World News
Republicans threaten colleges, foreign students over response to Israel-Hamas war on October 25, 2023 at 10:00 am
Republicans furious over colleges’ response to Hamas’s recent attacks on Israel are threatening universities’ funding and the visas of foreign students, though legal experts are divided on if such moves would stand up in court.
“Under the Trump administration, we will revoke the student visas of radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at our colleges and universities and we will send them straight back home,” former President Trump said in Iowa.
Several of his GOP primary challengers are calling for similar actions.
While First Amendment experts balk at the idea, there are split opinions on how the issue would fall legally in the courts.
“I think both of these ideas are nonsense and completely antithetical to the spirit of the First Amendment,” said Jared Carter, an assistant professor of law at Vermont Law and Graduate School.
The issue arose after multiple universities across the country had student groups who released statements that praised Hamas or blamed Israel for the initial Oct. 7 terror attack.
The biggest controversy came out of Harvard, where more than 30 student groups initially signed a statement after the Hamas attack that said they “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence.”
That led to fresh calls from Republican presidential candidates such as Trump, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) to stop funding to these schools and kick out of the country foreign students who participated in such statements or protests.
Scott said in an interview on “The Sean Hannity Show” that student protesters in support of Hamas who are on here on visas “should be sent back to their country.”
And DeSantis said over the weekend, “When I’m president, if foreign students are out there celebrating terrorism, I will cancel their visas and send them home.”
While the president could try to issue an executive order to enact this sort of policy, experts are divided on if such a move would survive court challenges.
Republicans such as Sens. Marco Rubio (Fla.) and Tom Cotton (Ark.) have also recently made moves advocating for foreigners who support Hamas to lose their visas.
Supporters of the expulsions say individuals who aren’t American citizens don’t have the same free speech rights. Others, while not agreeing with that position, acknowledge the courts have taken the position that there are differences in First Amendment rights between the groups.
“In my view, unfortunately, that’s correct. The courts have been much more permissive in allowing the federal government to manage immigration both allowing people in and deport based on political viewpoints. They’ve just been more permissive under the First Amendment,” Carter said.
“There’s a series of U.S. Supreme Court cases that basically say that in making determinations about whether or not somebody should be admitted or have a visa in the United States that the government can consider their political viewpoints, which obviously, for residents and U.S. citizens, that would be completely inconsistent with the First Amendment,” Carter said. “So I think that the president has more flexibility when it comes to immigration.”
But Kevin Goldberg, a First Amendment specialist at Freedom Forum, says it is clear-cut that both groups in the country have the same free speech rights.
“Once you’re in the country, you receive the protection of the First Amendment, whether you’re a citizen or not,” Goldberg said.
The vagueness in the proposals from the presidential candidates on what a college student would have to say to be punished “raises serious First Amendment concerns,” he added.
Much of the protests among students have been calling for a cease-fire between Israel and Hamas or denouncing actions taken by Israel after the country declared war on Hamas. Others have participated in protests such as one in New York City, which lawmakers on both sides of the aisle denounced for antisemitism.
The GOP 2024 hopefuls are also looking at defunding colleges that have allowed these protests to happen or did not release statements quickly enough condemning Hamas.
Scott introduced legislation in the Senate last week to ban federal student aid to schools that allow antisemitic events to occur.
“Any university or college that peddles blatant antisemitism, especially after Hamas’ brutal attack on Israeli civilians, women and children, has no place molding the minds of future generations, never mind receiving millions of taxpayer funds to do so,” Scott said.
Legal experts, however, believe the courts would clearly rule against efforts by Congress or a president to cut funding to schools based on their students’ viewpoints.
“I think if a president tried to withhold funding from colleges, universities simply because they had an organization on campus that supported Palestinians, I think the likelihood of that being constitutional is very low,” Carter said. “And, furthermore, particularly state universities, the Supreme Court has said that the First Amendment applies to actions by state universities, so if a state university said they were going to fund student groups and they decided not to fund the student group because it’s supported Palestinians, then I think the school would be susceptible to being sued for violating the students’ First Amendment rights.”
“And so I just think that it’s absurd to think that a president can come in and tell schools they will pull funding from schools that simply are complying with their constitutional obligations,” he added.
Republicans furious over colleges’ response to Hamas’s recent attacks on Israel are threatening universities’ funding and the visas of foreign students, though legal experts are divided on if such moves would stand up in court. “Under the Trump administration, we will revoke the student visas of radical anti-American and antisemitic foreigners at our colleges and…
President Donald Trump says the United States might one day get rid of federal income tax because of money the government collects from tariffs on imported goods. Tariffs are extra taxes the U.S. puts on products that come from other countries.
What Trump Is Saying
Trump has said that tariff money could become so large that it might allow the government to cut income taxes “almost completely.” He has also talked about possibly phasing out income tax over the next few years if tariff money keeps going up.
How Taxes Work Now
Right now, the federal government gets much more money from income taxes than from tariffs. Income taxes bring in trillions of dollars each year, while tariffs bring in only a small part of that total. Because of this gap, experts say tariffs would need to grow by many times to replace income tax money.
Questions From Experts
Many economists and tax experts doubt that tariffs alone could pay for the whole federal budget. They warn that very high tariffs could make many imported goods more expensive for shoppers in the United States. This could hit lower- and middle‑income families hardest, because they spend a big share of their money on everyday items.
What Congress Must Do
The president can change some tariffs, but only Congress can change or end the federal income tax. That means any real plan to remove income tax would need new laws passed by both the House of Representatives and the Senate. So far, there is no detailed law or full budget plan on this idea.
What It Means Right Now
For now, Trump’s comments are a proposal, not a change in the law. People and businesses still have to pay federal income tax under the current rules. The debate over using tariffs instead of income taxes is likely to continue among lawmakers, experts, and voters.
Former President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies to declassify all government files related to Jeffrey Epstein, the disgraced financier whose death in 2019 continues to fuel controversy and speculation.
The order, signed Wednesday at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago estate, instructs the FBI, Department of Justice, and intelligence agencies to release documents detailing Epstein’s network, finances, and alleged connections to high-profile figures. Trump described the move as “a step toward transparency and public trust,” promising that no names would be shielded from scrutiny.
“This information belongs to the American people,” Trump said in a televised statement. “For too long, powerful interests have tried to bury the truth. That ends now.”
U.S. intelligence officials confirmed that preparations for the release are already underway. According to sources familiar with the process, the first batch of documents is expected to be made public within the next 30 days, with additional releases scheduled over several months.
Reactions poured in across the political spectrum. Supporters praised the decision as a bold act of accountability, while critics alleged it was politically motivated, timed to draw attention during a volatile election season. Civil rights advocates, meanwhile, emphasized caution, warning that some records could expose private victims or ongoing legal matters.
The Epstein case, which implicated figures in politics, business, and entertainment, remains one of the most talked-about scandals of the past decade. Epstein’s connections to influential individuals—including politicians, royals, and executives—have long sparked speculation about the extent of his operations and who may have been involved.
Former federal prosecutor Lauren Fields said the release could mark a turning point in public discourse surrounding government transparency. “Regardless of political stance, this declassification has the potential to reshape how Americans view power and accountability,” Fields noted.
Officials say redactions may still occur to protect sensitive intelligence or personal information, but the intent is a near-complete disclosure. For years, critics of the government’s handling of Epstein’s case have accused agencies of concealing evidence or shielding elites from exposure. Trump’s order promises to change that narrative.
As anticipation builds, journalists, legal analysts, and online commentators are preparing for what could be one of the most consequential information releases in recent history.
What Happened at the United Nations
On Friday, Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu addressed the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, defending Israel’s ongoing military operations in Gaza. As he spoke, more than 100 delegates from over 50 countries stood up and left the chamber—a rare and significant diplomatic walkout. Outside the UN, thousands of protesters gathered to voice opposition to Netanyahu’s policies and call for accountability, including some who labeled him a war criminal. The protest included activists from Palestinian and Jewish groups, along with international allies.
Why Did Delegates and Protesters Walk Out?
The walkouts and protests were a response to Israel’s continued offensive in Gaza, which has resulted in widespread destruction and a significant humanitarian crisis. Many countries and individuals have accused Israel of excessive use of force, and some international prosecutors have suggested Netanyahu should face investigation by the International Criminal Court for war crimes, including claims that starvation was used as a weapon against civilians. At the same time, a record number of nations—over 150—recently recognized the State of Palestine, leaving the United States as the only permanent UN Security Council member not to join them.
International Reaction and Significance
The diplomatic walkouts and street protests demonstrate increasing global concern over the situation in Gaza and growing support for Palestinian statehood. Several world leaders, including Colombia’s President Gustavo Petro, showed visible solidarity with protesters. Petro called for international intervention and, controversially, for US troops not to follow orders he viewed as supporting ongoing conflict. The US later revoked Petro’s visa over his role in the protests, which he argued was evidence of a declining respect for international law.
Why Is This News Important?
The Gaza conflict is one of the world’s most contentious and closely-watched issues. It has drawn strong feelings and differing opinions from governments, activists, and ordinary people worldwide. The United Nations, as an international organization focused on peace and human rights, is a key arena for these debates. The events surrounding Netanyahu’s speech show that many nations and voices are urging new action—from recognition of Palestinian rights to calls for sanctions against Israel—while discussion and disagreement over the best path forward continue.
This episode at the UN highlights how international diplomacy, public protests, and official policy are all intersecting in real time as the search for solutions to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict remains urgent and unresolved.
The machine isn’t coming. It’s aleady the room.
The Timothée Chalamet Guide to Ruining Your Image
Did OnlyFans Save Creators—or Trap Them?
Advice3 weeks agoHow to Find Your Voice as a Filmmaker
- News3 weeks ago
How Misinformation Overload Breaks Creative Focus
- News4 weeks ago
From Seen to Secured: How Filmmakers Are Owning Their Value
- Entertainment2 weeks ago
This scene almost broke him. And changed his career.
- Entertainment2 weeks ago
7 Filmmaking Lessons From Michael B. Jordan’s Oscar Moment
- Advice2 weeks ago
Stop Waiting for Permission — The Film Industry Just Rewrote the Rules
- News2 weeks ago
How ‘Sinners’ Won The Oscars: Filmmaker Notes
- Entertainment4 days ago
The machine isn’t coming. It’s aleady the room.
