Education

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has launched a new investigation against Harvard University, this time targeted at an exchange programme that allows foreign scholars to visit the elite school.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio issued a statement on Wednesday saying the probe was necessary to ensure US security — but the investigation is likely to be seen by critics as the latest attempt to bully the school into compliance with President Donald Trump’s policies.

“The American people have the right to expect their universities to uphold national security, comply with the law, and provide safe environments for all students,” Rubio wrote in the statement.

“The investigation will ensure that State Department programs do not run contrary to our nation’s interests.”

At stake is Harvard’s exchange visitor programme, which allows professors, students and researchers to come to the US on a temporary basis.

Participating scholars receive a J-1 visa, which allows them to participate in cultural and academic exchange programmes on the basis that they are coming to the US not as immigrants but as visitors.

But Harvard’s ability to host such a programme is contingent on the State Department’s approval. Rubio suggested that the school’s “continued eligibility as a sponsor” would hang in the balance of Wednesday’s investigation.

“To maintain their privilege to sponsor exchange visitors, sponsors must comply with all regulations, including conducting their programs in a manner that does not undermine the foreign policy objectives or compromise the national security interests of the United States,” Rubio wrote.

Questions of national security

Under President Trump’s second term, the US has repeatedly cited questions of national security and foreign policy in its attempts to expel foreign students, particularly those involved in pro-Palestinian and antiwar movements.

Rubio himself has drawn on the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 — a relatively obscure Cold War-era law — in his efforts to deport student protest leaders like Mahmoud Khalil.

The law allows the secretary of state to expel foreign nationals “whose presence or activities” could pose “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”.

The government’s use of such laws, however, is currently being challenged in court. Critics argue they violate the constitutional right to free speech and protest.

It was President Trump’s opposition to the pro-Palestinian protests that led him to engage in a high-profile confrontation with Harvard, the country’s oldest university and a member of the much-vaunted Ivy League.

Schools like Harvard in Massachusetts and Columbia University in New York were considered the epicentre of the protest movement. At Columbia, for instance, students erected a tent encampment that inspired similar demonstrations across the world.

The schools’ crackdowns on those protests, however, were also emulated at other campuses. Columbia, for instance, called in police to clear pro-Palestinian demonstrators, and other schools took similar action, leading to more than 3,000 campus arrests across the country last year.

Critics of the protests, including President Trump, have called the demonstrations anti-Semitic and warned they create an unsafe learning environment for Jewish students.

Protest leaders, however, point out that most of the demonstrations were peaceful and have forcefully rejected anti-Jewish hate. Rather, they argue their protests are about shining a light on the abuses Israel has perpetrated in Gaza — and the crackdowns are aimed at stamping out views that run contrary to the US’s close relationship with Israel.

Pressure on schools

Upon taking office in January, however, Trump pledged to take “forceful and unprecedented steps” to root out alleged anti-Semitism on campus.

In early March, he began his broadside on Ivy League campuses like Columbia and Harvard. He began by stripping Columbia of $400m in federal contracts and grants and then by requesting compliance with a list of demands, including disciplinary reform and external oversight for certain academic departments.

By March 22, Columbia had agreed to make concessions.

But Trump encountered greater resistance at Harvard University. On April 11, the Trump administration likewise issued a list of demands that would have required Harvard to commit to “structural and personnel changes” to foster “viewpoint diversity”, eliminate its diversity programmes and agree to external audits.

It refused. Instead, Harvard President Alan Garber said such requests would violate Harvard’s rights as a private institution committed to academic freedom.

Since then, the Trump administration has stripped Harvard of billions of dollars in federal contracts, research funding and grants. A federal court in Boston began hearing a legal challenge against that decision this week.

A multipronged attack

But the Trump administration has also explored other avenues to pressure Harvard into compliance.

Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status — though critics warn it would be illegal to do so — and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem blocked Harvard from accessing the Student and Exchange Visitor Programme (SEVP), a system that schools are required to use to enrol international students.

Foreign students make up about a quarter of Harvard’s student body. Losing access to the SEVP system effectively meant those students were no longer able to attend the school.

Harvard challenged the Trump administration’s ban on its foreign students in court and received a preliminary injunction that allows its international students to remain while the case plays out.

But other hurdles have since emerged. Earlier this month, for instance, the Trump administration accused Harvard of civil rights violations and called for a review of its accreditation, the industry-wide quality standard that gives university diplomas their value.

Meanwhile, news outlets have reported that officials from the Trump administration and Harvard continue to negotiate over whether a deal can be struck to defuse the ongoing tensions.

Washington, DC – Mahmoud Khalil, the Columbia University protest leader targeted for deportation by President Donald Trump, has met with lawmakers in Washington, DC.

The visit on Tuesday comes just more than a month after the 30-year-old, a legal permanent resident of the United States, was released from immigration custody in Louisiana.

“I’m here in Washington, DC, today to meet with lawmakers, with members of Congress, to demand the end of the US-funded genocide in Gaza, and also to demand accountability from Columbia University, from the Trump administration for their retaliation against my speech,” said Khalil in a video interview with the news agency Reuters.

“To be honest, I feel that this is my duty to continue advocating for Palestinians. This is what the Trump administration tried to do. They tried to silence me. But I’m here to say that we will continue to resist. We are not backing down.”

Khalil continues to face deportation under the Trump administration, which has relied on an obscure provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952 in its attempts to expel international students involved in pro-Palestinian advocacy.

Under the law, the secretary of state can expel a foreign national if their presence in the country is deemed to have “potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States”, although the standard for making that determination remains unclear.

I met with Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian student at Columbia University, who was imprisoned for 104 days by the Trump administration for opposing Netanyahu’s illegal & horrific war in Gaza. Outrageous.

We must not allow Trump to destroy the First Amendment & freedom to dissent. pic.twitter.com/2iaIi8dUWF

— Sen. Bernie Sanders (@SenSanders) July 22, 2025

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio and immigration officials have repeatedly portrayed Khalil’s advocacy as anti-Jewish and supportive of Hamas, but they have failed to provide evidence backing those claims.

Lawyers for Khalil and three other students targeted for deportation by the Trump administration — Mohsen Mahdawi, Rumeysa Ozturk and Badar Khan Suri — have argued that their arrests trample on the constitutionally protected freedom of speech.

Several district judges have sided with that position in ordering the students’ release from custody as their cases proceed in immigration court.

Earlier this month, Khalil, who missed the birth of his son while detained, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration alleging malicious prosecution, as well as false arrest and imprisonment. He is seeking $20m in damages or an apology from the government.

US Senator Bernie Sanders was among the lawmakers who met with Khalil on Tuesday.

“We must not allow Trump to destroy the First Amendment & freedom to dissent,” Sanders said in a post on the social media platform X, accompanied by a photo with Khalil.

Mahmoud Khalil is a kind, gentle soul who cares deeply about others’ humanity, and his abduction, detention, and ongoing persecution by the Trump Admin is egregious.

I am deeply relieved that he has been reunited with his wife and his infant son. Our meeting today was fortifying… pic.twitter.com/HgWWkTafPw

— Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley (@RepPressley) July 22, 2025

Khalil also met with Congress members Rashida Tlaib, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna Pressley, Jim McGovern, Troy Carter and Summer Lee.

“Mahmoud Khalil is a kind, gentle soul who cares deeply about others’ humanity, and his abduction, detention, and ongoing persecution by the Trump Admin is egregious,” Pressley wrote in a post on X.

“Our meeting today was fortifying and productive.”

In its own social media message on Tuesday, the Department of Homeland Security once again called Khalil a “terrorist sympathiser”, accusing him of anti-Jewish “hateful behavior and rhetoric”.

However, ahead of his release in June, federal Judge Michael Farbiarz said he had given the administration lawyers ample time to support the public statements made against Khalil. He said they failed to do so.

“The petitioner’s career and reputation are being damaged and his speech is being chilled,” Farbiarz wrote at the time. “This adds up to irreparable harm.”

United Nations — The Trump administration announced Tuesday that it will once again withdraw from the U.N. cultural agency UNESCO, an expected move that has the U.S. further retreating from international organizations.

The decision to pull U.S. funding and participation from UNESCO comes two years after the Biden administration rejoined following a controversial, five-year absence that began during President Trump’s first term. The White House cited similar concerns as it did in 2018, saying it believes U.S. involvement is not in its national interest and accusing the agency of promoting anti-Israel speech.

The decision, which won’t go into effect until December 2026, will deal a blow to an agency known for preserving cultural heritage through its UNESCO World Heritage Sites program — which recognizes significant landmarks for protection, ranging from the Taj Mahal to Egypt’s pyramids of Giza and the Grand Canyon National Park. The agency also empowers education and science across the globe.

It is the Trump administration’s latest move to pull support for U.N. agencies under a larger campaign to reshape U.S. diplomacy. Under the “America First” approach, the administration has pulled out of the U.N. World Health Organization and top U.N. human rights body, while reassessing its funding for others.

State Department spokesperson Tammy Bruce said in a statement that the withdrawal was linked to UNESCO’s perceived agenda to “advance divisive social and cultural causes.”

She added that UNESCO’s decision in 2011 “to admit the ‘State of Palestine’ as a Member State is highly problematic, contrary to U.S. policy, and contributed to the proliferation of anti-Israel rhetoric within the organization.”

UNESCO director general Audrey Azoulay said she “deeply” regrets the U.S. decision but said it was expected and that the agency “has prepared for it.” She also denied accusations of anti-Israel bias, saying it contradicts “the reality of UNESCO’s efforts, particularly in the field of Holocaust education and the fight against antisemitism.”

Azoulay added that “the reasons put forward by the United States of America are the same as seven years ago, even though the situation has changed profoundly, political tensions have receded, and UNESCO today constitutes a rare forum for consensus on concrete and action-oriented multilateralism.”

The Biden administration had rejoined UNESCO in 2023 after citing concerns that China was filling the gap left by the U.S. in UNESCO policymaking, notably in setting standards for artificial intelligence and technology education.

The withdrawal, which was first reported by the New York Post, came after a review ordered by the Trump administration earlier this year. While the U.S. had previously provided a notable share of the agency’s budget, UNESCO has diversified its funding sources in recent years as the U.S. contribution has decreased. Today, American assistance represents only 8% of the agency’s total budget.

Azoulay pledged that UNESCO will carry out its missions despite “inevitably reduced resources.” The agency said that it is not considering any staff layoffs at this stage.

“UNESCO’s purpose is to welcome all the nations of the world, and the United States of America is and always will be welcome,” she said. “We will continue to work hand in hand with all our American partners in the private sector, academia and non-profit organizations, and will pursue our political dialogue with the U.S. administration and Congress.”

The U.S. previously pulled out of UNESCO under the Reagan administration in 1984 because it viewed the agency as mismanaged, corrupt and used to advance the interests of the Soviet Union. It rejoined in 2003 during George W. Bush’s presidency.

Petrequin and Amiri write for the Associated Press. Petrequin reported from Brussels.

July 22 (UPI) — A coalition of school districts, teachers’ unions, nonprofits and parents has filed a lawsuit accusing the Trump administration of illegally withholding nearly $7 billion in Congress-approved education funding.

In the lawsuit filed Monday, the coalition asks a U.S. District Court in Rhode Island to compel the Department of Education and the White House Office of Management and Budget to release the funding, which supports low-income students, teacher training, English learners, immigrant students and after-school programs.

According to the lawsuit, the Department of Education is required to disburse Elementary and Secondary Education Act funds on July 1. But on June 30, states were informed that the department would not be disbursing nearly $7 billion in ESEA funds and that a new policy had been adopted requiring a review to first be conducted to ensure the money is spent “in accordance with the president’s priorities,” the lawsuit states, citing the letter.

The Trump administration provided the states with neither a timeline nor assurances that the funds would be released, according to the lawsuit.

The lawsuit comes as the Trump administration has been dismantling the Department of Education, in line with President Donald Trump‘s March executive order seeking to shutter the department and return its authorities to the states.

Last week, the conservative-leaning Supreme Court approved Trump’s mass firings at the department. At the same time, 24 states and the District of Columbia sued the Trump administration over its freezing of billions of dollars in education funds.

American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten described the Trump administration’s freeze on Monday as throwing a “monkey wrench” at millions of U.S. educators.

“These are long-term, school-based programs, already passed by Congress and signed into law by the president,” she said in a statement.

“Since day one, the Trump administration has attacked public education, undermining opportunity in America. Now it is trying to lawlessly defund education unilaterally through rampant government overreach. It’s not only morally repugnant: the administration lacks the legal right to sacrifice kids’ futures at the alter of ideology.”

Among the plaintiffs are Alaska’s largest school district, Anchorage School District; Cincinnati Public Schools and Fairbanks North Star Borough, among others.

A federal court has begun hearings in a pivotal case as Harvard seeks to force the United States government to return $2.6bn in federal funding frozen earlier this year.

A lawyer for Harvard, Steven Lehotsky, said at Monday’s hearing that the case is about the government trying to control the “inner workings” of Harvard. The funding cuts, if not reversed, could lead to the loss of research, damaged careers and the closing of labs, he said.

President Donald Trump’s administration has battered the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university with sanctions for months as it presses a series of demands on the Ivy League school, which it decries as a hotbed of liberalism and anti-Semitism.

Harvard has resisted, and the lawsuit over the cuts to its research grants represents the primary challenge to the administration in a standoff that is being widely watched across higher education and beyond.

The case is before US District Judge Allison Burroughs, who is presiding over lawsuits brought by Harvard against the administration’s efforts to keep it from hosting international students. In that case, she temporarily blocked the administration’s efforts.

At Monday’s hearing, Harvard is asking her to reverse a series of funding freezes. Such a ruling, if it stands, would revive Harvard’s sprawling scientific and medical research operation and hundreds of projects that lost federal money.

A lawyer for the government, Michael Velchik, said the government has the authority to cancel research grants when an institution is out of compliance with the president’s directives. He said episodes at Harvard violated Trump’s order combating anti-Semitism.

Judge questions basis for government’s findings on anti-Semitism

Burroughs pushed back, questioning how the government could make “ad hoc” decisions to cancel grants and do so across Harvard without offering evidence that any of the research is anti-Semitic.

She also argued the government had provided “no documentation, no procedure” to “suss out” whether Harvard administrators “have taken enough steps or haven’t” to combat anti-Semitism.

“The consequences of that in terms of constitutional law are staggering,” she said during Monday’s hearing. “I don’t think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?”

Velchik said the case comes down to the government’s choosing how best to spend billions of dollars in research funding.

“Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that,” Velchik said. “The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard.”

Harvard’s lawsuit accuses the Trump administration of waging a retaliation campaign against the university after it rejected a series of demands in an April 11 letter from a federal anti-Semitism task force. A second lawsuit over the cuts filed by the American Association of University Professors and its Harvard faculty chapter has been consolidated with the university’s.

The April letter demanded sweeping changes related to campus protests, academics and admissions. For example, the letter told Harvard to audit the viewpoints of students and faculty and admit more students or hire new professors if the campus was found to lack diverse points of view.

Harvard President Alan Garber has said the university has made changes to combat anti-Semitism but said no government “should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue”.

Monday’s hearing ended without Burroughs issuing a ruling from the bench. A ruling is expected later in writing.

Trump’s pressure campaign has involved a series of sanctions

The same day Harvard rejected the government’s demands, Trump officials moved to freeze $2.2bn in research grants. Education Secretary Linda McMahon declared in May that Harvard would no longer be eligible for new grants, and weeks later, the administration began cancelling contracts with Harvard.

As Harvard fought the funding freeze in court, individual agencies began sending letters announcing the frozen research grants were being terminated. They cited a clause that allows grants to be scrapped if they no longer align with government policies.

Harvard, which has the nation’s largest endowment at $53bn, has moved to self-fund some of its research, but warned it can’t absorb the full cost of the federal cuts.

In court filings, the school said the government “fails to explain how the termination of funding for research to treat cancer, support veterans, and improve national security addresses antisemitism”.

The Trump administration denies the cuts were made in retaliation, saying the grants were under review even before the April demand letter was sent. It argues the government has wide discretion to cancel contracts for policy reasons.

The research funding is only one front in Harvard’s fight with the federal government. The Trump administration also has sought to prevent the school from hosting foreign students, and Trump has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status.

Finally, last month, the Trump administration formally issued a finding that the school tolerated anti-Semitism – a step that eventually could jeopardise all of Harvard’s federal funding, including federal student loans or grants. The penalty is typically referred to as a “death sentence”.

Officials from California, New York, Kentucky and 20 other states allege the US administration acted unconstitutionally.

Two dozen states have sued the administration of United States President Donald Trump after the federal government froze $6.8bn in education funding.

On Monday, a group of 23 attorneys general and two governors filed a lawsuit in Rhode Island arguing that the decision to halt funds approved by the US Congress was “contrary to law, arbitrary and capricious, and unconstitutional”.

The freeze extended to funding used to support the education of migrant farm workers and their children, recruitment and training of teachers, English proficiency learning, academic enrichment, and after-school and summer programmes.

The administration also froze funding used to support adult literacy and job-readiness skills.

“This is not about Democrat or Republican – these funds were appropriated by Congress for the education of Kentucky’s children, and it’s my job to ensure we get them,” Kentucky Governor Andy Beshear said in a statement.

“In Kentucky, $96 million in federal education funds are at risk. Our kids and our future depend on a strong education, and these funds are essential to making sure our kids succeed.”

While the government was legally required to release the money to the states by July 1, the federal Department of Education notified states on June 30 that it would not be issuing grant awards under those programmes by that deadline. It cited the change in administration as its reason.

Schools in Republican-led areas are particularly affected by the freeze in federal education grants.

Ninety-one of the 100 school districts that receive the most money per student from four frozen grant programmes are in Republican congressional districts, according to an analysis from New America, a left-leaning think tank. New America’s analysis used funding levels reported in 2022 in 46 states.

Republican officials have been among the educators criticising the grant freeze.

“I deeply believe in fiscal responsibility, which means evaluating the use of funds and seeking out efficiencies, but also means being responsible – releasing funds already approved by Congress and signed by President Trump,” said Georgia schools superintendent Richard Woods, an elected Republican.

“In Georgia, we’re getting ready to start the school year, so I call on federal funds to be released so we can ensure the success of our students.”

The Office of Management and Budget said the pause is part of a review to ensure funds are not used to “subsidize a radical leftwing agenda”.

Court reverses lower court ruling that said large staff cuts would effectively hamstring the Education Department.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that the administration of President Donald Trump can proceed with plans to slash funding and resources for the federal Department of Education.

The conservative-majority court ruled on Monday that the government could move forward with plans to lay off nearly 1,400 employees as part of Trump’s push to effectively dismantle the department.

“While today’s ruling is a significant win for students and families, it is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the US Constitution,” Secretary of Education Linda McMahon said in a statement celebrating the decision.

Monday’s ruling cancels a previous order on the administration’s efforts to fire about 1,400 workers at the Education Department, which US District Judge Myong Joun had ruled against in May, stating that it would “likely cripple the department”.

A US Court of Appeals agreed in a ruling on June 4 that the cuts would make it “effectively impossible for the Department to carry out its statutory functions”, which include overseeing student loans and enforcing civil rights law in US education, the site of previous political battles over issues such as federal efforts to combat racial segregation.

Critics have accused the Trump administration of working to effectively abolish federal agencies, established and funded by Congress, through a maximalist interpretation of executive power.

Trump and his Republican allies have depicted federal agencies as being at odds with their political agenda, and as hotbeds of leftist ideology and bureaucratic excess.

The Trump administration has also sought to impose greater control over US universities, seeking a larger role in shaping curricula and threatening to withdraw federal funds if universities do not comply with government demands concerning issues such as cracking down on pro-Palestine student activism.

In response to the court’s decision on Monday, a liberal legal group that helped bring the challenge to Trump’s efforts lamented that the ruling “dealt a devastating blow to this nation’s promise of public education for all children”.

WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday gave President Trump the authority to dismantle the Education Department and to fire about half of its staff.

In a 6-3 decision, the court’s conservatives set aside a Boston judge’s order and cleared the way for Education Secretary Linda McMahon to carry out her plans to shut down much of her department.

The court issued a brief order with no explanation, followed by a 19-page dissent by Justice Sonia Sotomayor that spoke for the three liberals.

“Only Congress has the power to abolish the Department. The Executive’s task, by contrast, is to ‘take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,’” she wrote.

“Yet, by executive fiat, the President ordered the Secretary of Education to ‘take all necessary steps to facilitate the closure of the Department’ … Consistent with that Executive Order, Secretary Linda McMahon gutted the Department’s work force, firing over 50 percent of its staff overnight. In her own words, that mass termination served as ‘the first step on the road to a total shutdown’ of the Department.”

McMahon called the decision a “significant win for students and families. … It is a shame that the highest court in the land had to step in to allow President Trump to advance the reforms Americans elected him to deliver using the authorities granted to him by the U.S. Constitution.”

The Department of Education was created in 1979 under President Carter, and it has been a favorite of Democrats since then. It sends funds to school districts across the nation to support extra help for students, including those with disabilities, and it administers programs for grants and loans for students in colleges and universities.

Republicans have been anxious to dismantle the Education Department for decades. They say education policy should be left mostly to states and argue that the teachers unions have too much sway in Washington.

But they also say they would not change or block the federal funding that now goes to support schools and higher education students.

Last week, the court upheld the Trump administration plans for mass layoffs in the more than 20 departments and agencies.

Attorneys for California and 10 other Democratic-led states had sued to block the planned layoffs of about 1,400 Education Department employees, and they won before a federal judge in Boston and the 1st Circuit Court.

Those judges said Congress could reduce or redirect funding from the Education Department, but the president was not free to do it on his own.

But in last week’s order as well as Monday’s, the court’s majority sided with Trump and his broad view of executive power.

Trump’s Solicitor Gen. D. John Sauer said the administration decided it can “carry out its statutorily mandated functions with a pared down staff” at the Education Department.

Democracy Forward, a progressive group that sued on behalf of educators, said it was “incredibly disappointed by the Supreme Court’s decision to allow the Trump-Vance administration to proceed with its harmful efforts to dismantle the Department of Education while our case moves forward. This unlawful plan will immediately and irreparably harm students, educators and communities across our nation.”

California officials on Monday announced that the state is suing the Trump administration for holding back an estimated $939 million in education funds from the state — and about $6.8 billion nationwide — that school districts had expected to begin receiving on July 1, calling the action “unconstitutional, unlawful and arbitrary.”

The funding, already appropriated by Congress, supports programs to help students who are learning English and also those from migrant families. The money also boosts teacher training, after-school programs and classroom technology. The impact on Los Angeles Unified — the nation’s second-largest school system — was estimated by Supt. Alberto Carvalho to be at least $110.2 million.

California and three other Democratic-led states are taking the lead on the lawsuit on behalf of 23 states with Democratic attorneys general and the Democratic governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania, which have Republican attorneys general. The suit was to be filed Monday in federal court in Rhode Island.

On Monday morning, Trump administration officials had not yet had an opportunity to review the lawsuit, but they have said no final decision has been made on the release of the withheld funds. The administration has cited alleged instances in which some of this money has been used in ways contrary to its policies. One example is the “separate and segregated academic instruction to new English learners,” according to a Trump administration official speaking not for attribution.

The Trump administration has tried to shut down — and often penalize — efforts to promote racial diversity, which it views as a form of discrimination and also has focused on controversies over LGBTQ+ issues. It also opposes what it views as advocacy and support for immigrants who lack legal status to live in the United States.

Although the held-back funds make up less than 1% of California’s education budget, they have an outsize cumulative effect. And they involve dollars that already have been accounted for in terms of staff hired and programs planned.

“With no rhyme or reason, the Trump Administration abruptly froze billions of dollars in education funding just weeks before the start of the school year,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said in a statement. “In doing so, it has threatened the existence of programs that provide critical after school and summer learning opportunities, that teach English to students, and that provide educational technology to our classrooms.”

The complaint argues that the Constitution does not give the executive branch power “to unilaterally refuse to spend appropriations that were passed by both houses of Congress and were signed into law.”

The lawsuit is being led by the attorneys general of Massachusetts, Colorado and Rhode Island. Colorado Gov. Jared Polis spoke of the issue at a webinar last week featuring activists and public officials.

“With many teachers not knowing whether to report to duty — that are funded by these streams — this is a very last minute, opaque decision to withhold billions of dollars from our schools,” said Polis, whose state was expecting to receive an estimated $80 million on July 1. “Every single school district in the country is impacted to some degree by this freeze, risking services like counseling, supporting students, teacher training — all investments that help students succeed.”

“These are funds that schools have already budgeted for — because the funding was already committed — and schools now have to make impossible decisions here just in the 11th hour, days or weeks before people were scheduled to report to work.”

Funding freeze blamed for ‘chaos’

The held-back funds are tied to programs that, in some cases, have received these dollars for decades. Each year the U.S. Department of Education makes around 25% of the funds available to states on or about July 1. This permits school districts to begin or continue their efforts in these areas.

“The plaintiff states have complied with the funding conditions set forth under the law and have state plans that the Department of Education has already approved,” according to a statement from Bonta’s office.

This year, instead of distributing the funding, the U.S. Department of Education notified school districts and state education offices, on June 30, that it would not be “obligating funds” for the affected programs.

In its 84-word communication to states, the administration listed the programs by their federal designation, including Title III-A, which supports students who are learning English. Also listed was Title I-C, which aims to help the children of migrant workers overcome learning challenges. Both programs had all their funds withheld.

Other similarly curtailed programs provide training for teachers and administrators; enhance the use of technology for academic achievement and digital literacy, and fund before- and after-school and summer programs.

“This funding freeze has immediately thrown into chaos plans for the upcoming academic year,” according to Bonta’s office. “Local education agencies have approved budgets, developed staffing plans and signed contracts to provide vital educational services under these grants.”

Los Angeles Unified plans to carry affected programs using district reserves, but this money was already designated for other uses over the long term. Ultimately, hundreds of positions are funded by the estimated $110.2 million at stake.

The greatest impact would be seen once schools begin to open across the nation in August, but there have been immediate effects.

The Thomasville Community Resource Center in Georgia ended its summer program three weeks early, affecting more than 300 children in two counties. In Missouri, the Laclede Literacy Council laid off 16 of 17 staff members after adult education funds were held back.

Texas is estimated to be short approximately $660 million in expected education funding, according to the Texas Standard news site. The freeze particularly affects students learning English, nearly one in four Texas students. During the 2024-25 school year, Texas received more than $132 million from the federal government to support these students.

A rising mountain of litigation

The Trump administration action — and the litigation that has followed — represent the latest of many conflicts over funding and policy with California.

Last week, it was the Trump administration that initiated litigation, suing California for allowing transgender athletes to compete on school sports teams that match their gender identity. The administration alleges that state officials are violating federal civil rights law by discriminating against women, a legal action that threatens billions of dollars in federal education funds.

In line with California law, state education policy specifically allows athletic participation based on a student’s gender identity.

In that litigation, the amount of funding that the Trump administration asserts to be at stake is staggering, with federal officials citing a figure of $44.3 billion in funding that California was allotted for the current year, including $3.8 billion not yet sent out — money that is immediately endangered.

“Potentially, all federal dollars to California public entities are at risk,” said a senior official with the U.S. Department of Education, who spoke on a not-for-attribution basis.

Separately, the department has canceled or modified more than $1 billion in contracts and grants “based on the inclusion of illegal DEI or being out of alignment with Administration priorities,” said spokesperson Madi Biedermann, alluding to programs categorized as including “diversity, equity and inclusion” components.

Altogether, California is involved in more than two dozens lawsuits opposing Trump administration actions.

“Taken together with his other attacks on education, President Trump seems comfortable risking the academic success of a generation to further his own misguided political agenda,” Bonta said. “But as with so many of his other actions, this funding freeze is blatantly illegal, and we’re confident the court will agree.”

The lawsuits against the Trump administration have resulted in a multitude of restraining orders, but have not halted all major Trump actions related to education and other areas.

Trump has insisted that he wants to return education to the states and cut wasteful and ineffective spending. He also has tried to exert greater federal control in education over so-called culture-war issues.

We, the presidents of Gaza’s three non-profit universities— Al-Aqsa University, Al-Azhar University-Gaza, and the Islamic University of Gaza — together accounting for the vast majority of Gaza’s students and faculty members, issue this unified statement to the international academic community at a time of unprecedented devastation of higher education in Gaza.

Israel’s ongoing genocidal war has brought about scholasticide—a systematic and deliberate attempt to eliminate our universities, their infrastructure, faculty, and students. This destruction is not collateral; it is part of a targeted effort to eradicate the foundations of higher education in Gaza—foundations that have long stood as pillars of resilience, hope, and intellectual freedom under conditions of occupation and siege. While academic institutions across Palestine have faced attacks for decades, what we are witnessing today is an escalation: a shift from repeated acts of destruction to an attempt at total annihilation.

Yet, we remain resolute. For more than a year, we have mobilised and taken steps to resist this assault and ensure that our universities endure.

Despite the physical obliteration of campuses, laboratories, libraries, and other facilities, and the assassination of our students and colleagues, our universities continue to exist. We are more than buildings — we are academic communities, comprised of students, faculty, and staff, still alive and determined to carry forward our mission.

As articulated in the Unified Emergency Statement from Palestinian Academics and Administrators issued on May 29, 2024, “Israeli occupation forces have demolished our buildings, but our universities live on.”

For over a year, our faculty, staff and students have persisted in our core mission — teaching — under unimaginably harsh conditions. Constant bombardment, starvation, restrictions on internet access, unstable electricity, and the ongoing horrors of genocide have not broken our will. We are still here, still teaching, and still committed to the future of education in Gaza.

We urgently call on our colleagues around the world to work for:

• A sustainable and lasting ceasefire, without which no education system can thrive, and an end to all complicity with this genocide.
• Immediate international mobilisation to support and protect Gaza’s higher education institutions as vital to the survival and long-term future of the Palestinian people.
• Recognition of scholasticide as a systematic war on education, and the necessity of coordinated and strategic international support in partnership with our universities for the resilience and rebuilding of our academic infrastructure and communities.

We appeal to the international academic community — our colleagues, institutions, and friends — to:

• Support our efforts to continue teaching and conducting research, under siege and amidst loss.
• Commit to the long-term rebuilding of Gaza’s universities in partnership with us, respecting our institutional autonomy and academic agency.
• Work in partnership with us. Engage directly with and support the very institutions that continue to embody academic life and collective intellectual resistance in Gaza.

Last year, we formally established the Emergency Committee of the Universities in Gaza, representing our three institutions and affiliated colleges — together enrolling between 80 and 85 percent of Gaza universities’ students. The committee exists to resist the erasure of our universities and offer a unified voice for Gaza’s academic community. It has since established subject-focused subcommittees to serve as trusted and coordinated channels for support.

We call upon academic communities around the world to coordinate themselves in response to this call. The time for symbolic solidarity has passed. We now ask for practical, structured, and enduring partnership.

Work alongside us to ensure that Gaza’s universities live on and remain a vital part of our collective future.

The views expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera’s editorial stance.

This Morning star Ashley James has recalled a scary incident where she suspects her drink was spiked, which left her blacking out and meant she woke with no memory of her night.

Ashley James has recalled a scary incident where she suspected her drink was spiked and ended up blacked out. Detailing the experience, the This Morning star told Mirror: “There have been many occasions where I’ve wondered if I’ve been spiked. But we blame ourselves and think, ‘Maybe I was just drunk.’”

“I remember visiting my brother at university for a night out years ago. I had a total blackout, woke up in my brother’s room and I’d been sick – everywhere,” she said. Ashley continued: “That was a disproportionate reaction to what I drank that evening and I have no memory of the evening itself. It was terrifying.”

READ MORE: GMB’s Susanna Reid wows in ‘bright and summery’ red dress that’s £50 off at Debenhams

The mum-of-two added, “I was really young so I didn’t think about spiking or what I should do in that situation. Like so many others, I blamed myself or simply thought the drinks were stronger than I thought. Luckily, nothing worse has happened.”

In our exclusive chat, the DJ and presenter, 38, admitted she wants to better the world for her children; Alfie, four, and Ada, two, whose dad is partner Tommy Andrews – particularly after some of these terrifying experiences of her own.

“I’m outspoken, but the more you talk about things, the more you can fight for change. There are so many scary things out there, especially as a mother; the thought of my children experiencing things I have – whether it’s trolling or other issues – makes me nervous. The world’s a scary place now.”

On the topic of trolling, something celebrities are all too familiar with, she talks about her experiences on social media and gossip website, Tattle Life, which is now being shut down. The website allows users to post anonymously, but Ashley says the harassment she has encountered on it has made its way into her home life, too.

“People don’t realise that it’s not just gossiping and chatting, it’s much darker,” she says. “In my case, someone made a false allegation against me to social services, who came to my door. “I told them that, day or night, if they came to my door they’d only see loved children, so I wasn’t worried. But it does endanger people when their family is involved. It’s scary as it’s entering the real world.”

Ashley continues, “Social services are overstretched as it is, so there should be repercussions for wasting their time. Put bluntly, other children could die if social services’ attention is elsewhere because of these allegations. People need to be accountable. If they’re going to say it online, they should say it with their faces and names made public. They should be as accountable online as they are offline.”

Experiences like this have made Ashley ultra-aware when it comes to educating her children about the internet. “My son is amazing; he’s sweet, sensitive and kind and I never want the world to convince him that those aren’t worthy attributes for men. We definitely need more kind and compassionate boys and men in the world, so that’s what I want to teach him,” she says.

Earlier this year, Ashley took to social media after being told that Alfie may need extra help from the Special Educational Needs department when he begins school. Ashley says she’s trusting her gut.

“The school did a SEN report which didn’t specifically label him or say why he needs extra help, and to be honest, I don’t really mind. I think any parent would welcome extra support for their child. “My role as his mum is to guide him and to trust my instincts, to ensure that he can thrive in a school setting. So, I feel reassured.”

As we chat about creating a better world for her children, Ashley says she’s working with anti-spiking campaign CounterSpike and charity Spike Aware UK to get rid of drink spiking in the future.

Admitting she wants to get rid of the ‘victim blaming’ mentality, Ashley said: “We ask how much they’ve had to drink. Even as parents, especially with daughters, people find themselves saying, ‘You can’t go out like that.’ But you’re equating their outfit to their morals, or their safety.

“The problem – even if it’s well intended – is that it’s telling her that she’s responsible for bad things happening to her, rather than the person doing them,” says Ashley. That’s why she’s pleased that CounterSpike has developed SpikeStixx, which enables people to test their drinks. “It’s a way to reassure your mates they haven’t just drunk too much – to know for sure.

“More than anything, it will hopefully help stop people from doing it. Because, right now, statistics from CounterSpike show that 90% of spiking goes unreported.”

“One day, my son and daughter will be going out into this world without me. I would really like to think that things will improve, and they can do that without fear.”

Ashley is the official ambassador for the launch of CounterSpike’s campaign and its SpikeStixx, which are available to buy at counterspike.com

* Follow Mirror Celebs on Snapchat, Instagram, Twitter, Facebook, YouTube and Threads.

Washington, DC – The United States government has acknowledged its use of Canary Mission — a shadowy pro-Israel website — to identify pro-Palestine students for deportation, sparking anger and concern by rights advocates.

Activists have long suspected that the administration of US President Donald Trump is gathering information from the Canary Mission website to target students and professors.

But on Wednesday, that suspicion was confirmed when a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) official testified in a court case challenging Trump’s efforts to deport pro-Palestinian student protesters.

Peter Hatch, an agent with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), said the department had assembled a specialised group — dubbed a “tiger team” — to work on removing pro-Palestine college students from the country.

He indicated to the court that some tips about students were communicated verbally, before explaining that the team had also combed through the nearly 5,000 profiles Canary Mission had compiled of Israel’s critics.

“You mean someone said, ‘Here is a list that the Canary Mission has put together?’” Judge William Young asked Hatch, according to court transcripts.

The official answered with a simple “yes”.

Heba Gowayed, a sociology professor at the City University of New York (CUNY), said the government’s reliance on an online blacklist that posts personal information to harm and intimidate activists is “absurd and fascist”.

“Canary Mission is a doxxing website that specifically targets people for language that they deem to be pro-Palestinian and therefore, they’ve decided, is anti-Semitic. Its sole purpose is to target and harass people,” Gowayed told Al Jazeera.

“How do you use a hate group … to identify people for whether or not they have the right to be present in the country?”

The crackdown

As demonstrations opposing the Israeli atrocities in Gaza swept college campuses last year, Israel’s advocates portrayed the protest movement as anti-Semitic and a threat to the safety of Jewish students.

While activists pushed back against the accusations, saying that the protests were aimed at combatting human rights abuses against Palestinians, conservative leaders called to crush the demonstrations and penalise the participants.

Shortly after returning to the White House in January, Trump himself signed a series of executive orders that laid the groundwork for targeting non-citizens who took part in the student protests for deportation.

“It shall be the policy of the United States to combat anti-Semitism vigorously,” one of the orders read.

It called on government officials to create systems to “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff”.

In March, Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil — a permanent resident married to a US citizen — became the first prominent victim of Trump’s campaign.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio invoked a seldom-used provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act to order Khalil’s removal, on the basis that the Columbia student’s presence has “adverse” effects on American foreign policy.

After Khalil, many other students were detained by immigration authorities. Some left the country voluntarily to avoid imprisonment. Others, like Khalil, continue to fight their deportation.

Free speech advocates decried the campaign as a blatant violation of constitutionally protected freedoms.

But the Trump administration asserted that the issue is an immigration matter that falls under its mandate.

Before last year’s presidential elections, the Heritage Foundation, a prominent right-wing think tank, released a policy document titled Project Esther designed to dismantle the Palestine solidarity movement in the US.

Project Esther called for identifying students and professors critical of Israel who are in violation of their visas, and it cited Canary Mission extensively.

A ‘witch hunt’ against students

For years, Palestinian rights advocates have condemned Canary Mission for publishing identifying information about activists — their names, photos and employment histories — while keeping its own staff anonymous.

In its ongoing deportation campaign against student activists, the Trump administration has said that it is targeting students who engaged in violent conduct, promoted anti-Semitism and had ties to “terrorist” groups.

But none of the prominent students detained by ICE have been charged with a crime, and some only engaged in mild criticism of Israel.

For example, the only accusation against Rumeysa Ozturk, a Turkish scholar at Tufts University, is that she co-authored an op-ed asking her school to honour a student resolution calling for divestment from Israeli companies.

That column, published in the university’s student newspaper, landed Ozturk on the Canary Mission’s blacklist, which appears to have led to the Trump administration’s push to deport her.

Andrew Ross, a New York University professor of social and cultural analysis, said the US administration’s use of Canary Mission’s data shows that the government’s push is “sloppy” and biased.

He added that while Canary Mission appears well funded, its content is curated to paint its targets in a certain light.

“They’re looking for material and content that they can manipulate and spin and present as if the person being profiled is anti-Semitic basically,” said Ross, who has his own Canary Mission profile for criticising Israel.

The professor accused the Trump administration of “fundamental dishonesty”, describing the deportation campaign as a “witch hunt”.

How does Canary Mission work?

While Canary Mission does not appear to fabricate data, it portrays criticism of Israel as bigoted and dangerous.

Some profiles denounce individuals for actions as innocuous as sharing materials from Amnesty International condemning Israeli abuses.

The profiles seem to be optimised for internet searches. So, even if the accusations lack merit, targeted individuals often report that their Canary Mission profiles sit at the top of online searches for their names.

Advocates say the tactic can have a detrimental impact on careers, mental health and safety.

“It has caused people to lose jobs. It has caused people all kinds of adverse effects,” Gowayed said.

For his part, Ross said he has received hate mail because of Canary Mission. He worries the website can be especially harmful for marginalised groups.

“Those, as we are seeing, who don’t have full citizenship status are particularly vulnerable at this point in time. But it could be anyone,” he said.

The website was founded in 2015, and it has been expanding since. Nevertheless, barring a few media leaks over the years, the operators and funders of Canary Mission remain anonymous.

In 2018, Haaretz reported that Israeli authorities have relied on the website to detain people and bar them from entering the country.

That same year, the outlet The Forward found that Canary Mission is linked to an Israel-based non-profit called Megamot Shalom. Since then, media reports have revealed the names of a few wealthy American donors who have made contributions to the website through a network of Jewish charities.

‘Silencing dissent’

On Thursday, Palestine Legal, an advocacy group, accused the Trump administration of racism for relying on the website.

“Under Trump, ICE has now publicly admitted they are abducting pro-Palestinian student activists based on an anonymously-run blacklist site,” Palestine Legal said in a social media post.

“Both the mass deportation machine, and these horrific blacklists, clearly run on racism.”

J Street, a group that describes itself as pro-Israel and pro-peace, also decried the government’s use of the website.

“Canary Mission is feeding the Trump Administration’s agenda, weaponizing antisemitism to surveil and attempt to deport student activists,” it said. “This isn’t about protecting Jews — it’s about silencing dissent.”

The State Department did not respond to Al Jazeera’s query on the government’s use of Canary Mission. Instead, a department spokesperson referred to a statement by Secretary of State Rubio from May.

“The bottom line is, if you’re coming here to stir up trouble on our campuses, we will deny you a visa. And if you have a visa, and we find you, we will revoke it,” it said.

DHS did not respond to Al Jazeera’s request for comment.

But the Trump administration may also be using more extreme sources than Canary Mission to deport students.

At Wednesday’s court hearing, Hatch was asked about other sources the government is using. He replied that there was one other website he could not recall.

The court asked Hatch if it might be Betar, a far-right, Islamophobic group with links to the violent Kahanist movement in Israel.

According to transcripts, Hatch replied, “That sounds right.”

Gowayed, the City University of New York professor, called the government’s approach an “egregious overstep and distortion of any kind of notion of justice or legality”.

But she added: “What is more troubling to me is they don’t know which hate group they used.”

Celebrities and the world’s toddlers adore the long-running Aussie children’s TV entertainers, but now in it’s third reincarnation, the punishing schedule has taken its toll on the kiddie supergroup

Robert De Niro, Dolly Parton and Jessie J are fans, they’re worth millions and play sell-out concerts around the world. The Wiggles – aka The Beatles for toddlers – are a preschooler’s entertainment juggernaut that has taken over the world.

They’ve got a new country album out, Wiggle Up Giddy Up, featuring two songs with the rhinestone queen herself, Dolly Parton. And tickets to their current world tour are hotter than an Oasis reunion gig.

They have previously sold out Madison Square Garden in New York for 12 days in a row and, ahead of this week’s show in the US, Hollywood legend De Niro, 81, was granted a backstage pass with his two-year-old daughter, Gia, to meet her idol – founder member, Anthony Field (Blue Wiggle).

Like most people over the age of five, De Niro didn’t have a clue about this global phenomenon until he had Gia with professional martial artist girlfriend Tiffany Chen, 45.

The Wiggles sang their classic banger Rock-A-Bye Your Bear for the veteran actor’s family, which drew a rare smile. And De Niro admitted: “I didn’t know of them until I started seeing them and my daughter loves to watch them… but they’re great!”

With the advent of YouTube and the arrival of their shows on Netflix, a new British audience is embracing The Wiggles.

When they came to the UK recently, Jessie J met them with her son Sky and was treated to some of the Tree of Wisdom’s viral TikTok dance moves.

They’re also part of a wave of Australian children’s TV, like Bluey, that is captivating British kids, giving them Aussie accents and pushing CBeebies off the map.

READ MORE: UK location that gets more UFO sightings than anywhere else on planet

Borkowski PR’s Gregor Cubie expects his 19-month-old to join the fan club soon, and wonders if ‘Aussie-ness’ is the magic ingredient wooing international audiences.

“In the same way that Bluey is almost universally popular and accessible, The Wiggles’ sheer Aussie-ness might work in their favour when it comes to their reputation,” he says.

But, scratch the surface, according to Gregor, and you’ll find a long-running supergroup, dogged by controversy, ill health and accusations of “going woke”.

One of Australia’s most successful exports, The Wiggles take it in turns with pop sensation Kylie Minogue and Hollywood actor Russell Crowe to top the Aussie rich list.

Majority owner Anthony is estimated to be worth £25m, on top of the £10 million a year the band rakes in from tours, TV shows, new releases, merchandise and sponsorships.

They have their own TV series Ready, Steady, Wiggle, have produced 62 studio albums, sold 40 million books, CDs and DVDS, and attracted more than 5 billion views on YouTube and 3 billion streams across various music services.

READ MORE: Inside the playboy princes’ Royal love train where Charles had secret tryst

They’ve been making ear-worm sing-a-long pop since 1991, when kindergarten teaching students Anthony and Jeff Fatt, who were members of the R&B pop band the Cockroaches, and got together with two fellow students – Murray Cook and Greg Page – in Sydney, to make an album of simple, catchy songs for pre-schoolers

After Anthony’s infant niece tragically died from sudden infant death syndrome, the Cockroaches disbanded.

One of the songs Anthony wrote, Get Ready to Wiggle, inspired the new band’s name because they thought “wiggling” describes how children dance.

“We met at university doing a course in early childhood – this connection with music and teaching is what became The Wiggles,” explains Anthony.

While The Wiggles has evolved since those early days, the four original members hold a special place in people’s hearts – Anthony and Jeff Fatt (Purple Wiggle), Murray Cook (Red Wiggle) and Greg Page (Yellow Wiggle). And their hits like Hot Potato and Fruit Salad, were toddler dance floor fillers for the next two decades.

READ MORE: ‘Gran’s saucy paintings were slammed – but we’re having last laugh’

While members have changed, the primary colours of red, yellow, blue and purple that they wear is no doubt the secret of the Wiggles’ success with the ankle biters.

In Hot Potato: The Story of the Wiggles 2023 documentary, Anthony says: “It doesn’t matter who wears the skivvies, as long as we reflect our audience and communicate with children.”

Like any band, they had to break America to go truly global – and when the Disney Channel played them four times a day to their 85 million subscribers, their success was meteoric. All of a sudden, they were playing 10,000 seater arenas.

PR, Gregor puts their success down to a “combination of their prolific output with its ceaseless ability to hypnotise toddlers”.

He adds: “Also, a less extreme version of the Royal Family’s ‘never complain, never explain’ approach. Instead of saying nothing, they say the bare minimum and carry on as if nothing happened.

“You rarely see naval-gazing and the consistency and popularity of their work keeps generations of kids coming back for more.”

While there aren’t many skeletons to rattle in The Wiggle cupboards, behind their happy faces and signature finger point, members have been dogged by setbacks.

Controversies include the Hot Potato incident two years ago, when a council in Western Australia played their famous song on loop to deter anti-social behaviour at a homeless shelter.

The Wiggles complained, saying their music should only be used to “spread joy and happiness” but the damage was done.

But the fact De Niro was happy to be pictured with The Wiggles is a massive endorsement.

“Robert De Niro seems increasingly like the kind of guy who considers how his every public appearance and utterance might affect his legacy, so it’s a pretty major stamp of approval that he’s happy to be publicly associated with the Wiggles. Fundamentally they are free of reputation risk,” says Gregor.

“The irony is that the Wiggles have had a few controversies which are fairly stereotypical of long-running bands – walkouts, inter-band marriages and divorces; allegations that a song is racially insensitive, accusations of going ‘woke.’ They’ve been ruthlessly parodied on 30 Rock and, of course, the Hot Potato incident was unpleasant.”

For members of The Wiggles, the squeaky clean expectations can be tricky.

“During my time in The Wiggles, I was out at a gig one night and I was having a drink, and the next day a newspaper reported: ‘The Wiggles member caught having a beer’, and that was a shock. I am an adult!” says Murray.

And doing 400 to 500 shows a year – cramming up to three gigs into a single day – took its toll on the original members, with Jeff, Murray and Greg retiring for health reasons in 2012.

A mystery illness forced Greg to leave in 2006. He was replaced by Sam Morans, but came back in 2012. Then he suffered a heart attack on stage during a 2020 reunion show. That same year, Murray had open heart surgery.

Revealing his own struggles, Anthony released a memoir Out Of The Blue last year, detailing the years of mental and physical health problems he’s suffered, including depression, undiagnosed ADHD and chronic pain.

Yet Field created a second generation of Wiggles with Simon Pryce (Red Wiggle), Lachlan Gillespie (Purple Wiggle) and the first female, Emma Watkins (Yellow Wiggle).

“We might be responsible for their first experience of music,” says Emma, speaking about their responsibility to their tiny fans

Sadly, trouble soon upended their paradise, as shortly after Yellow Wiggle Emma married Purple Wiggle Lachie, they divorced and she left the group not long after.

Another shake-up in 2021 saw 15-year-old Tsehay Hawkins becoming Yellow Wiggle.

Now 62, Anthony is the only remaining original Wiggle, in a group of eight performers – Tsehay, Lachlan, and Simon, as well as Caterina Mete, Lucia Field, Simon Pryce, Evie Ferris, John Pearce – who are as gender-diverse and racially-diverse as their millions of fans.

Costumed characters, played by the more junior Wiggles, include Dorothy the Dinosaur, Henry the Octopus, Wags the Dog, and Captain Feathersword.

While some of the newer members say their estimated £72,000 earnings are a fraction of the big bucks of the original members, they have given the group a bigger presence on social media, where the Tree of Wisdom (played by Anthony’s nephew, Dominic Field) regularly goes viral on TikTok, with his exuberant dance moves.

And, in recent years, they’ve been noticing something new – a generational crossover, as kids grow up, but remain fans.

Dorothy the Dinosaur is also now a DJ, who remixes the original Wiggles classics for the older audience. And they’ve been getting down with the cool kids – covering songs by Fatboy Slim, White Stripes and Tame Impala’s Elephant.

“We’re bringing back happy memories,” says Anthony. “And it’s a real privilege to do that.”

Altogether now, kids, wiggle, wiggle, wiggle!

Classic kids TV groups down the years:

The Monkees, 1960s – Four cute surfer boys Davy Jones, Mickey Donlenz, Peter Tork and Michael Nesmith running around in zany plots to brilliant pop tracks, in a sitcom that captured the spirit of the era.

The Banana Splits, 1970s – Four costumed animal characters who’d perform songs and comedy skits in a psychedelic world, was just as weird and fun as it sounds. The makers had clearly been on the wacky baccy.

Rainbow, 1980s – Presenter Geoffrey and his camp puppets Zippy, George and Bungle and hippy singers Rod, Jane and Freddy took us “Up above the streets and houses, Rainbow climbing high” every week. I still miss them.

Teletubbies, 1990s – Some called it the most disturbing children’s show on TV – but even now millions of babies are glued to repeats of these four tubby aliens, Tinky-Winky, Dipsy, Laa-laa, and Po, with coat hangers on their heads living on a mini golf course.

Zingzillas, 2000s – Puppet monkey band Zak, Tang, Panzee and Drum lived on a tropical island and made real music together and introduced tots to rock, soul, jazz and samba styles – along with some dodgy titles like Do You Didgeridoo?

READ MORE: Kickers’ ‘durable’ Back to School shoe range that ‘last all year’

The quaint market town of Wetherby, in West Yorkshire, has been named one of the best towns across the country – and it’s no wonder why people love it so much

Nestled in the West Yorkshire countryside, a charming market town has been recognised as one of the top towns nationwide. Located equidistant from the cities of Leeds and York, Wetherby is just a short distance away from two of the UK’s most picturesque urban areas.

Perched on the banks of the River Wharfe, this medieval town offers a blend of rich history and contemporary conveniences. The distinctive allure of the town’s Georgian architecture coupled with its vibrant community spirit has earned it a place among the country’s most sought-after towns.

READ MORE: Boots’ new ‘by far the best’ range including gut powder that ‘really helps with bloating’

Wetherby’s town centre is home to an array of traditional pubs, chic boutiques, independent coffee shops, and a selection of local grocers and butchers.

A weekly farmer’s market takes place around the Grade II listed town hall, while an artisan market showcasing locally crafted ceramics, jewellery and other items occurs twice monthly.

Beyond the bustling town centre, Wetherby Racecourse hosts National Hunt and Flat Fixtures from October through June. The racecourse also serves as a venue for regular car boot sales and antique fairs, among other events.

Throughout Wetherby, a network of marked walks, trails and parks offer tranquil scenic routes for exploring the town, including a stunning riverside path that passes by the Brass Band performing on Sundays during the summer months.

On a practical note, Wetherby boasts five schools, including two primary schools rated outstanding by Ofsted, reports the Express.

With a population of approximately 11,000, which has seen a slight decrease in recent years, and an average house price just shy of £400,000, Wetherby truly is a gem in the Yorkshire countryside.

Thanks to its prime position, Wetherby boasts the benefits of easy city commuting coupled with the serene lifestyle of riverside living.

Wetherby is situated 12 miles from both Leeds and York, and a mere eight miles from the town of Harrogate.

Dubbed the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act”, President Donald Trump’s signature policy bill would slash taxes, largely benefitting the wealthiest Americans.

To pay for it, federal spending would be reduced, including on Medicaid, food stamps and student loans. Supporters say the bill could jumpstart economic growth and create jobs.

Critics, including some Republicans, say millions of Americans would pay the price. And the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the bill would actually add an estimated $3.3 trillion to debt over a decade.

Why did Canada scrap its digital tax on US tech companies?

Plus, Nigeria’s tax reform.

Altrincham was once dubbed one of the UK’s worst high streets but has now been transformed into a bustling urban haven and twice named the best place to live in the north west

England is brimming with charming market towns, yet Altrincham stands out as the crème de la crème, consistently being hailed as superior to the rest. Having been crowned as the Best Place to live in the North West twice by the Sunday Times, Altrincham has transformed from a “ghost town” to a buzzing cultural gem frequented by tourists and locals.

The scenic market town has seen significant changes thanks to a whopping £6 million regeneration scheme kicked off in 2015 by Trafford Council. The bold initiative saw new developments take shape, like the multi-million-pound face-lift of Altrincham Leisure Centre, the rejuvenation of the Stamford Quarter, and continuous enhancements across the town’s public spaces.

READ MORE: Pet owners rush to claim free flea treatment as UK heatwave sees pests rise

Trafford Council’s ambition was to polish Altrincham into a premier spot for residents and entrepreneurs alike, dubbed it a “first class destination for people to live, shop, and do business”.

Previously decried as a “ghost town”, the staggering evolution of Altrincham now marks it as one of the UK’s premier living spots after flipping its once-dreadful high street reputation entirely on its head.

Moreover, Altrincham now serves as an exemplar for contemporary market towns, blending independent ventures with the old-school charm of Market House stalls.

Centuries entrenched in the town’s fabric since 1290, the traditional market still thrives on Tuesdays, Fridays, Saturdays, and Sundays, hosting fiercely independent, multi-award-winning traders offering everything from trendy crafts and local eats to vintage finds and home accessories.

Altrincham has become a hotspot for foodies, boasting top-rated independent eateries such as Honest Crust, which claims to serve “the country’s best” wood-fired sourdough pizzas, whilst Jack in the Box offers an impressive selection of craft beers.

Meanwhile, The Great North Pie Company, England’s premier pie producer, has earned numerous accolades in recent years, making it a must-visit destination for pie fans.

Situated amidst picturesque green spaces and stunning countryside, like Stamford Park and Dunham Massey, Altrincham provides idyllic settings for leisurely strolls through rolling grasslands and ancient woodlands, with roaming deer often spotted in its medieval parks.

Thanks to its convenient location just eight miles from Manchester, Altrincham is an attractive choice for commuters working in the city.

Its winning blend of culture, cuisine and natural beauty has cemented its position as a highly sought-after property hotspot, reports the Express.

With a typical detached house fetching £1,050,000, the area commands a significant premium due to its exceptional education, stunning parks, and tight-knit community. Demand for homes near top-rated schools has driven property prices even higher.

Schools such as Altrincham Grammar School for Boys and Girls, and Loreto Catholic Grammar School, have been recognised as two of the top schools in the northwest, both earning an outstanding Ofsted rating in 2022.

Altrincham Grammar School for Boys was named the best secondary school for academic performance, while Altrincham Girls scooped the award for the best secondary school of the year in the northwest.

So if you’re looking to move and want a lively urban retreat with superb transport links, a buzzing social scene, top-notch education, and a safe investment opportunity, then this charming UK Market town should certainly be on your radar.

A federal task force threatens to cut all of Harvard’s federal funding over alleged violations of the rights of Jewish and Israeli students.

US President Donald Trump’s administration has accused Harvard University of violating the civil rights of its Jewish and Israeli students and threatened to cut off all federal funding to the institution.

The announcement on Monday is the latest action by the Trump administration against the United States’s oldest university after the institution rejected earlier demands to alter its operations.

In a letter sent to Harvard president Alan Garber, a federal task force said its investigation has concluded that “Harvard has been in some cases deliberately indifferent, and in others has been a willful participant in anti-Semitic harassment of Jewish students, faculty, and staff”.

The letter went on to say that the majority of Jewish students at Harvard felt they suffered discrimination on campus, while a quarter felt physically unsafe.

It also threatened further funding acts if Harvard did not change course.

“Failure to institute adequate changes immediately will result in the loss of all federal financial resources and continue to affect Harvard’s relationship with the federal government,” it said, without elaborating what the reforms needed were.

In a statement, Harvard pushed back against the allegations.

The university said that it had taken “substantive, proactive steps” to combat anti-Semitism on campus, and had made “significant strides to combat bigotry, hate and bias”.

“We are not alone in confronting this challenge and recognise that this work is ongoing,” it said, adding that it remains “committed to ensuring members of our Jewish and Israeli community are embraced, respected, and can thrive at Harvard”.

At a White House briefing later, Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said discussions between the Trump administration and Harvard were taking place “behind closed doors”, but offered no further details.

Protests against Israel’s war on Gaza

US universities have faced controversy over alleged anti-Semitism on their campuses since the eruption last year of nationwide student protests against Israel’s war on Gaza.

Trump has called such protests “illegal” and accused participants of anti-Semitism. But protest leaders – who include Jewish students – have described their actions as a peaceful response to Israel’s actions, which have elicited concerns about human rights abuses, including genocide.

The Trump administration has frozen some $2.5bn in federal grant money to Harvard, moved to block it from enrolling international students and threatened to remove its tax-exempt status.

It has demanded that Harvard end all affirmative action in faculty hiring and student admissions and disband student groups that promote what it calls criminal activity and harassment.

It also called for changes to the admissions process “to prevent admitting international students hostile to the American values”, including “students supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism”.

Harvard has rejected those demands, and sued the administration, calling its actions “retaliatory” and “unlawful”.

The Trump administration has also gone after top colleges, including Columbia, Cornell and Northwestern.

In early March, Columbia – whose protest camps were copied by students at colleges all over the country – had $400m in federal funding cut from its budget.

The school later agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration. These included changing its disciplinary rules and reviewing its Middle East studies programme.

Separately, University of Virginia president James Ryan said last week he chose to step down rather than fight the US government as the Trump administration investigated the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion efforts.

Around the same time, the Trump administration also launched a probe into hiring practices at the University of California system – which enrols nearly 300,000 students – to determine whether they violate federal anti-discrimination laws.

The universities have, meanwhile, said that the Trump administration’s actions threaten academic freedom and free speech, as well as critical scientific research.

Picture books are not usually the stuff of Supreme Court rulings. But on Friday, a majority of justices ruled that parents have a right to opt their children out of lessons that offend their religious beliefs — bringing the colorful pages of books like “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding” and “Pride Puppy” into the staid public record of the nation’s highest court.

The ruling resulted from a lawsuit brought by parents in Montgomery County, Md., who sued for the right to remove their children from lessons where LGBTQ+ storybooks would be read aloud in elementary school classes from kindergarten through 5th grade. The books were part of an effort in the district to represent LGBTQ+ families in the English language arts curriculum.

In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court ruled that schools must “notify them in advance” when one of the disputed storybooks would be used in their child’s class, so that they could have their children temporarily removed. The court’s three liberals dissented.

As part of the the decisions, briefings and petitions in the case, the justices and lawyers for the parents described in detail the story lines of nine picture books that were part of Montgomery County’s new curriculum. In her dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor even reproduced one, “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” in its entirety.

Here are the nine books that were the subject of the case:

Pride Puppy
Author: Robin Stevenson
Illustrator: Julie McLaughlin

Book “Pride Puppy” published by Orca Book Publishers.

(Orca Book Publishers)

“Pride Puppy,” a rhyming alphabet book for very young children, depicts a little girl who loses her dog during a joyful visit to a Pride parade. The story, which is available as a board book, invites readers to spot items starting with each of the letters of the alphabet, including apple, baseball and clouds — as well as items more specific to a Pride parade.

Lawyers representing the parents said in their brief that the “invites students barely old enough to tie their own shoes to search for images of ‘underwear,’ ‘leather,’ ‘lip ring,’ ‘[drag] king’ and ‘[drag] queen,’ and ‘Marsha P. Johnson,’ a controversial LGBTQ activist and sex worker.”

The “leather” in question refers to a mother’s jacket, and the “underwear” to a pair of green briefs worn over tights by an older child as part of a colorful outfit.

The Montgomery County Public Schools stopped teaching “Pride Puppy” in the midst of the legal battle.

Love, Violet
Author: Charlotte Sullivan Wild
Illustrator: Charlene Chua

Book “Love Violet” published by macmillan publishers.

(macmillan)

The story describes a little girl named Violet with a crush on another girl in her class named Mira, who “had a leaping laugh” and “made Violet’s heart skip.” But every time Mira tries to talk to her, Violet gets shy and quiet.

On Valentine’s Day, Violet makes Mira a special valentine. As Violet gathers the courage to give it to her, the valentine ends up trampled in the snow. But Mira loves it anyway and also has a special gift for Violet — a locket with a violet inside. At the end of the book, the two girls go on an adventure together.

Lawyers for the parents describe “Love, Violet” as a book about “two young girls and their same-sex playground romance.” They wrote in that “teachers are encouraged to have a ‘think aloud’ moment to ask students how it feels when they don’t just ‘like’ but ‘like like’ someone.”

Born Ready: The True Story of a Boy Named Penelope
Author: Jodie Patterson
Illustrator: Charnelle Pinkney Barlow

Book “Born Ready” published by Random House.

(Random House)

In “Born Ready,” 5-year-old Penelope was born a girl but is certain they are a boy.

“I love you, Mama, but I don’t want to be you. I want to be Papa. I don’t want tomorrow to come because tomorrow I’ll look like you. Please help me, Mama. Help me be a boy,” Penelope tells their mom. “We will make a plan to tell everyone we know,” Penelope’s mom tells them, and they throw a big party to celebrate.

In her dissent, Sotomayor notes, “When Penelope’s brother expresses skepticism, his mother says, ‘Not everything needs to make sense. This is about love.’ ”

In their opening brief, lawyers for the families said that “teachers are told to instruct students that, at birth, people ‘guess about our gender,’ but ‘we know ourselves best.’ ”

Prince and Knight
Author: Daniel Haack
Illustrator: Stevie Lewis

“Prince and Knight” is a story about a prince whose parents want him to find a bride, but instead he falls in love with a knight. Together, they fight off a dragon. When the prince falls from a great height, his knight rescues him on horseback.

When the king and queen find out of their love, they “were overwhelmed with joy. ‘We have finally found someone who is perfect for our boy!’ ” A great wedding is held, and “the prince and his shining knight would live happily ever after.”

“The book Prince & Knight clearly conveys the message that same-sex marriage should be accepted by all as a cause for celebration,” said Justice Samuel Alito, who wrote the majority opinion, a concerning message for Americans whose religion tells them that same-sex marriage is wrong.

“For young children, to whom this and the other storybooks are targeted, such celebration is liable to be processed as having moral connotations,” Alito wrote. “If this same-sex marriage makes everyone happy and leads to joyous celebration by all, doesn’t that mean it is in every respect a good thing?”

Uncle Bobby’s Wedding
Author: Sarah S. Brannen
Illustrator: Lucia Soto

In “Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,” a little girl named Chloe learns that her beloved uncle is engaged to his partner, a man named Jamie. At first, she worries that the marriage will change her close bond with her uncle. But she soon embraces the celebration and the joy of getting another uncle through the union.

In the majority opinion, Alito wrote that the book sends children the message that “two people can get married, regardless of whether they are of the same or the opposite sex, so long as they ‘love each other.’ ” That viewpoint is “directly contrary to the religious principles that the parents in this case wish to instill in their children.” Parents ability to “present a different moral message” to their children, he said, “is undermined when the exact opposite message is positively reinforced in the public school classroom at a very young age.”

In her dissent, Sotomayor includes the entire book, writing that, “Because the majority selectively excerpts the book in order to rewrite its story.”

The majority’s analysis, she writes, “reveals its failure to accept and account for a fundamental truth: LGBTQ people exist. They are part of virtually every community and workplace of any appreciable size. Eliminating books depicting LGBTQ individuals as happily accepted by their families will not eliminate student exposure to that concept.”

Jacob’s Room to Choose
Author: Sarah Hoffman and Ian Hoffman
Illustrator: Chris Case

Book “Jacob’s Room To Choose” published by Magination Press.

(Magination Press)

“Jacob’s Room to Choose” is a follow-up to “Jacob’s New Dress,” a picture book listed as one of the American Library Assn.‘s top 100 banned books of the last decade.

Jacob wears a dress, and when he tries to use the boy’s bathroom, two little boys “stared at Jacob standing in the doorway. Jacob knew what that look meant. He turned and ran out.” The same thing happens to his friend Sophie, who presents as a boy and is chased out of the girl’s bathroom.

Their teacher encourages the whole class to rethink what gender really means. The class decides everyone should be able to use the bathroom that makes them feel comfortable, and makes new, inclusive signs to hang on the bathroom doors.

“After relabeling the bathroom doors to welcome multiple genders, the children parade with placards that proclaim ‘Bathrooms Are For Every Bunny’ and ‘[choose] the bathroom that is comfy,’ ” lawyers for the parents wrote.

IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All
Author: Chelsea Johnson, LaToya Council and Carolyn Choi
Illustrator: Ashley Seil Smith

Book “IntersectionAllies: We Make Room for All” published by Dottir Press.

(Dottir Press)

“IntersectionAllies,” written by three sociologists, is a story about characters with different identities, including one who uses a wheelchair, and another, Kate, who identifies as transgender. One page shows Kate in a gender-neutral bathroom, saying, “My friends defend my choices and place. A bathroom, like all rooms, should be a safe space.”

In the majority opinion, Alito describes a discussion guide included with the book that he said asserts: “When we are born, our gender is often decided for us based on our sex . . . . But at any point in our lives, we can choose to identify with one gender, multiple genders, or neither gender.” The guide asks readers, “What pronouns fit you best?” Alito wrote.

What Are Your Words?: A Book About Pronouns
Author: Katherine Locke
Illustrator: Anne Passchier

“What Are Your Words” is a picture book about a child named Ari whose pronouns are “like the weather. They change depending on how I feel. And that’s ok, because they’re my words.” Ari’s Uncle Lior (who uses they/them pronouns) is coming to visit, and Ari is struggling to decide which words describe them.

“The child spends the day agonizing over the right pronouns,” the lawyers for the parents wrote. At the end, while watching fireworks, Ari says, “My words finally found me! They and them feel warm and snug to me.”

My Rainbow
Author: DeShanna Neal and Trinity Neal
Illustrator: Art Twink

“My Rainbow” tells the true story of a Black child with autism who self-identifies as a transgender girl. Trinity wants long hair, just like her doll, but has trouble growing it out. “The mother decides that her child knows best and sews him a rainbow-colored wig,” lawyers for the parents wrote.

The Montgomery County Public Schools also stopped teaching “My Rainbow” during the course of the lawsuit.

This article is part of The Times’ early childhood education initiative, focusing on the learning and development of California children from birth to age 5. For more information about the initiative and its philanthropic funders, go to latimes.com/earlyed.

The president of the University of Virginia has resigned his position under pressure from the United States Department of Justice, which pushed for his departure amid scrutiny of the school’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices.

In an email sent to the university community on Friday and circulated on social media, university president James Ryan said he was resigning to protect the institution from facing the ire of the government.

“I cannot make a unilateral decision to fight the federal government in order to save my own job,” he wrote.

“To do so would not only be quixotic but appear selfish and self-centered to the hundreds of employees who would lose their jobs, the researchers who would lose their funding, and the hundreds of students who could lose financial aid or have their visas withheld.”

Ryan’s resignation has been accepted by the board, two sources told The New York Times, which first broke the story. It remains unclear exactly when he will leave his post.

His departure is the latest indication of ongoing tensions between the administration of President Donald Trump and the academic community.

During his second term, President Trump has increasingly sought to reshape higher education by attacking diversity initiatives, pushing for crackdowns on pro-Palestinian student protesters, and seeking reviews of hiring and enrollment practices.

Ryan’s departure marks a new frontier in a campaign that has almost exclusively targeted Ivy League schools. Critics also say it shows a shift in the government’s rationale, away from allegations of rampant anti-Semitism on campus and towards more aggressive policing of diversity initiatives.

Just a day prior, the Justice Department announced it would investigate another public school, the University of California, for its use of diversity standards.

Ryan, who has led the University of Virginia since 2018, faced criticism that he failed to heed federal orders to eliminate DEI policies.

An anonymous source told The Associated Press news agency that his removal was pushed by the Justice Department as a way to help resolve an inquiry targeting the school.

Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, called Ryan’s ouster an example of the Trump administration using “thuggery instead of rational discourse”.

“This is a dark day for the University of Virginia, a dark day for higher education, and it promises more of the same,” Mitchell said. “It’s clear the administration is not done and will use every tool that it can make or invent to exert its will over higher education.”

Virginia’s Democratic senators react

In a joint statement, Virginia’s senators, both Democrats, said it was outrageous that the Trump administration would demand Ryan’s resignation over “‘culture war’ traps”.

“This is a mistake that hurts Virginia’s future,” Senators Mark Warner and Tim Kaine said.

After campaigning on a promise to end “wokeness” in education, Trump signed an executive order in January calling for an end to federal funding that would support educational institutions with DEI programming.

He accused schools of indoctrinating “children in radical, anti-American ideologies” without the permission of their parents.

The Department of Education has since opened investigations into dozens of colleges, arguing that diversity initiatives discriminate against white and Asian American students.

The response from schools has been scattered. Some have closed DEI offices, ended diversity scholarships and no longer require diversity statements as part of the hiring process. Still, others have held firm on diversity policies.

The University of Virginia became a flashpoint after conservative critics accused it of simply renaming its DEI initiatives. The school’s governing body voted to shutter the DEI office in March and end diversity policies in admissions, hiring, financial aid and other areas.

Republican Governor Glenn Youngkin celebrated the action, declaring that “DEI is done at the University of Virginia”.

But America First Legal, a conservative group founded by Trump aide Stephen Miller, said that DEI had simply taken another form at the school. In a May letter to the Justice Department, the group said the university chose to “rename, repackage, and redeploy the same unlawful infrastructure under a lexicon of euphemisms”.

The group directly took aim at Ryan, noting that he joined hundreds of other college presidents in signing a public statement condemning the “overreach and political interference” of the Trump administration.

On Friday, the group said it will continue to use every available tool to root out what it has called discriminatory systems.

“This week’s developments make clear: public universities that accept federal funds do not have a license to violate the Constitution,” Megan Redshaw, a lawyer with the group, said in a statement. “They do not get to impose ideological loyalty tests, enforce race and sex-based preferences, or defy lawful executive authority.”

Until now, the White House had directed most of its attention at Harvard University and other elite institutions that Trump sees as bastions of liberalism.

Harvard has lost more than $2.6bn in federal research grants amid its battle with the government, which also attempted to block the school from hosting foreign students and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status.

Harvard and its $53bn endowment are uniquely positioned to weather the government’s financial pressure.

Public universities, however, are far more dependent on taxpayer money and could be more vulnerable. The University of Virginia’s $10bn endowment is among the largest for public universities, while the vast majority have far less.

New Delhi, India – Getting into one of the prestigious Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) schools was supposed to be the end of the financial woes for Paras* and his family. Instead, things have only worsened due to the federal government’s long delays in dispensing Paras’s monthly fellowship allowance of 37,000 rupees ($435).

At the IIT, Paras is a research fellow, looking into solutions to a global public health crisis created by the spread of infectious diseases. His fellowship comes from the INSPIRE scheme, funded by India’s Department of Science and Technology (DST).

But delays in the scheme’s payment have meant that Paras was not able to pay the instalments on the laptop he bought for his research in 2022. His credit score plummeted, and his savings plans crashed.

Paras’s parents are farmers in a drought-affected region of western India, and their income depends on a harvest that often fails. So, he has resorted to borrowing money from friends, including as recently as between August and December, he told Al Jazeera.

Paras is not alone. Al Jazeera spoke to nearly a dozen current and former fellows enrolled in top institutes across India under the Innovation in Science Pursuit for Inspired Research (INSPIRE) programme. The interviewees studied at institutions such as the IIT, a network of engineering and technology schools across the country, and the Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, another network.

All had gone from three to as long as nine months without a stipend.

The funding delays and procedural lapses have marred the fellowship and impaired their research capacity, they said.

Many researchers recently took to social media to complain, tagging Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Minister of Science and Technology Jitendra Singh.

“For over a year now, many of us who are pursuing PhDs under DST-funded fellowships have not received our stipends,” Sayali Atkare, an INSPIRE fellow, wrote on LinkedIn. “This has pushed many young researchers into severe financial and emotional stress.”

Last year, India ranked 39th in the Global Innovation Index of 133 countries, up one spot from the year prior. It leads lower-middle-income countries like Vietnam and the Philippines in innovation. China leads upper-middle-income countries and is followed by Malaysia and Turkiye.

The federal government termed the ranking an “impressive leap” in a news release. It said that India’s “growing innovation potential has been supported by government initiatives that prioritise technological advancement, ease of doing business, and entrepreneurship”.

At a federal government conference in April, Modi boasted of India’s growing research acumen. Under his leadership in the past decade, the government has doubled its gross spending on research and development from 600 billion rupees ($7.05bn) to more than 1,250 billion rupees ($14.7bn), while the number of patents filed has more than doubled – from 40,000 to more than 80,000.

The numerous steps taken by the government – like doubling of expenditure on R&D (research and development), doubling of patents filed in India, creation of state-of-the-art research parks and research fellowships and facilities – ensure “that talented individuals face no obstacles in advancing their careers”, Modi said.>

However, an analysis of government documents, budgets and interviews with researchers reveals that the government is more focused on commercial research, primarily product development led by start-ups and big corporations. It is offering little funding for research conducted at the country’s premier universities.

For instance, in the current financial year, 70 percent of the Science and Technology Department’s annual budget has been allocated to a scheme under which interest-free loans are provided to private companies conducting research in sunrise domains, such as semiconductors.

At the same time, the government has made misleading statements about its investments in the country’s research institutes, including with schemes like the INSPIRE fellowship, where funds have actually been cut instead of being increased as touted by the government.

Poor pay, funding delays

The INSPIRE scheme offers PhD and faculty fellowships to “attract, attach, retain and nourish talented young scientific Human Resource for strengthening the R&D foundation and base”.

The fellowships are offered to top-ranking postgraduate students and doctoral researchers to conduct research in areas from agriculture, biochemistry, neuroscience and cancer biology to climate science, renewable energy and nanotechnology.

Under the scheme, PhD fellows are to receive 37,000 rupees ($435.14) to 42,000 rupees ($493.94) per month for living expenses and 20,000 rupees ($235.21) annually for research-related costs, such as paying for equipment or work-related travel.

Faculty fellows are offered teaching positions with a monthly salary of 125,000 rupees ($1,470) and an annual research grant of 700,000 rupees ($8,232).

In the year 2024-25, 653 fellows were enrolled in the PhD fellowship, and 85 in the faculty fellowship programme.

“I couldn’t attend an important annual meeting in our field because it required travel, and I was not sure if I would get my allowance,” a faculty fellow at an institute in eastern India said. He has not received his payments since September 2024.

Atkare, the PhD student who wrote about the government’s failure on LinkedIn, also wrote, “We’ve made endless phone calls, written countless emails – most of which go unanswered or are met with vague responses. Some officials even respond rudely.”

Another INSPIRE PhD fellow told us of a running joke: “If they pick up the phone, you can buy a lottery ticket that day. It’s your lucky day.”

In May, DST Secretary Abhay Karandikar accepted that there were funding delays and said that they would soon be resolved.

Karandikar told the Hindu newspaper that he was “aware” of the disbursement crisis but said that from June 2025, all scholars would get their money on time. “All problems have been addressed. I don’t foresee any issue in the future,” he said.

Al Jazeera requested a comment from the science and technology minister, the DST secretary and the head of the department’s wing that implements the INSPIRE scheme, but has not received a response.

Dodgy math

In January, the federal government folded three R&D-related schemes to start Vigyan Dhara or “the flow of science” to ensure “efficiency in fund utilisation”. The INSPIRE scheme had been funded under one of those schemes.

But instead of efficiency, there has been chaos.

Under Vigyan Dhara, DST asked institutes to set up new bank accounts, leading to delays in payments for INSPIRE fellowships.

New Delhi also said that it had “significantly increased” funding for the Vigyan Dhara scheme, from 3.30 billion rupees ($38.39m) in the last financial year to 14.25 billion rupees ($167.58m) in the current financial year.

However, that math was incomplete. The 3.30 billion rupees ($38.39m) is what the government earmarked for the scheme, which was only launched in the last quarter of the fiscal year. The budget for the full fiscal year of the three schemes that Vigyan Dhara replaced amounted to 18.27 billion rupees ($214.93m). So, in effect, the current budget saw a 22 percent decrease in allocation from 18.27 billion rupees to 14.25 billion rupees ($167.58m).

Overall, the budget for Vigyan Dhara’s constituent schemes reduced 67.5 percent from 43.89 billion rupees ($513.2m) in financial year 2016-17 to 14.25 billion rupees ($167.6m) in financial year 2025-26.

DST officials did not respond to Al Jazeera’s query requesting clarification of Vigyan Dhara’s budgetary allocations.

Commercialisation of research

On the other hand, the Indian government earmarked 200 billion rupees ($2.35bn) for the new Research, Development and Innovation (RDI) scheme targeting the private sector.

This money is part of a larger 1-trillion-rupee ($11.76bn) corpus previously announced by India’s finance minister to provide long-term financing at low or no interest rates.

These changes in schemes are intended to make India a “product nation”, get more patents filed in India, and curb the brain drain, as Union Minister Aswini Vaishnaw and DST officials explain in different videos.

But the plight of the researchers at state-run organisations remains unaddressed.

“The government throws around big terms, but those toiling in laboratories are suffering,” said Lal Chandra Vishwakarma, president of All-India Research Scholars Association.

“Stipends should be similar to salaries of central government employees. Fellows should get their money every month without fail,” he said.

In the current scenario, most fellows Al Jazeera spoke to said that they would prefer a fellowship abroad.

“It’s not just about funds but the ease of research, which is much better in Europe and [the United States]. We get so much staff support there. In India, you get none of that,” said a professor at an IIT, who supervises an INSPIRE PhD fellow who faced funding issues.

While the private sector is being heavily financed, researchers told us they downplay their funding costs as that improves their chances of landing government research projects.

“Cutting-edge research is so fast; if we lose the first few years due to cost-cutting, we are behind our colleagues abroad,” the IIT professor said.

“Once we submit necessary documents, like annual progress reports, DST takes at least three months to release the next instalment. It’s usual,” said a PhD fellow who is a theoretical mathematician.

“Right now, I would say only people with privilege [and high-income backgrounds] should be in academia. Not because that’s how it should be, but because for others, it’s just so hard,” the IIT professor said.

*Al Jazeera has changed names to protect the identity of interviewees.