Escalating

Nearly three weeks of striking bus drivers and roadblocks by angry farmers have put Ecuador President Daniel Noboa in one of the tensest moments of his presidency.

The outcry comes in response to the government’s increase in diesel fuel costs, after a subsidy was cut last month.

With no signs of dialogue after 18 days, one protester has been killed, numerous protesters and authorities injured, and more than 100 people arrested.

The army announced a large deployment to the capital on Thursday, saying it would prevent vandalism and destruction of property. As many as 5,000 troops were being deployed after dozens of protesters had marched at various sites in the city earlier in the day.

Though the demonstrations called for by Ecuador’s largest Indigenous organisation, CONAIE, are supposed to be nationwide, the most acute impact has been in the northern part of the country, especially Imbabura province, where Noboa won in April’s election with 52 percent of the vote.

On one side is “a president who assumes that after winning the elections he has all of the power at his disposal, who has authoritarian tendencies and no disposition for dialogue”, said Farith Simon, a law professor at the Universidad San Francisco in Quito.

On the other side, he said, is “an Indigenous sector that has shown itself to be uncompromising and is looking to co-govern through force”.

Protesters attacked Noboa’s motorcade with rocks on Tuesday, adding to the tension. The administration denounced it as an assassination attempt.

The Indigenous organisation CONAIE, however, rejected that assertion. It insists its protests are peaceful and that it is the government that is responding with force.

What led to the demonstrations?

The protests were organised by CONAIE, an acronym that translates to the Confederation of Indigenous Nationalities of Ecuador.

The group mobilised its supporters after Noboa decreed the elimination of a subsidy on diesel on September 12.

Diesel is critical to the agricultural, fishing and transport sectors in Ecuador, where many Indigenous people work. The move raised the cost of a gallon (3.8 litres) of diesel to $2.80 from $1.80, which CONAIE said hit the poor the hardest.

The government tried to calm the backlash by offering some handouts, and unions did not join the demonstrations. The confederation rejected the government’s “gifts” and called for a general strike.

What are the protests like?

The Indigenous confederation is a structured movement that played a central role in violent uprisings in 2019 and 2022 that nearly ousted then-Presidents Lenin Moreno and Guillermo Lasso.

Its methods are not always seen as productive, particularly when protests turn violent.

Daniel Crespo, an international relations professor at the Universidad de los Hemisferios in Quito, said the confederation’s demands to return the fuel subsidy, cut a tax and stop mining are efforts to “impose their political agenda”.

The confederation says it’s just trying to fight for a “decent life” for all Ecuadorians, even if that means opposing Noboa’s economic and social policies.

What are Noboa’s policies?

Noboa is a 37-year-old, politically conservative millionaire heir to a banana fortune. He started his second term in May amid high levels of violence.

One of the steps he has taken is raising the value-added tax rate to 15 percent from 12 percent, arguing that the additional funds are needed to fight crime. He has also fired thousands of government workers and restructured the executive branch.

The president has opted for a heavy-handed approach to making these changes and rejected calls for dialogue. He said, “The law awaits those who choose violence. Those who act like criminals will be treated like criminals.”

What has been the fallout?

A protester died last week, and soldiers were caught on video attacking a man who tried to help him.

The images, along with generally aggressive actions by security forces confronting protesters, have fuelled anger and drawn criticism about excessive use of force from organisations within Ecuador and abroad.

The Attorney General’s Office said it was investigating the protester’s death.

Experts warn that the situation could grow more violent if the protests that have largely been in rural areas arrive in the cities, especially the capital, where frustrated civilians could take to the streets to confront protesters.

Some party needs to intervene and lead the different sides to dialogue, perhaps the Catholic Church or civil society organisations, Crespo and Simon agreed.

NASHVILLE — President Trump said Friday he’ll send the National Guard to address crime concerns in Memphis with support from the mayor and Tennessee’s governor, making it his latest expansion of military forces into American cities that has tested the limits of presidential power and drawn sharp criticism from local leaders.

Speaking on Fox News, Trump said “the mayor is happy” and “the governor is happy” about the pending deployment. The city is “deeply troubled,” he said, adding, “we’re going to fix that just like we did Washington,” where he’s sent the National Guard and surged federal law enforcement.

Memphis is a majority-Black city and has a Democratic mayor, who did not immediately respond to a request for comment. Republican Gov. Bill Lee confirmed Friday that he was working with the Trump administration to deploy National Guard troops to Memphis as part of a new crime-fighting mission.

The governor said he planned to speak with the president on Friday to work out details of the mission and was working with Trump’s team to determine the most effective roles for the Tennessee National Guard, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Tennessee Highway Patrol, Memphis Police Department and other law enforcement agencies.

Trump on Friday said he decided to send troops into Memphis after Union Pacific’s CEO Jim Vena, who used to regularly visit the city when he served on the board of FedEx, urged him earlier this week to address crime in the city.

Since sending the National Guard to Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., Trump has openly mused about sending troops to some of the nation’s most Democratic cities — including Chicago and Baltimore — even as data show most violent crime in those places and around the country has declined in recent years.

Trump has also suggested he could send troops to New Orleans, another Democratic-run city in a Republican-leaning state.

Crime is down, but troops may be coming

The president’s announcement came just days after Memphis police reported decreases across all major crime categories in the first eight months of 2025 compared with the same period in previous years. Overall crime hit a 25-year-low, while murder hit a six-year low, police said.

Asked Friday if city and state officials had requested a National Guard deployment — or had formally signed off on it — the White House didn’t answer. It also didn’t offer a possible timeline or say whether federal law enforcement would be surged in connection with a guard deployment to Memphis, as happened when troops were deployed to Washington.

Trump said Friday that he “would have preferred going to Chicago,” where local politicians have fiercely resisted his plans, but suggested the city was too “hostile” with “professional agitators.”

Officials in Tennessee appear divided

Republican state Sen. Brent Taylor, who backs the Memphis troop deployment, said Friday the National Guard could provide “administrative and logistical support” to law enforcement and allow local officers to focus on police work. Republican U.S. Sen. Marsha Blackburn also voiced her approval.

The Democratic mayor of Shelby County, which includes the city of Memphis, criticized Trump’s proposal. “Mr. President, no one here is ‘happy,’ ” said Mayor Lee Harris. “Not happy at all with occupation, armored vehicles, semi-automatic weapons, and military personnel in fatigues.”

Republican Gov. Bill Lee said Wednesday that an ongoing FBI operation alongside state and local law enforcement had already made “hundreds of arrests targeting the most violent offenders.” He also said there are record levels of Tennessee Highway Patrol troopers in Shelby County, including a newly announced additional 50 troopers.

“We are actively discussing the next phase of our strategy to accelerate the positive momentum that’s already underway, and nothing is off the table,” Lee said in the statement.

On Thursday, Memphis Mayor Paul Young said he learned earlier this week that the governor and Trump were considering the deployment in Memphis.

“I am committed to working to ensure any efforts strengthen our community and build on our progress,” Young’s statement said. What the city needs most, he said, is money for intervention and crime prevention, as well as more officers on patrol and support for bolstering the police department’s investigations.

Some Republicans, including Taylor, the state senator, have asked the Tennessee Bureau of Investigation to audit the Memphis Police Department’s crime reporting.

Trump’s broader National Guard strategy

Trump first deployed troops to Los Angeles in early June over Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom’s objections by putting the California National Guard under federal jurisdiction, known as Title 10, to protect federal property from protests over immigration raids. The National Guard later helped protect officers during immigration arrests.

Alongside 4,000 National Guard members, 700 active duty Marines were also sent, and California sued over the intervention.

In Washington, D.C., where the president directly commands the National Guard, Trump has used troops for everything from armed patrols to trash cleanup without any legal issues.

Chicago is on edge

Trump’s comments underscored his shift away from threats to send troops into Chicago. Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and Mayor Brandon Johnson, both Democrats, vowed legal action to block any such move.

Pritzker, a potential 2028 presidential contender, has said a federal intervention is not justified or wanted in Chicago. U.S. Atty. Gen. Pam Bondi this week accused state leaders of being uncooperative.

“We want Chicago to ask us for the help and they’re not going to do that,” she told reporters after an unrelated event near Chicago where federal agents seized vaping products.

Even without National Guard troops, residents in Chicago are expecting more federal immigration enforcement. The Department of Homeland Security launched a new operation this week, with federal officials confirming 13 people with prior criminal arrests had been detained. However, it’s still unclear what role that operation would play more broadly.

Mattise writes for the Associated Press.

Elon Musk on Monday ramped up his legal feud with OpenAI as his companies filed a new lawsuit against OpenAI and Apple accusing both of anticompetitive behavior in the artificial intelligence industry in a growing clash of tech titans.

Apple and OpenAI announced a partnership last year that would allow Apple customers to connect with OpenAI’s chatbot, ChatGPT, on iPhones. Musk’s social media firm X and artificial intelligence company X.AI LLC say that the deal has hindered their ability to compete and has locked up markets to maintain what they describe as Apple and OpenAI’s monopolies.

“Plaintiffs bring this suit to stop Defendants from perpetrating their anticompetitive scheme and to recover billions in damages,” according to the lawsuit filed in U.S. District Court in Texas on Monday. Musk’s companies, Bastrop, Texas-based X and Palo Alto-based xAI, are seeking a permanent injunction against Apple and OpenAI and more than $1 billion in damages.

The lawsuit adds to a long-running fight between Musk and OpenAI’s Chief Executive Sam Altman. Musk was an early investor in OpenAI but later left its board and started a rival AI business, xAI. Musk has an ongoing lawsuit against OpenAI and Altman, accusing them of fraud and breach of contract over OpenAI’s efforts to change its corporate structure.

“This latest filing is consistent with Mr Musk’s ongoing pattern of harassment,” OpenAI said in a statement.

Musk companies’ lawsuit claims ChatGPT has at least an 80% market share in the generative AI chatbot market, whereas xAI’s chatbot Grok has just a few percentage points in market share.

“As a result of Apple and OpenAI’s exclusive arrangement, ChatGPT is the only AI chatbot that benefits from billions of user prompts originating from hundreds of millions of iPhones,” according to xAI’s lawsuit. “This makes it hard for competitors of ChatGPT’s generative AI chatbot and super apps powered by generative AI chatbots to scale and innovate.”

xAI has asked to integrate Grok directly with Apple’s software ecosystem, iOS, but hasn’t been allowed to do so, Musk’s companies said in their lawsuit. While users can access other AI chatbots on iPhones by using a web browser or downloading an AI chatbot’s app, “those options do not provide the same level of functionality, usability, integration, or access to user prompts as ChatGPT’s first-party integration with Apple,” the lawsuit says.

The lawsuit also accuses Apple of deprioritizing the AI chatbot apps of OpenAI’s competitors in the App Store.

Apple did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment on the lawsuit.

Earlier this month, Musk said on X that he planned to take legal action against Apple, causing a sparring match on the social media platform between him and OpenAI’s Altman.

“Apple is behaving in a manner that makes it impossible for any AI company besides OpenAI to reach #1 in the App Store, which is an unequivocal antitrust violation,” Musk wrote on Aug. 11.

Altman later posted on X, “This is a remarkable claim given what I have heard alleged that Elon does to manipulate X to benefit himself and his own companies and harm his competitors and people he doesn’t like.”

Apple previously told Bloomberg that it collaborates with many developers “to increase app visibility in rapidly evolving categories” and features thousands of apps in charts, algorithmic recommendations and curated lists by experts using objective criteria.

“The App Store is designed to be fair and free of bias,” Apple told Bloomberg.

Apple has also faced backlash and criticism from some developers and the Department of Justice over the way it operates its App Store. Last year the DOJ sued Apple, accusing it of engaging in practices that prevented other companies from offering apps that compete with Apple’s offerings.

At the time, Apple said that if the government’s lawsuit was successful, it would hurt its ability to create the type of technology people expect from Apple “where hardware, software, and services intersect.”

“It would also set a dangerous precedent, empowering government to take a heavy hand in designing people’s technology,” Apple said.

Staff writer Queenie Wong and Editorial Library Director Cary Schneider contributed to this report.

SACRAMENTO — Ratcheting up the pressure in the escalating national fight over control of Congress, the California Legislature on Thursday approved November special election to ask voters in November to redraw the state’s electoral lines to favor Democrats and thwart President Trump’s far-right policy agenda.

The ballot measure, pushed by Gov. Gavin Newsom and other state and national Democratic leaders, is the latest volley in a national political brawl over electoral maps that could alter the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections and the balance of power in the U.S. House of Representatives.

If voters approve the redrawn lines on Nov. 4, Democrats in the Golden State would see the odds tilted further in their favor, while the number of California Republicans in the House could be halved.

Newsom initially said that new electoral districts in California would only take effect if another state redrew its lines before 2031. But after Texas moved toward approving its own maps this week that could give the GOP five more House seats, Democrats stripped the so-called “trigger” language from the amendment — meaning that if voters approve the measure, the new lines would take effect no matter what.

The ballot measure language, which asks California voters to override the power of the independent redistricting commission, was approved by most Democrats in the Assembly and the Senate, where they hold supermajorities.

California lawmakers have the power to place constitutional amendments on the statewide ballot without the approval of the governor. Newsom, however, is expected later Thursday to sign two separate bills that fund the special election and spell out the lines for the new congressional districts.

Democrats’ rush to the ballot marks a sudden departure from California’s 15-year commitment to independent redistricting, often held up as the country’s gold standard. The state’s voters stripped lawmakers of the power to draw lines during the Great Recession and handed that partisan power to a panel of independent citizens whose names are drawn in a lottery.

The change, Democrats said, was forced by an extraordinary change in circumstances: After decades of the United States redrawing congressional lines once a decade, President Trump and his political team have leaned on Republican-led states to redraw their district lines before the 2026 midterm elections to help Republicans retain control of the House.

“His playbook is a simple one: Bully, threaten, fight, then rig the rules to hang onto power,” said Assembly Speaker Robert Rivas. “We are here today because California will not be a bystander to that power grab. We are not intimidated, and we are acting openly, lawfully, with purpose and resolve, to defend our state and to defend our democracy.”

Republicans in the state Assembly and the state Senate criticized Newsom’s argument that Democrats must “fight fire with fire,” saying retaliation is a slippery slope that would erode the independent redistricting process California voters have chosen twice at the ballot box.

“You move forward fighting fire with fire, and what happens? You burn it all down,” said Assembly Minority Leader James Gallagher (R-Yuba City). He said Trump was “wrong” to push Gov. Greg Abbott to redraw Texas’ lines to benefit Republicans, and so was California’s push to pursue the same strategy.

Democratic Assembly member Marc Berman speaks during a meeting of the California State Assembly at the California State Capitol on August 21, 2025 in Sacramento.

(Justin Sullivan / Getty Images)

State Senate Majority Leader Lena Gonzalez (D-Long Beach), who co-authored the bill drawing the proposed congressional districts, said Democrats had no choice but to stand up, given the harm the Trump administration has inflicted on healthcare, education, tariffs and other policies that affect Californians.

“What do we do? Just sit back and do nothing?” Gonzalez said. “Or do we fight back and provide some chance for our Californians to see themselves in this democracy?”

Senate Minority Leader Brian Jones (R-Santee) said the effort is “a corrupt redistricting scheme to rig California’s elections” that violates the “letter and the spirit of the California constitution.”

“Democrats are rushing this through under the guise of urgency,” Jones said. “There is no emergency that justifies this abuse of process.”

Three Assembly Democrats did not vote in favor of the constitutional amendment. Jasmeet Bains (D-Delano), who is running for Congress against Rep. David Valadao (R-Hanford) in the San Joaquin Valley, voted no. Progressive Caucus chair Alex Lee (D-San Jose), and Dawn Addis (D-Morro Bay), did not vote.

Democrats will face an unusual messaging challenge with the November ballot measure, said Matt Lesenyie, an assistant professor of political science at Cal State Long Beach.

The opponents of mid-decade redistricting are stressing that the measure would “disadvantage voters,” he said, which is “wording that Democrats have primed Democrats on, for now two administrations, that democracy is being killed with a thousand cuts.”

“It’s a weird, sort of up-is-down moment,” Lesenyie said.

How did we get here?

Trump’s political team began pressuring Abbott and Texas Republicans in early June to redraw the state’s 38 congressional districts in the middle of the decade — which is very uncommon — to give Republicans a better shot at keeping the House in 2026.

“We are entitled to five more seats,” Trump later told CNBC.

Some Texas Republicans feared that mid-decade redistricting could imperil their own chances of reelection. But within a month of the White House floating the idea, Abbott added the new congressional lines, which would stack the deck against as many as five Texas Democrats in Congress, to the Legislature’s special session in July.

By mid-July, Newsom was talking about California punching back. In an interview with the progressive news site the TN Holler, Newsom said: “These guys, they’re not f—ing around. They’re playing by a totally different set of rules.”

Democrats in Texas fled the state for nearly two weeks, including some to California, to deny Republicans the quorum they needed to pass the new lines. Abbott signed civil arrest warrants and levied fines on the 52 absent Democrats while they held news conferences in California and Illinois to bring attention to the fight.

While the Texas drama unfolded, consultants for the campaign arm of House Democrats in California quietly drew up maps that would further chop down the number of Golden State Republicans in Congress. The proposed changes would eliminate the district of Rep. Ken Calvert (R-Corona) and dilute the number of GOP voters in four districts represented by Reps. Doug LaMalfa, Kevin Kiley, David Valadao and Darrell Issa.

The Democrats agreed to return to Texas last week and pointed to California’s tit-for-tat effort as one measure of success, saying the Golden State could neutralize any Republican gains in Texas.

Since then, other Republican-led states have begun to contemplate redistricting too, including Indiana, Florida and Missouri. Trump’s political allies are publicly threatening to mount primary challenges against any Indiana Republican who opposes redrawing the lines.

In California, the opposition is shaping up as quickly as the ballot measure.

California voters received the first campaign mailer opposing the ballot measure a day before the Legislature voted to approve it. A four-page glossy flier, funded by conservative donor and redistricting champion Charlie Munger Jr., warned voters that mid-decade redistricting is “weakening our Democratic process” and “a threat to California’s landmark election reform.”

Republicans have also gone to court to try and stop the measure, alleging in an emergency petition with the state Supreme Court that Democrats violated the state Constitution by ramming the bills through without following proper legislative procedure. The high court Wednesday rejected the petition.

A wave of legal challenges are expected, not only in California but in any state that reconfigures congressional districts in the expanding partisan brawl.

Assemblymember Carl DeMaio (R-San Diego) said Thursday morning that a lawsuit challenging the California ballot measure would be filed in state court by Friday evening. He said Republicans also plan to litigate the title of the ballot measure and any voter guide materials that accompany it.

And, he said, if voters approve the new lines, “I believe we will have ample opportunity to set the maps aside in federal court.”

JERUSALEM — The Israeli Cabinet on Monday voted unanimously to fire the attorney general, escalating a long-running standoff between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and the judiciary that critics see as a threat to the country’s democratic institutions.

The Supreme Court froze the move while it considers the legality of it.

Netanyahu and his supporters accuse Atty. Gen. Gali Baharav-Miara of exceeding her powers by blocking decisions by the elected government, including a move to fire the head of Israel’s domestic security agency, another ostensibly apolitical office. She has said there is a conflict of interest because Netanyahu and several former aides face a series of criminal investigations.

Critics accuse Netanyahu, who is on trial for corruption, of undermining judicial independence and seeking to concentrate power in the hands of his coalition government, the most nationalist and religious in Israel’s history. Netanyahu denies the allegations and says he is the victim of a witch hunt by hostile judicial officials egged on by the media.

An attempt by Netanyahu’s government to overhaul the judiciary in 2023 sparked months of mass protests, and many believe it weakened the country ahead of Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack later that year that triggered the war in the Gaza Strip.

The Movement for Quality Government in Israel, a prominent watchdog group, said it filed an emergency petition with the Supreme Court following Monday’s vote. It said more than 15,000 citizens have joined the petition, calling the dismissal “illegal” and “unprecedented.”

In a statement, the group accused the government of changing dismissal procedures only after failing to legally remove Baharav-Miara under the existing rules. It also cited a conflict of interest related to Netanyahu’s ongoing trial.

“This decision turns the role of the attorney general into a political appointment,” the group said. “The legal battle will continue until this flawed decision is overturned.”

United States President Donald Trump has ordered two nuclear submarines to travel closer to Russia, in his latest tit-for-tat with Russian leader Dmitry Medvedev.

On Friday, Trump posted on his platform Truth Social that the submarine movements came in response to the “highly provocative statements” Medvedev, a former Russian president, made this week.

A day earlier, Medvedev had warned that Trump should be mindful of “how dangerous the fabled ‘Dead Hand’ can be”, a reference to Russia’s Cold War-era nuclear weapons system.

“I have ordered two Nuclear Submarines to be positioned in the appropriate regions, just in case these foolish and inflammatory statements are more than just that,” Trump wrote.

“Words are very important, and can often lead to unintended consequences, I hope this will not be one of those instances.”

In recent weeks, Trump has been enmeshed in an escalating war of words with Medvedev, who currently serves as the deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council under current President Vladimir Putin.

Medvedev and Putin have a close relationship: When Medvedev served as president from 2008 to 2012, Putin was his prime minister. Afterwards, when Putin returned to the presidency, Medvedev served as his prime minister from 2012 to 2020.

But as Trump voices increasing frustration with Russia’s ongoing invasion of Ukraine, he has increasingly singled out Medvedev, a noted war hawk, as a target for his anger. Both men have hinted at their countries’ nuclear capabilities, and their public exchanges have grown increasingly tense.

A war of words

In a social media post earlier this week, Trump pivoted from a discussion of trade between India and Russia to an attack on Medvedev for his sabre-rattling remarks.

“I don’t care what India does with Russia. They can take their dead economies down together, for all I care,” Trump wrote.

“Russia and the USA do almost no business together. Let’s keep it that way, and tell Medvedev, the failed former President of Russia, who thinks he’s still President, to watch his words. He’s entering very dangerous territory!”

Medvedev, meanwhile, has appeared to relish how his words provoke the US president.

“If some words from the former president of Russia trigger such a nervous reaction from the high-and-mighty president of the United States, then Russia is doing everything right and will continue to proceed along its own path,” Medvedev responded in a post on Telegram.

Medvedev then proceeded to reference the zombie apocalypse series The Walking Dead, in an apparent nod to the devastation Russia has the power to cause.

“And as for the ‘dead economy’ of India and Russia and ‘entering dangerous territory’ — well, let Trump remember his favourite films about the ‘Walking Dead’.”

This week is not the first time Trump and Medvedev have taken their beef online. In late June, the two men likewise sparred and flexed their nuclear arsenals.

“Did I hear Former President Medvedev, from Russia, casually throwing around the ‘N word’ (Nuclear!), and saying that he and other Countries would supply Nuclear Warheads to Iran?” Trump wrote on June 23.

He then pointed to the recent US attack on Iran as an example of how the country might respond to other threats.

“If anyone thinks our ‘hardware’ was great over the weekend, far and away the strongest and best equipment we have, 20 years advanced over the pack, is our Nuclear Submarines,” Trump wrote. “They are the most powerful and lethal weapons ever built.”

He also took a jab at Medvedev’s position under Putin, suggesting that Medvedev’s threats were irresponsible.

“I guess that’s why Putin’s ‘THE BOSS’,” Trump quipped.

Frustrations over Ukraine war

The high-stakes back-and-forth comes as Trump becomes increasingly frustrated with the lack of progress towards peace in Ukraine.

Since February 2022, a slow-grinding war has unfolded in the country, as Ukraine attempts to repel a full-scale invasion from Russia.

Trump entered his second term as president pledging to be a global “peacemaker and unifier”, and his administration has openly advocated for the Republican leader to receive the Nobel Peace Prize.

But his efforts to resolve the dispute between Ukraine and Russia have stalled.

Early in his second term, Trump himself faced criticism for appearing to undermine Ukraine’s cause, accusing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy of being a “dictator” and appearing to offer Russia concessions, including annexed Ukrainian territory.

By contrast, Trump initially took a warm approach to Putin, telling Zelenskyy in a fiery Oval Office meeting, “Putin went through a hell of a lot with me.”

But in recent months, that relationship appears to have cooled, with Trump threatening Russia with sanctions as the war grinds on. On July 28, he announced that Russia would have “10 or 12 days” to stop its offensive, or else the economic penalties would take effect.

Then, on Thursday, as Russia shelled the Ukrainian capital Kyiv, Trump slammed its continued military action.

“Russia — I think it’s disgusting what they’re doing. I think it’s disgusting,” he said.

But Medvedev has previously described Trump’s deadlines as “theatrical” and said that “Russia didn’t care” about the threats. He also warned that Trump’s aggressive foreign policy stance may backfire with his “America First” base.

“Trump’s playing the ultimatum game with Russia,” Medvedev wrote on the social media platform X earlier this week.

“He should remember 2 things: 1. Russia isn’t Israel or even Iran. 2. Each new ultimatum is a threat and a step towards war. Not between Russia and Ukraine, but with his own country.”

Israel has attacked Syrian government forces in a wave of deadly air strikes, at the same time as violence has gripped the southern province of Suwayda. In the spotlight is Syria’s Druze minority, also present in Israel. What does the fighting spell for Syria’s future?

July 11 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has announced a 35% tariff on all imports from Canada, reigniting a trade war with the United States’ closest ally and one of its most important trading partners, threatening to derail ongoing trade negotiations between the two.

Trump announced the tariffs in a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney of Canada on Thursday, stating the new punitive measures will go into effect Aug. 1.

“If for any reason you decide to raise your Tariffs, then, whatever the number you choose to raise them by, it will be added onto the 35% that we charge” the American president threatened.

Trump claims the tariffs are in response to fentanyl being smuggled into the United States over its northern border, for which he has already imposed a 10% tariff on Canada.

In response, Canada vowed to increase border security.

Statistics from the Government of Canada show that fentanyl seizures by U.S. border officials at the Canada-U.S. border represent less than 0.1% of U.S. fentanyl seizures between 2022 and 2024.

According to the statistics, only 59 pounds of the synthetic opioid were seized at their shared border between 2022 and 2024, compared to nearly 62,000 pounds seized at the southern border in that same timeframe.

“If Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter,” Trump told Carney in the letter Thursday.

“These Tariffs may be modified, upward of downward, depending on our relations with your Country.”

Trump said the tariffs are separate from the sectorial tariffs he earlier imposed, including a 50% levy on all imported steel and aluminum products, a 25% tariff on non-USMCA-compliant autos and auto parts and a 50% tariff on cooper imports, which has yet to take effect.

Canada has retaliated with a 25% tariff on tens of billions of dollars worth of U.S. products.

Trump’s trade war and threats to annex Canada have soured relations with the Great White North, with Carney — whose Liberal Party won parliamentary elections in late April largely on anti-Trump sentiment — describing the American president’s actions as a “betrayal” and turning to Europe in an effort to lessen Canada’s dependence on its southern neighbor.

Carney late Thursday issued a statement saying he is committed to working with the United States to “stop the scourge of fentanyl in North America,” while explaining he has “steadfastly defended our workers and businesses” in negotiations with the United States.

Trump’s tariffs were not mentioned.

“We are building Canada strong,” he said on X. “The federal government, provinces and territories are making significant progress in building one Canadian economy.”

The tariffs come as the United States and Canada had set a goal of signing a new trade deal by July 21.

Trump had called off trade talks last month over a new Canadian tax on technology firms generating revenue, but which was essentially rescinded by Carney hours before it was to go into effect in order for trade talks to resume.

The new tariffs on Canada came as Trump announced a flurry of economic levies on a number of countries.

Trump often turns to tariffs as a tool to equalize trade deficits, as a negotiation tactic and as an attempt to spur domestic industry.

The crisis in Sudan has become ‘a grave human rights and protection emergency’, the United Nations mission says.

The UN Independent International Fact-Finding Mission for Sudan has warned that both sides in the country’s civil war have escalated the use of heavy weaponry in populated areas while weaponising humanitarian relief, amid devastating consequences for civilians.

“Let us be clear: the conflict in Sudan is far from over,” said Mohamed Chande Othman, chair of the Fact-Finding Mission, which presented its latest findings to the UN Human Rights Council in Geneva on Tuesday.

“The scale of human suffering continues to deepen. The fragmentation of governance, the militarisation of society, and the involvement of foreign actors are fuelling an ever-deadlier crisis.”

The brutal conflict, now in its third year, erupted in April 2023 between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), and has killed tens of thousands of civilians and displaced more than 13 million Sudanese, according to United Nations data.

The UN has previously said that Sudan is experiencing the world’s “worst humanitarian crisis”.

The mission found that both sides escalated the use of heavy weaponry in populated areas. In May, an RSF drone strike on Obeid International Hospital in North Kordofan killed six civilians, while earlier this month, an SAF bombing in Al Koma killed at least 15 civilians.

Aid was also being weaponised by the SAF, which imposed bureaucratic restrictions, as well as by the RSF, which looted convoys and blocked aid, the group said.

The mission also documented a sharp rise in sexual and gender-based violence, including gang rape, abduction, sexual slavery, and forced marriage, mostly in RSF-controlled displacement camps.

Member of the Fact-Finding Mission Mona Rishmawi said what began as a political and security crisis has become “a grave human rights and protection emergency, marked by international crimes that stain all involved”.

“It is unconscionable that this devastating war is entering its third year with no sign of resolution,” she said.

Sudan has seen growing instability since longtime President Omar al-Bashir was removed from power in 2019 after months of anti-government protests.

In October 2021, the Sudanese military staged a coup against the civilian government of Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok, leading to his resignation in early 2022.

Sudan’s army chief, Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and rival Mohamed Hamdan Dagalo, who leads the RSF, had shared power after the coup but then started fighting for control of the state and its resources in April 2023.

Last week, the Sudanese Army accused the forces of eastern Libyan military commander Khalifa Haftar of attacking Sudanese border posts, the first time it has charged its northwestern neighbour with direct involvement in the civil war.

Egypt, which has also backed Haftar, has long supported the Sudanese Army. Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs accused the United Arab Emirates of backing the RSF, which it denies.

ADVERTISEMENT

Israel’s attack on Iranian nuclear and military targets caused the price of oil to surge more than 7% on Friday since Tehran is one of the world’s major producers of oil, despite sanctions by Western countries limiting its sales.

A wider war could slow the flow of Iranian oil to its customers and keep prices of crude and gasoline higher for everyone worldwide. But early Monday, those concerns appeared to abate slightly.

Oil prices were still volatile on the fourth day of the Israeli-Iran crisis, before giving back a bit of their gains. On Monday morning, the US benchmark crude oil was traded at $73.71 per barrel. Brent crude, the international standard, cost $74 per barrel, down from Friday but still 7% higher than the price before the missile fire started. 

Military strikes between Israel and Iran are fuelling concerns that oil exports from the Middle East could be significantly disrupted. However, there is currently no indication that the oil flow is impacted, and concerns are running high.

Meanwhile, major oil companies are being rewarded on the stock market: BP and Shell both gained more than 1% in the Monday morning trade in Europe. 

“Gains in oil majors and defence contractors have helped to push the FTSE 100 onto a positive footing in early trade,” said Susannah Streeter, head of money and markets at Hargreaves Lansdown financial services company.

Shares in the FTSE 100’s top banks were also rising on inflation fears that could result in higher key interest rates. Standard Chartered rose nearly 3%, Barclays and Natwest were up by more than 1% by 11 am CEST. 

Also strengthening the banking sector’s gains in London, Metro Bank shares soared by more than 14% following speculation that investment firm Pollen Street Capital would take over the lender, Sky News first reported over the weekend.

Investors in London also gained confidence after data for May showed a 6.1% year-on-year jump in retail sales in China, the world’s second biggest economy. However, it was coupled with lower-than-expected growth in industrial output, which still rose 5.8% from the previous year.

After 11 am in Europe, Britain’s FTSE 100 inched up 0.3% to 8,876.26. Germany’s DAX gained 0.2% to 23,572.39 and the CAC 40 in Paris edged 0.6% higher to 7,728.66. 

The futures for the S&P 500 and the Dow Jones Industrial Average were up 0.5%.

During Asian trading, Tokyo’s Nikkei 225 added 1.3% to 38,311.33, while the Kospi in Seoul gained 1.8% to 2,946.66.

Hong Kong’s Hang Seng surged 0.7% to 24,060.99 and the Shanghai Composite Index added 0.4% to 3,388.73.

The price of gold has climbed as it remains a safe haven asset. An ounce of gold added 1.4% on Friday, but gave back some of its gains on Monday morning, and was traded at around $3,437 an ounce.

Prices for US Treasury bonds are also on the rise when investors are feeling nervous, but Treasury prices fell Friday, which in turn pushed up their yields, in part because of worries that a spike in oil prices could drive inflation higher.

Inflation in the US has remained relatively tame recently, and it’s near the Federal Reserve’s target of 2%. However, concerns remain high that it could accelerate due to President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

A better-than-expected report Friday on sentiment among US consumers also helped drive yields higher. The preliminary report from the University of Michigan stated that sentiment improved for the first time in six months after Trump put many of his tariffs on pause, while US consumers’ expectations for future inflation eased.

In currency trading early Monday, the US dollar gained to 144.18 Japanese yen from 144.03 yen. The euro rose to $1.1582 from $1.1533.

What is expected for the week?

The Middle East conflict is set to be the focus of the G7 meeting of leaders of wealthy nations in Canada this week.

There are also hopes that Trump will sign more trade deals, which keeps trade optimism a bit higher.

“It’s a big week in terms of decisions on interest rates and the direction of monetary policy,” Streeter said.

“The Federal Reserve is expected to keep rates on hold this week but comments from chair Jerome Powell will be closely watched for future direction of policy.”

Meanwhile, there is a monetary policy meeting of the Bank of England this week, where “policymakers are expected to press pause on rate cuts,” Streeter explained, citing the potential impact of higher energy costs. 

Meanwhile, the UK government’s infrastructure plans are going to be revealed in more detail this week. “The 10-year strategy, worth £725 billion (€850.8 bn), is the backbone of the Starmer administration’s plan to kickstart growth,” Streeter said.

As Israel’s devastating war on Gaza grinds on, pushed forward by a prime minister insistent that a goal of total military victory be met, the divisions within Israeli society are growing increasingly deeper.

In the last few weeks, as Israeli peace activists and antiwar groups have stepped up their campaign against the conflict, supporters of the war have also increased their pressure to continue, whatever its humanitarian, political or diplomatic cost.

Members of the military have published open letters protesting the political motivations for continuing the war on Gaza, or claiming that the latest offensive, which is systematically razing Gaza, risks the remaining Israeli captives held in the Palestinian territory.

Another open letter has come from within Israel’s universities and colleges, with its signatories doing a rare thing within Israel since the war began in October 2023: focusing on Palestinian suffering.

Elsewhere, campaigns of protest and refusal of military service have spread – a result of a mixture of pro-peace sentiment and more prevalent anger at the government’s handling of the war – posing a risk to Israel’s war effort, which is reliant upon the active participation of the country’s youth.

The war’s critics say that the man they oppose, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, has become reliant upon the extreme right to maintain his coalition, and an opposition too cowardly to confront him in the face of mounting international accusations of genocide.

Powerful far right

It is important not to confuse the growing domestic criticism of the Israeli government’s handling of the war with any mass sympathy for the Palestinian people.

A recent poll reported that 82 percent of Jewish Israeli respondents would still like to see Gaza cleared of its Palestinian population, with almost 50 percent also backing what they said was the “mass killing” of civilians in enemy cities occupied by the Israeli army.

And on Monday, thousands of Israelis led by the country’s far-right national security minister, Itamar Ben-Gvir, rampaged through occupied East Jerusalem’s Old City, chanting “death to Arabs” and attacking anyone perceived to be either Palestinian or defending them.

Also addressing the crowd at the “Jerusalem Day” march was the country’s ultranationalist finance minister, Bezalel Smotrich, who has been vocal in his push for the annexation of the occupied West Bank, and the displacement of Palestinians from Gaza.

Smotrich asked the crowd: “Are we afraid of victory?”; “Are we afraid of the word ‘occupation?’” The crowd – described as “revellers” within parts of Israeli media – responded with a resounding “no”.

“There’s a cohort of the extreme right who feel vindicated by a year and a half of war,” the former Israeli diplomat Alon Pinkas told Al Jazeera. “They think their message that, if you blink you lose; if you pause, you lose; if you waver, you lose, has been borne out.”

Growing dissent

Alongside the intensifying of Israel’s onslaught on Gaza, which has now killed more than 54,000 Palestinians, voices of dissent have grown louder. In April, more than 1,000 serving and retired pilots issued an open letter protesting a war they said served “political and personal interests” rather than security ones. Further letters, as well as an organised campaign encouraging young Israelis to refuse to show up for military service, have followed.

Perhaps sensing the direction the wind was blowing, the leader of Israel’s left-wing Democrats Party, Yair Golan – who initially supported the war and took a hardline position on allowing humanitarian aid into Gaza – launched a stark broadside against the conflict earlier this month, claiming that Israel risked becoming a “pariah state” that killed “babies as a hobby” while giving itself the aim of “expelling populations”.

While welcomed by some, the comments of the former army major-general were rounded upon by others. Speaking at a conference in southern Israel alongside noted antiwar lawmaker Ofer Cassif, Golan was heckled and called a traitor by far-right members of the audience, before he had to be escorted off the premises by security.

Cassif, who refers to himself as an anti-Zionist, has long attracted the outrage of mainstream Israeli society for his loud denunciation of the way Israel treats Palestinians.

“There have always been threats against me,” Cassif, who has been alone among Israeli lawmakers in opposing the war from its onset, told Al Jazeera. “I can’t walk down my own street. I was attacked twice before October 7 and it’s gotten much worse since.

“But it’s not just me. All the peace activists risk being physically attacked or threatened, even the families of the hostages are at risk of attack by these bigots,” he said.

“Many people are coming to realise that this government and even the mainstream opposition aren’t fighting a war for security reasons, or even to recover the hostages, but are carrying out the kind of genocidal mission advocated by Smotrich and the other messianic bigots,” Cassif said of the finance minister and his supporters.

“This has been allowed by people like [Benny] Gantz, [Yair] Lapid and [Yoav] Gallant,” he said, citing prominent politicians opposed to the prime minister, “who didn’t dare criticise it [the war] and Netanyahu, who has manipulated it for his own ends.”

Cassif’s comments were echoed by one of the signatories to the academics’ open letter criticising the war, Ayelet Ben-Yishai, an associate professor at the University of Haifa.

“The opposition has nothing,” she told Al Jazeera. “I get that it’s hard to argue for a complicated future, but they do and say nothing. All they’ve left us with is a choice between managing the war and the occupation and Smotrich and his followers. That’s it. What kind of future is that?”

Inherent within Israel

Many members of the government and opposition have previously served in senior roles within the army, either engaging in or overseeing combat operations against Palestinians, and maintaining the illegal occupation of Palestinian land.

Democrats Party head Golan was even previously criticised by the army in 2007 for repeatedly using Palestinian civilians as human shields.

“What we’re seeing right now is a struggle between two Zionist elites over who is the greater fascist in different forms,” Yehouda Shenhav-Shahrabani, a professor at Tel Aviv University, said of the political struggles at play within Israel.

“On the one hand, there are the Ashkenazi Jews, who settled Israel, imposed the occupation and have killed thousands,” he said of Israel’s traditional military and governing elites, many of whom might describe themselves as liberal and democratic, and were originally from central and Eastern Europe. “Or [you have] the current religious Zionists, like Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, who [the old Ashkenazi elite] now accuse of being fascists.

“You can’t reduce this to left and right. I don’t buy into that,” Shenhav-Shahrabani said. “It goes deeper. Both sides are oblivious to the genocide in Gaza.”

While resistance against the war has grown both at home and abroad, so too has the intensity of the attacks being protested against.

Since Israel unilaterally broke a ceasefire in March, almost 4,000 Palestinians have been killed, hundreds of them children. In addition, a siege, imposed upon the decimated enclave on March 2, has pushed what remains of its pre-war population of more than two million to the point of famine, international agencies, including the United Nations, have warned.

At the same time as Israel’s war on Gaza has intensified, so too have its actions in the West Bank. Under the guise of another military operation, the Israeli army has occupied and levelled large parts of the occupied territory displacing a reported 40,000 of its inhabitants as it establishes its own military network there.

On Thursday, Israel’s Defence Minister Israel Katz, alongside Smotrich, who as finance minister enjoys significant control over the West Bank, announced the establishment of a further 22 Israeli settlements, all in defiance of international law.

Smotrich’s announcement came as a surprise to few. The far-right minister – himself a settler on Palestinian land – has previously been clear about his intention to see the West Bank annexed, even ordering preparations to do so in advance of US President Donald Trump’s inauguration, who he expected to support the idea. He has also said Gaza will be “totally destroyed” and its population expelled to a tiny strip of land along the Egyptian border.

For Shenhav-Shahrabani, little of it was surprising.

“I went with some others to South Africa in 1994. I met a justice of the Supreme Court, a Jew, who’d been injured by an Afrikaner bomb [during the struggle against apartheid],” Shenhav-Shahrabani said. “He told me that nothing will change for Palestinians until Israelis are ready to go to jail for them. We’re not there yet.”

The administration of President Donald Trump has taken a hard line against top US universities over their responses to pro-Palestine protests, as well as their diversity initiatives and curricula.

The move on Thursday to block Harvard University from enrolling foreign students represents the latest escalation in a months-long standoff, which critics say has been rooted in unfounded claims of rampant anti-Semitism.

In a statement, Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said the administration was “holding Harvard accountable for fostering violence, antisemitism, and coordinating with the Chinese Communist Party on its campus”.

Harvard has called the latest move “unlawful” and a “retaliatory action”.

Here’s how we got here:

December 2023: The standoff stretches back to the months following the October 7, 2023 attack on southern Israel, and the resulting Israeli offensive on Gaza, in which at least 53,655 Palestinians have since been killed.

Then-Harvard President Claudine Gay’s testimony before Congress on the administration’s response to pro-Palestine protests sparks outrage, as elected officials, particularly Republicans, call for greater crackdowns.

Gay subsequently resigns from her post and is replaced by Alan Garber in August 2024.

January 2025: Trump takes office in January 2025, following a campaign where he vowed to crack down on pro-Palestine protests, diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, and “woke ideology” on college campuses.

Trump also signs a series of executive orders calling for government agencies to take actions against DEI programmes at private institutions, including universities, and to increase government actions to combat anti-Semitism, particularly on campuses.

February 2025: The US Department of Justice (DOJ) launches a task force to “root out anti-Semitic harassment in schools and on college campuses”.

The task force later announces it will visit 10 schools, saying it was “aware of allegations that the schools may have failed to protect Jewish students and faculty members from unlawful discrimination, in potential violation of federal law”.

The schools include Harvard, as well as Columbia University, George Washington University, Johns Hopkins University, New York University, Northwestern University, the University of California, Los Angeles, the University of California, Berkeley, the University of Minnesota, and the University of Southern California.

March 7, 2025: The Trump administration takes its first action against a US university, slashing $400m in federal funding to Columbia University and accusing the school of “continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students”.

A subsequent letter from the Department of Education warns Harvard and dozens of other universities of “potential enforcement actions”.

March 21, 2025: Columbia yields to Trump’s demands, which include banning face masks, empowering campus police with arresting authority, and installing a new administrator to oversee the department of Middle East, South Asian and African Studies and the Center for Palestine Studies.

March 31, 2025: The US Departments of Education (ED), Health and Human Services (HHS), and the US General Services Administration (GSA) announce an official review of $255.6m in Harvard contracts and $8.7bn in multi-year grants.

The review is part of the “ongoing efforts of the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism”, the statement said.

April 11, 2025: Harvard is sent a letter saying the university has “failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment” and listing several Trump administration demands.

The demands include a governance overhaul that lessens the power of students and some staff, reforming hiring and admissions practices, refusing to admit students deemed “hostile to the American values and institutions”, doing away with diversity programmes, and auditing several academic programmes and centres, including several related to the Middle East.

April 14, 2025: Harvard President Garber issues a forceful rejection of the demands, writing: “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights”.

The US administration announces an immediate freeze on funding, including $2.2bn in multi-year grants and $60m in multi-year contracts.

April 15, 2025: In a Truth Social post, Trump floats that Harvard could lose “Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity”. He accuses Harvard of “pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness’”.

April 16, 2025: The Department of Homeland Security calls on Harvard to turn over records on any foreign students’ “illegal and violent activities”, while threatening to revoke the university’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program approval. The certification is required for it to enrol foreign students. Noem gives an April 30 deadline for this.

April 21, 2025: Harvard files a lawsuit against the Trump administration, accusing it of violating the First Amendment of the US Constitution with “arbitrary and capricious” funding cuts.

April 30, 2025: Harvard says it shared information requested by Noem regarding foreign students, but does not release the nature of the information provided.

May 2, 2025: Trump again says the administration will take away Harvard’s tax-exempt status. No action is immediately taken.

May 5, 2025: The Trump administration says it is cutting all new federal grants to Harvard.

May 13, 2025: The US Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announces another $450m in federal funding from eight federal agencies.

May 19, 2025: The DOJ announces it will use the False Claims Act, typically used to punish federal funding recipients accused of corruption, to crack down on universities like Harvard over DEI policies. The Department of Health and Human Services also says it is terminating $60m in federal grants to Harvard.

May 22, 2025: Noem announces revocation of Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program, blocking it from enrolling new foreign students and saying current students will need to transfer to continue their studies.

Harvard responds: “We are fully committed to maintaining Harvard’s ability to host our international students and scholars, who hail from more than 140 countries and enrich the university – and this nation – immeasurably.”

The administration of United States President Donald Trump has slashed another $450m in grants from Harvard University, amid an ongoing feud over anti-Semitism, presidential control and the limits of academic freedom.

On Tuesday, a joint task force assembled under Trump accused Harvard, the country’s oldest university, of perpetrating a “long-standing policy and practice of discriminating on the basis of race”.

“Harvard’s campus, once a symbol of academic prestige, has become a breeding ground for virtue signaling and discrimination. This is not leadership; it is cowardice. And it’s not academic freedom; it’s institutional disenfranchisement,” the task force said in a statement.

“By prioritizing appeasement over accountability, institutional leaders have forfeited the school’s claim to taxpayer support.”

The elimination of another $450m in grants came in addition to the more than $2.2bn in federal funds that were already suspended last week, the task force added.

The feud between the president and Harvard – a prestigious Ivy League campus in Cambridge, Massachusetts – began in March, when Trump sought to impose new rules and regulations on top schools that had played host to pro-Palestinian protests over the last year.

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

Columbia University was initially a centrepiece of the Trump administration’s efforts. The New York City school had seen the first major Palestine solidarity encampment rise on its lawn, which served as a blueprint for similar protests around the world. It also saw a series of mass arrests in the aftermath.

In March, one of Columbia’s protest leaders, Mahmoud Khalil, was the first foreign student to be arrested and have his legal immigration status revoked under Trump’s campaign to punish demonstrators. And when Trump threatened to yank $400m in grants and research contracts, the school agreed to submit to a list of demands to restore the funding.

The demands included adopting a formal definition of anti-Semitism, beefing up campus security and putting one of its academic departments – focused on Middle East, African and South Asian studies – under the supervision of an outside authority.

Free speech advocates called Columbia’s concessions a capitulation to Trump, who they say has sought to erode academic freedom and silence viewpoints he disagrees with.

On April 11, his administration issued another list of demands for Harvard that went even further. Under its terms, Harvard would have had to revamp its disciplinary system, eliminate its diversity initiatives and agree to an external audit of programmes deemed anti-Semitic.

The demands also required Harvard to agree to “structural and personnel changes” that would foster “viewpoint diversity” – a term left ambiguous. But critics argued it was a means for Trump to impose his values and priorities on the school by shaping its hiring and admissions practices.

Harvard has been at the centre of controversies surrounding its admissions in the past. In 2023, for instance, the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s consideration of race in student admissions – through a process called affirmative action – violated the Equal Protection Clause of the US Constitution.

Tuesday’s letter referenced that court decision in arguing that “Harvard University has repeatedly failed to confront the pervasive race discrimination and anti-Semitic harassment plaguing its campus”.

A pair of reports in April, created by Harvard University’s own task forces, also found that there were cases of anti-Muslim and anti-Jewish violence on campus in the wake of Israel’s war in Gaza, a divisive issue in US politics.

Ultimately, on April 14, Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, rejected the Trump administration’s demands, arguing they were evidence of government overreach.

“No government – regardless of which party is in power – should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber wrote in his response.

But Trump has continued to pressure the campus, including by threatening to revoke its tax-exempt status. Democrats and other critics have warned that it would be illegal for the president to influence the decisions of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) with regard to individual taxpayers, like the university.

Under Trump, the Department of Homeland Security has also threatened to bar foreign students from enrolling at the university if Harvard did not hand over documents pertaining to the pro-Palestine protests.

On Monday, Garber, Harvard’s president, wrote a response to Trump’s secretary of education, Linda McMahon, defending his campus’s commitment to free speech while also addressing the spectre of anti-Semitism.

“We share common ground on a number of critical issues, including the importance of ending antisemitism and other bigotry on campus. Like you, I believe that Harvard must foster an academic environment that encourages freedom of thought and expression, and that we should embrace a multiplicity of viewpoints,” his letter read.

But, he added, Harvard’s efforts to create a more equitable learning environment were “undermined and threatened” by the Trump administration’s “overreach”.

“Harvard will not surrender its core, legally-protected principles out of fear of unfounded retaliation by the federal government,” Garber said.

“I must refute your claim that Harvard is a partisan institution. It is neither Republican nor Democratic. It is not an arm of any other political party or movement. Nor will it ever be.”