The Situation at Columbia VI

Yesterday Science magazine had an exclusive news story that the NIH freezes all research grants to Columbia University, going beyond the previous \$250 million in biomedical research grant money. According to the story

In an 8 April email seen by Science, NIH’s Office of Policy for Extramural Research Administration Director Michelle Bulls told grant administrators that HHS had initially ordered NIH to terminate the first “wave” of grants to Columbia and hold others while the school negotiated with the government. Now, she said, no NIH awards can be made to Columbia until the restriction is lifted. In 2024, Columbia received about $690 million in grant funding from NIH.

It seems likely that the source of this story is an NIH grant administrator who received this email.

The university responded later in the day with this:

At this time, Columbia has not received notice from the NIH about additional cancellations. As Acting President Shipman has said, the University remains in active dialogue with the Federal Government to restore its critical research funding.

The only thing we’ve been hearing from the acting president about the “active dialogue” is enthusiasm for the March 21 cave-in (see here and here) to demands from the Trump administration.

Two journalists at The Wall Street Journal over the past few weeks have been effectively acting as spokepersons for one or more of the Trump administration officials attacking Columbia. Today’s press release starts off

The Trump administration is planning to pursue a legal arrangement that would put Columbia University into a consent decree, according to people familiar with the matter, an extraordinary step that could significantly escalate the pressure on the school as it battles for federal funding.

A consent decree, which can last for years, would give a federal judge responsibility for ensuring Columbia changes its practices along lines laid out by the federal government. If such a decree is in place, Columbia would have to comply with it. If a judge determines the school is out of compliance, it could be held in contempt of court—punishable by penalties including fines.

and continues with threats to Columbia in case it might be thinking of resisting:

Columbia could fight the move in court; the Justice Department would need to prove that the arrangement is warranted. But a court case could take years, and Columbia would likely lose federal funding in the interim—and might ultimately lose. Opposing the move would also open the school up to required depositions and legal fact-finding, which could keep the school’s campus politics in the spotlight.

If there’s any problem with the idea of dictatorial powers being used to take an institution’s funds away, have them fire their president, and then put a representative of the dictator in charge, the WSJ reporters don’t seem curious about it.

I have no idea what happens next and what the trustees think of this. Unfortunately, it seems possible that we are where we are now because a significant element within the university has taken advantage of the current situation to push pro-Israel changes, and wouldn’t be unhappy with a partial takeover of the university to make sure they get what they want. This includes hiring new pro-Israel faculty, which is already underway: the first job ad for such a position is now up, with more promised in the cave-in.

Update: There’s a story about this at the New York Times. Unlike the WSJ reporters, the NYT reporters talked to a lawyer not working for Trump, who explained:

But if a consent decree is under negotiation, either the administration or the school would probably have to file a lawsuit in federal court, which would serve as a vehicle for turning any deal into an agreement that could be overseen by a judge, said Tobias B. Wolff, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania’s law school who specializes in civil procedure and has written about consent decrees.

“Judges can’t just wave a wand and turn an agreement into a consent decree absent a lawsuit over which the court has proper jurisdiction,” Mr. Wolff said.

The NYT article also included some inside information not in the WSJ press release:

It is unclear whether the final version of any agreement would include a consent decree, and the White House has yet to sign off on the possibility of a consent decree, said two administration officials involved in the planning.