fast.

There are two areas where support from Columbia’s broader community can make a real difference. 

The first is our work in global surveillance. We’re building a portable diagnostic device that could transform public health by allowing real-time detection of infectious diseases anywhere in the world. The price tag is modest—about $5 million of R&D to bring it into full production. We’d welcome interest from anyone who sees the value of this, including private sector investors or national security interests. You can reach out to me on that here.

The second area is chronic illness. As the country ages, we need better tools to understand, diagnose, and prevent conditions like Alzheimer’s, chronic fatigue syndrome, and long COVID. The Trump administration’s push to Make America Healthy Again gets a lot of things right. We believe our labs can contribute in a meaningful way to making America healthier and more resilient. You can learn more about how to support that effort here.

We’re not asking for special treatment. We’re asking for a shared recognition that science is one of Columbia’s greatest contributions to the world, and that it’s worth preserving. This is about making smart, long-term investments in the health of our country and the safety of our world. And it starts by making sure the science, and the people doing it, have what they need to continue.

News Roundup

– June 6, 2025. NBC News reports that Education Secretary Linda McMahon says Harvard and Columbia are showing “progress” in response to Trump administration pressure. In an NBC News interview, McMahon defended sweeping federal actions including grant cancellations and visa restrictions, arguing elite universities must combat antisemitism, disclose international student identities, and improve “viewpoint diversity.” Trump’s latest proclamation aims to block new foreign students from enrolling at Harvard, with McMahon crediting federal intervention for forcing change. “They’re starting to behave,” Trump said, as his administration pushes for ideological scrutiny and surveillance of U.S. campuses.

– June 5, 2025. The Washington Post reports that a federal judge has blocked ICE from arresting Yunseo Chung, a Columbia University student and U.S. permanent resident targeted for deportation after participating in a pro-Palestinian protest at Barnard College. The ruling marks a setback for the Trump administration’s broader campaign to detain and deport noncitizen students engaged in campus activism. ICE had surveilled Chung, attempted arrest, and sought a search warrant for her dorm, prompting concerns of First Amendment retaliation. The court’s injunction prevents further detention efforts and requires advance notice for any unrelated arrest attempt, signaling judicial pushback against the administration’s use of immigration enforcement to suppress dissent.

– June 5, 2025. In These Times reports in a fascinating profile of how protestors think. In brief, student organizers at Columbia and the University of Michigan are mobilizing to defend free speech, campus activism, and each other. Following April raids targeting pro-Palestine student organizers in Michigan, unions and mutual aid networks have stepped up, emphasizing that “we keep us safe.” Summarizing this won’t do this justice, so we recommend you just read the piece.

– June 5, 2025. The Washington Post reports that while a federal judge blocked the White House’s new attempt this week to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students, court wins are not enough for Harvard. The Post quotes Harvard alumni group 1636 Forum co-founder Allison Wu, who said, “Harvard can win everything in the courtroom and still lose in the long run.” She points out, “The sheer level of uncertainty really increases the risks that people leave Harvard or are poached by other institutions or don’t come.” To follow Harvard’s situation more closely, subscribe to the 1636 Forum newsletter here.

– June 4, 2025. Bloomberg reports that Yale University is preparing to sell up to $2.5 billion of its private equity and venture capital holdings—its first major secondary market sale—as it braces for potential endowment tax hikes and seeks liquidity amid slow private equity distributions. The sale, dubbed “Project Gatsby,” is expected to clear at under a 10% discount and marks a significant shift under new CIO Matt Mendelsohn, signaling a rebalancing of the $41 billion endowment pioneered by the legendary David Swensen. The deal could become one of the largest of the year in a booming secondaries market. We had previously contemplated the implications of endowment liquidation and had also predicted a 10% discount.

– June 4, 2025. The NYT reports in an interactive article that the Trump administration has canceled or delayed nearly 2,500 NIH grants—slashing $1.6 billion in medical research funding since January, a 20% drop from the prior year. The cuts target a wide array of projects, from cancer drug development to Alzheimer’s studies and mental health support for marginalized communities. Particularly hard-hit are studies focused on diversity, public health equity, and global health partnerships, raising alarm among scientists about long-term damage to U.S. biomedical leadership. Some grants were terminated for politically charged reasons, and many researchers now face layoffs, stalled experiments, or the end of their scientific careers.

– June 4, 2025. The NYT reports that the Department of Education has informed Columbia’s accreditor of an alleged violation of federal anti-discrimination laws by the school. It added that the government is looking forward to being “fully informed of actions taken to ensure Columbia’s compliance with accreditation standards, including compliance with federal civil rights laws.” Trump has called accreditation his “secret weapon” to control “ideological change” in higher education. The article observes that the threat is to the accreditor as well as Columbia. As we reported at the time, this appears to be a mechanical/bureaucratic step.

– June 4, 2025. The WSJ reports that Trump has put a pause on any new foreign-student enrollment at Harvard. The pause is due to last at least six months. A spokesperson for Harvard said, “This is yet another illegal retaliatory step taken by the Administration in violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights. Harvard will continue to protect its international students.” Trump is claiming executive authority to take this action, based on the Immigration and Nationality Act from 1952, which prevents people from entering the country who could be a threat from within. This was quickly blocked by a temporary restraining order.  However, as we previously commented, this does not stop slowdowns at the embassy/consulate level for the issuing of visas or the chilling effect therein.

– June 4, 2025. The NYT reports that Newly unsealed court documents reveal that the Trump Justice Department compared Hamas-related graffiti at Columbia University to a cross burning in its push to criminally investigate student protesters, despite repeated rejections from federal judges. Prosecutors argued that the graffiti posed a threat to the university’s interim president, but judges and career DOJ officials questioned the case’s legal basis and First Amendment implications. The judge ruled, “Although the writing on the wall was reprehensible, there are statutes that cover such vandalism.” The investigation, led by Trump judicial nominee Emil Bove III, has stalled amid legal and ethical concerns.

– June 4, 2025. In an attention-grabbing if misleading article, the NY Post reports that federal prosecutors have charged Tarek Bazrouk, a self-described “Jew-hater” and violent anti-Israel protester, with three hate crimes after uncovering direct links between him and Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades. Bazrouk participated in campus protests, allegedly assaulted multiple Jewish individuals, and boasted of ties to Hamas. Court documents reveal disturbing messages, weapons stockpiles, and $750,000 in cash at his residence. Prosecutors say Bazrouk’s actions reflect a broader pattern of extremist infiltration at campus protests nationwide, intensifying concerns about outside agitators and escalating antisemitic violence. He faces up to 30 years in prison if convicted. As for the misleading part: Bazrouk had no affiliation with Columbia and it is unclear if he ever entered campus.

– June 3, 2025. Spectator spoke to some recently admitted Columbia and Barnard students to see what they had to say about choosing to enroll or not to enroll in a school under so much global scrutiny. Genesis Oquendo, BC ‘29, from Westchester, New York explained that she chose Barnard for the “tight-knit community” versus Columbia’s more “intense culture.” However, she is concerned about funding for scholarships dissolving, as financial aid was a part of her decision making process. 

– June 2, 2025. In an op-ed in the Stanford Daily, junior Kevin Khadavi makes the blindingly obvious yet somehow novel assertion that actions have consequences. Specifically, argues against granting amnesty to the twelve student protesters charged with felony vandalism and conspiracy following the June 2024 ransacking of Building 10. Khadavi condemns what he sees as an attempt to excuse destructive and threatening behavior—graffiti reading “Kill Cops” and “Death to America”—under the guise of political conviction. Drawing on Martin Luther King Jr.’s principles of civil disobedience, he contends that true protest demands moral courage and accountability, not masked destruction followed by pleas for impunity. “These protesters are not heroic,” he writes. “They are cowards.” We could not agree more.

– June 2, 2025. The NYT reports that the Justice Department has launched an investigation into the Harvard Law Review, an entity which is entirely legally separate from Harvard Law School. The investigation is supposedly related to “claims of discrimination against white men” at the publication and also asserted that the Review had destroyed evidence to this effect. They have a “cooperating witness” who is now employed by Stephen Miller’s team at the White House, who says this is not a conflict of interest although the accusations were made public the same day his job offer came through.