university

California and a coalition of other Democratic-led states are suing the Trump administration over new limits on federal borrowing by aspiring nurses, physician’s assistants, therapists, social workers, mental health practitioners and other healthcare workers, arguing the changes will further reduce a struggling but vital workforce.

“This case is about protecting access to education, protecting our healthcare workforce, and protecting patients who rely on these providers every single day,” California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said during a virtual news conference Tuesday. “The Trump administration is going out of its way to make it harder and more expensive for students to pursue the advanced degrees necessary to serve their communities and pursue meaningful careers that allow them to support themselves and their families.”

Bonta said the new limits on loans sought by nursing and other healthcare students — which the U.S. Department of Education initiated in response to Republicans passing broader student loan caps as part of last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act — was an illegal overreach by the agency that was “deeply shortsighted” and went beyond the scope of the legislation.

“Congress can act,” he said. “But what the Department of Education can’t do is — contrary to law and in an arbitrary and capricious way and in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act — redefine what a professional student is.”

In response to the litigation, Trump administration officials defended the new rules, saying they will help student borrowers in the long run by driving down schooling costs at universities nationwide and preventing them from taking on too much debt.

“After decades of unchecked student loan borrowing that gave schools no reason to control costs, these commonsense loan caps — created by Congress — are already incentivizing colleges and universities to lower tuition,” Under Secretary of Education Nicholas Kent said in a statement to The Times.

Kent said Bonta and his fellow Democratic litigants “are more concerned about institutions’ bottom-line [than] American students and families’ ability to access affordable postsecondary education.” As one example of institutions responding to loan caps by lowering costs, Kent pointed to UC Irvine reducing the costs of its master’s in business programs by up to 38% to keep them below a federal loan cap for such programs.

The One Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress in July 2025, placed new limits on student loans, which could previously be sought for the full cost of such degrees. Starting this July, applicants categorized as “graduate students” will be capped at borrowing $20,500 per year and $100,000 in total, while applicants categorized as “professional students” will be allowed to borrow up to $50,000 annually and $200,000 in total.

On May 1, the U.S. Department of Education issued a new rule defining the “professional student” category as including those pursuing degrees to become doctors, pharmacists, dentists, veterinarians, lawyers, various medical specialists, pastors and other religious academics, and excluding those pursuing nursing and other advanced healthcare degrees.

In announcing the change, Kent said it would “simplify our complex student loan repayment system and better align higher education with workforce needs,” “drive a sea change in higher education by holding universities accountable for outcomes and putting significant downward pressure on the cost of tuition,” and “benefit borrowers who will no longer be pushed into insurmountable debt to finance degrees that do not pay off.”

Others fiercely disagreed, including healthcare industry leaders who also had objected to the rule change during a public comment period. Some said the changes would simply increase student reliance on less favorable, private-sector loans.

The American Assn. of Colleges of Nursing, in a statement, said it and its members were “angered by the Department of Education’s failure to support the nursing profession as the demand for patient care services rises.”

Nearly 150 members of Congress — including more than a dozen Republicans — wrote a letter the day after the rule was promulgated expressing “disappointment” over the exclusion of post-baccalaureate nursing degrees.

“At a time when our nation is facing a health care shortage, especially in primary care, now is not the time to cut off the student pipeline to these programs,” the lawmakers argued.

Rachel Zaentz, a spokesperson for the University of California, which is not party to the lawsuit but operates a vast network of public health programs, said in a statement Tuesday that UC “strongly opposed” the administration’s new caps on federal loans for nurses and other health professionals, which she said “will be felt most strongly by lower-income graduate students.”

“UC will continue to do all we can to ensure that cost is not a barrier for anyone who wants to pursue higher education, and we will continue to advocate with our federal partners for the programs and policies that make this possible,” Zaentz said.

Bonta rejected the administration’s argument that the new caps would help students pursuing a dream of a medical career avoid taking on too much debt — calling it “tone deaf.” He said those students are already “struggling with all costs right now” thanks to the Trump administration’s tariffs, war in Iran and lax approach to regulating monopolies and other big business.

He also rejected the idea that the new loan caps would force institutions to reduce costs for students, calling that “wishful thinking.”

The lawsuit is the 68th filed by Bonta’s office against the second Trump administration. Joining Bonta in the lawsuit — which was filed in the U.S. District Court in Maryland — were the attorneys general of Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington and Wisconsin, as well as the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.

Times staff writer Jaweed Kaleem contributed to this report.

It’s not merely trendy psychologizing to salute the qualities of a sturdy tree: a humbling reminder of time’s immensity, but also a living embodiment of shelter, change and growth. Leave it, then, to a massive gingko on the grounds of a medieval German town’s college to cosmically center the three-pronged, multi-generational character study “Silent Friend” from Hungarian filmmaker Ildikó Enyedi.

Enyedi, from her mesmeric, calling-card period lark “My Twentieth Century” to the eccentric love story “On Body and Soul,” has always been preoccupied with that realm in which the everyday meets the all-seeing and possibility is awakened. So it shouldn’t surprise anyone that she’d give a starring role to a 200-year-old tree, which just may inspire the needed answers. And why not? Our living, “breathing,” sky-reaching neighbors have considerable communication skills with each other.

Our entryway is a modern day neuroscientist played by Tony Leung Chiu-wai (and called Tony), who arrives at the University of Marburg as a visiting professor ready to further his groundbreaking research into the mysteries of infant brain development. The gig becomes a lonely endeavor, however, when the pandemic hits and he’s confined to a depopulated campus, sent unwillingly into a kind of monkhood.

It’s as if the nearby natural world, photographed by Gergely Pálos and edited by Károly Szalai, was just waiting for such a solitary moment to draw Tony’s undivided attention into the prospect of green intelligence.

In tandem, Enyedi transports us to 1908 to meet aspiring botanist Grete (Luna Wedler), the university’s first female student, subjected to cruelly patronizing treatment by smug male elders, yet driven to see plants anew when introduced to the light-capturing rigor of photography. The movie’s third woven-in protagonist is a wide-eyed, resourceful farm boy, Hannes (Enzo Brumm), in 1972. While his fellow students spark to the winds of political change and sexual freedom, he becomes fixated on what a lone geranium, imaginatively monitored on its windowsill, might have to convey if given the chance.

The fluid, idiosyncratic charm of “Silent Friend” — which never feels like two and a half hours — is in Enyedi’s heartfelt belief that curiosity is simply a garden that grows progress. It doesn’t hurt, of course, that this veteran dreamweaver’s key cast are entrancing, inviting specimens themselves, led by an inner glow of compassion in Leung that feels like its own natural energy source. When his character contacts Léa Seydoux’s French plant expert, it becomes almost too much rapturously intelligent star wattage for one quietly poetic movie, even if these god-tier actors are just zooming and talking shop.

Hardly anything is overdone here and, in one essential way, Enyedi is also making the case for movies themselves as phenomena to protect and treasure: ecosystems of light, texture, wonder and nourishment. Visually, the film toggles between intimate 35mm black-and-white, grainy 16mm color and multi-purpose digital cameras that visually represent distinct eras. Needless to say, that gingko tree is sublime and majestic in all of them.

The National Science Foundation suspended at least 18 research grants to UC Berkeley last month despite a court injunction restricting such suspensions, according to an attorney representing university scientists in a class-action lawsuit.

The NSF declined to comment on the suspensions.

The grants include at least one that the NSF had previously canceled and was compelled by a federal court order to restore, for a series of mixed-reality exhibits at the Lawrence Hall of Science showcasing Indigenous Ohlone knowledge about the natural world, said one of the project’s leaders, Jedda Foreman.

Foreman, an associate director at the Lawrence Hall of Science, said another researcher on her team received an email from UC Berkeley’s vice chancellor of research, Katherine Yelick, notifying them that the National Science Foundation had suspended the $1.4-million grant. Foreman said she viewed the email, which said the university had received a letter from the NSF raising concerns about “foreign funding.” The email did not provide a copy of the letter or explain further, she said.

Foreman said the Lawrence Hall of Science had not received any foreign funding for the project.

“The grantees were given near-zero information about what was problematic in the execution of their grant,” said Claudia Polsky, a professor at UC Berkeley School of Law who is representing Foreman and other researchers in a suit they filed last year contesting a previous round of grant cancellations by the Trump administration.

Polsky said her legal team was seeking more information about the 18 suspensions, but was concerned that the freezing of Foreman’s grant may violate a court order a federal judge issued in that case restoring the defunded projects.

UC Berkeley spokesperson Dan Mogulof said in a statement that the university “is engaged with the government on matters pertaining to research grants, and remains committed to compliance with all federal laws, rules and regulations.”

He declined to comment on the types of grants affected, the amount of funds at stake, or the potential effect on the campus.

One of the Lawrence Hall of Science exhibits, which were co-designed with Ohlone youth, is scheduled to open Sunday, with another set for the fall of 2028. Researchers also are studying whether participating in creating exhibits sparks more interest in science among Indigenous young people and makes them more likely to pursue STEM careers.

“We’re doing a lot of hoping and finger-crossing that something works out,” Foreman said. “It was such a powerful project and we really want to be able to share what we’ve learned.”

National Science Foundation turmoil

The University of California received $525 million in National Science Foundation grants in the 2024-25 budget year. But that funding source has become increasingly volatile under the Trump administration as the federal agency has terminated nearly 2,000 grants nationwide that it said did not align with its priorities — including those focusing on diversity, equity and inclusion — and has been slower to approve and disburse new awards.

In late April, President Trump fired all 22 members of the independent board of scientists that oversaw the NSF. He is also proposing to cut the agency’s budget by more than half in 2027, though Congress rejected a similar plan last year.

Other federal agencies also terminated research grants en masse last year. Some of the cancellations have been reversed by the courts.

UC researchers are contesting grant reversals by the National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, National Institutes of Health, Department of Transportation, Department of Defense, Environmental Protection Agency and National Endowment for the Humanities in the class-action lawsuit, filed last year. The University of California is not a party to the suit.

Last June, the researchers won a key legal victory when U.S. District Judge Rita Lin issued a preliminary injunction restoring grants canceled by the NSF, EPA and NEH — including for the Ohlone-focused exhibits co-led by Foreman, one of six named plaintiffs in the case. The judge barred the agencies from revoking funds using form letters that didn’t include an explanation specific to the grant at stake, or because of Trump’s anti-DEI executive orders.

Judge Lin stepped in again after the NSF froze hundreds of grants to UCLA in August, amid attempts by the Trump administration to secure a $1-billion settlement from the university over allegations of campus antisemitism. Indefinitely suspending a grant was the same as terminating it, Lin said in a ruling requiring the agency to reinstate the funds.

Polsky said last month’s suspension of Foreman’s grant raised concerns that the Trump administration was seeking a way around those orders. “It seems to us like something that should not have been canceled on the merits and raises suspicion that this was just a different way to cancel the grant,” she said.

UC looks to state for alternative funding

The University of California is ramping up efforts to find alternative funding for its multibillion-dollar research enterprise as federal support becomes less reliable. On Monday, UC President James Milliken spoke alongside state Sen. Scott Wiener and United Auto Workers president Shawn Fain at a Sacramento rally in support of state legislation to create a $23-billion fund for scientific research.

If successful, the bill will place a bond measure on the November ballot. Money from the bond would go toward research in wildfire and pandemic preparedness, new medical treatments and other areas, with revenue from inventions shared with the state. The state Assembly’s appropriations committee is set to consider the bill Thursday.

“If the federal government is going to continue to attempt to reduce funding for the research that has been so important to UC — that saves lives, that drives the economy — then the state of California, I hope, will be able to step up,” Milliken said at a meeting of the university’s Board of Regents on Wednesday.

UC Provost Katherine Newman told the regents she has been meeting with leaders of the Russell Group, a consortium of the United Kingdom’s top universities, to discuss collaborating on research in climate change, clean energy and public health — all areas that have seen federal funding threatened under the current administration.

Mello writes for Berkeleyside, which originally published this story. It was distributed through a partnership with the Associated Press.

WASHINGTON — The first baby boomer on the Supreme Court hit a milestone on Thursday, becoming the second-longest-serving justice in history at a time when his influence has never seemed greater.

Once an outlier on the nation’s highest court, Justice Clarence Thomas has become a towering figure in the conservative legal movement over the last decade as he helped secure landmark rulings on abortion, voting and Second Amendment rights.

The only justice with a longer tenure is liberal William O. Douglas. Thomas would overtake Douglas in 2028 if he remains on the court — and there’s no sign he plans to retire anytime soon.

“I think he’s more energized and excited now than when I first met him,” said John Yoo, a law professor at the University of California, Berkeley, who served in Republican President George W. Bush’s administration after his time as a Thomas clerk three decades ago.

Thomas was confirmed in 1991 after contentious hearings that included sexual harassment allegations. More recently, his acceptance of luxury trips has raised a storm of ethics questions. He’s nevertheless gone from near-silence at oral arguments to asking the first questions and penning a landmark ruling expanding Second Amendment rights.

Following the appointment of three conservative justices by Republican President Trump, Thomas is now the most senior member of a supermajority that’s also overturned abortion as a constitutional right, ended affirmative action in college admissions and sharply limited the Voting Rights Act.

“The court has radically moved in his direction over the course of his time on the court,” said Stanford University law professor Pamela Karlan. Thomas’ seniority means he can decide who writes an opinion if he’s part of a majority that doesn’t include Chief Justice John Roberts, a factor that can nudge other votes behind closed doors, Karlan said.

Off the bench, Thomas’ sphere of influence also includes his large, close-knit network of former clerks, who have served in the Trump administration and are increasingly filling out the ranks of federal judges.

“That is an important legacy that he will leave,” said Sarah Konsky, director of the Supreme Court and Appellate Clinic at the University of Chicago Law School. “Even as justices’ own time on the court winds down, significant influence lives on through their clerks.”

That’s not to say Thomas’ time on the court is up. In a recent speech, Thomas tied the nation’s highest ideals to a conservative vision of limited government — and launched a broadside on progressivism seen by critics as unfair and inappropriate. In the room at the University of Texas, though, it earned a standing ovation.

Thomas, who became the second Black member of the court, now has a tenure that tops 34 years, putting him ahead of Justice Stephen J. Field, who was appointed by Lincoln before the end of the Civil War and served as the only 10th justice until 1897.

For Thomas, 77, it’s a long way from the hearings at which his nomination by Republican President George H.W. Bush was nearly derailed by allegations that he had sexually harassed Anita Hill, a charge he forcefully denied.

Thomas has more recently come under scrutiny for lavish, undisclosed trips from a GOP megadonor and the conservative political activism of his wife, who backed false claims that the 2020 election was stolen from Trump. The justice has said he wasn’t required to disclose the trips he took with friends and ignored calls to recuse himself from cases related to the election.

On the court, though, recent years have also brought perhaps the most significant work of his career, especially a 2022 opinion he wrote that found people generally have the right to carry a gun in public. The justice did not respond to a request for comment on his tenure.

His own jurisprudence has changed little over the years, said Scott Gerber, author of “First Principles: The Jurisprudence of Clarence Thomas.” Even as the majority moves his way, he’s continued to write dissents that get noticed.

“He’s incredibly consistent,” Gerber said. Once known for solo dissents, “now he writes majority opinions.”

Whitehurst writes for the Associated Press.

Three professors at Atlanta’s Emory University in the United States have filed a lawsuit over their arrests during a 2024 campus protest over Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza.

Their lawsuit on Thursday argued that the university broke its own free-speech policies when it called in police and state troopers to aggressively disband the protest, making 28 arrests.

“The judicial system would find that Emory failed to protect its students, to protect its staff, to protect the educational mission of the university,” said philosophy professor Noelle McAfee, one of the plaintiffs.

“So this isn’t just about people’s individual rights. It’s our educational mission to train people in free and critical inquiry, to be able to learn how to engage with others, to be fearless.”

Laura Diamond, a spokesperson for Emory, responded that the university believes “this lawsuit is without merit”.

“Emory acts appropriately and responsibly to keep our community safe from threats of harm,” Diamond said in a statement. “We regret this issue is being litigated, but we have confidence in the legal process.”

The suit is just one example of how the nationwide wave of protests from 2023 and 2024 continues to reverberate on elite campuses.

There have been multiple instances where students and faculty have filed lawsuits against universities, arguing they were discriminated against because of the protests.

But the Emory suit is unusual. McAfee and her fellow plaintiffs — English and Indigenous studies professor Emilio Del Valle-Escalante and economics professor Caroline Fohlin — all remain tenured faculty members. None were convicted of any charges.

The civil lawsuit in DeKalb County State Court demands that the private university repay money the three spent defending themselves against misdemeanour charges that were later dismissed, along with punitive damages.

McAfee said she’s suing her employer “to try to get them to be accountable and to change”.

All three say they were observers on April 25, 2024, when some students and others set up tents on the university’s main quad to protest the war. They say Emory broke its own policies by calling in Atlanta police and Georgia state troopers without seeking alternatives.

McAfee was charged with disorderly conduct after she said she yelled “Stop!” at an officer roughly arresting a protester. Del Valle-Escalante said he was trying to help an older woman when he was arrested and charged with disorderly conduct.

Fohlin said that, when she protested against officers pinning a protester to the ground, she herself was thrown face-first to the ground and arrested, suffering a concussion and a spine injury. Fohlin was charged with misdemeanour battery of an officer.

Emory claimed that those arrested that day were outsiders who trespassed on school property. But 20 of the 28 people arrested were affiliated with the university.

The professors said that, after their arrests, they were targeted by threats and harassment, part of a pushback by conservatives who said universities were failing to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitism and allowing lawlessness.

Nationwide, however, advocates say there is a “Palestine exception” in which universities are willing to curb pro-Palestine speech and protest. Palestine Legal, a legal aid group supporting such speech, said Tuesday that it received 300 percent more legal requests in 2025 than its annual average before 2023, mostly from college students and faculty.

McAfee served as president of the Emory University Senate after her arrest. The body makes policy recommendations and has helped draft the university’s open expression policy.

She said she asked then-President Gregory Fenves in fall 2024 why Emory police weren’t dropping the charges against her and others. McAfee said Fenves told her that he wanted “to see justice”.

The open expression policy was revised after 2024 to clearly prohibit tents, camping, the occupation of university buildings and demonstrations between midnight and 7am.

Whatever the policy, McAfee said students are afraid to protest at Emory, saying the university has turned its back on what Atlanta civil rights icon John Lewis called “good trouble”.

“Students know right now that any trouble is not going to be good trouble at Emory, that they could get arrested,” she said. “So students are afraid.”

The California Supreme Court ordered attorney and former law school dean John Eastman disbarred on Wednesday for his role aiding the Trump administration’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election.

The court ordered Eastman’s name be “stricken from the roll of attorneys” and that he pay $5,000 to the State Bar of California.

Eastman’s attorney, Randall A. Miller, told the Associated Press that the court’s decision “departs from long-standing United States Supreme Court precedent protecting First Amendment rights, especially in the attorney discipline context.” Miller did not immediately return an after-hours phone call seeking comment from The Times.

State Bar Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona said in a statement that the ruling “underscores that Mr. Eastman’s misconduct was incompatible with the standards of integrity required of every California attorney.”

“Today’s California Supreme Court order disbarring John Charles Eastman from the practice of law in California affirms the fundamental principle that attorneys must act with honesty and uphold the rule of law, regardless of the client they represent or the context in which that representation occurs,” said Cardona said.

The Supreme Court’s decision affirms a 2024 ruling from State Bar Judge Yvette Roland that Eastman be prohibited from practicing law.

In a marathon trial that lasted off and on from June to November 2024, the State Bar, which regulates lawyers in California, argued that Eastman was unfit to practice law for peddling bogus claims that fraud cost Trump the election and for promoting a fake-elector scheme to block the electoral count.

“It is true that an attorney has a duty to engage in zealous advocacy on behalf of a client,” Roland wrote in 2024 in a 128-page ruling. “However, Eastman’s inaccurate assertions were lies that cannot be justified as zealous advocacy.”

Roland found Eastman culpable of 10 of 11 counts of misconduct.

Eastman fomented “predictable and destructive chaos” when he stood beside fellow Trump adviser Rudolph W. Giuliani on Jan. 6, 2021, and told an enormous crowd at the Ellipse that the election had been fraudulent, the bar argued.

Eastman claimed he was acting in good faith, and as a vigorous champion of his client. But State Bar attorneys argued that “the evidence, including his often not-credible trial testimony, shows that he held — and still holds — truth and democracy in contempt.”

Despite Eastman’s repeated assertions that Joe Biden’s victory was illegal, Roland ruled, Eastman’s own words showed he knew that proof was lacking.

The judge cited an email that Eastman sent to a friend, Cleta Mitchell, on Nov. 29, 2020, acknowledging that fraud serious enough to sway the results could not be proved.

“It would be nice to have actually hard documented evidence of the fraud in the areas to which the analyses pointed,” Eastman wrote.

After the 2024 ruling Eastman responded on his Substack writing that he hoped the California Supreme Court or U.S. Supreme Court would “step in to put a stop to this lawfare that has become a serious threat to the First Amendment, the right of controversial clients and causes to legal representation, and more broadly to our adversarial system of justice.”

Eastman has a long history in California’s conservative legal circles. He was hired by Chapman’s law school in 1999 and was dean from June 2007 to January 2010, then continued to teach courses in constitutional law, property law, legal history and the 1st Amendment.

He retired in early 2021 after more than 100 Chapman faculty and others affiliated with the university signed a letter calling on the school to take action against him for his role in the Jan. 6 insurrection.

Wednesday’s decision is a bookend in a lengthy investigation into Eastman’s actions that began in 2021. In October of that year, the nonpartisan legal group States United Democracy Center filed an ethics complaint calling on the State Bar to investigate Eastman’s Jan. 6 actions.

Christine P. Sun, senior vice president of legal at the States United Democracy Center, said on Wednesday that the court’s decision is “part of a broader reckoning for those who seek to undermine the rule of law.”

“Eastman played a central role in the plot to overturn the 2020 election—pressuring state officials, advancing baseless claims in court, and promoting a fringe theory that the vice president could reject certified electoral votes,” Sun said in a statement. “His unethical actions have had real, lasting consequences for our democracy, and we applaud the California Supreme Court’s decision to disbar him.”

Staff writer Christopher Goffard contributed to this report