Editorials from Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and others

Editorials from Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, New York Times, and others

___

March 21 – The Washington Post on Donald Trump’s battle with American universities

Academia's leftward drift is a problem. It has undermined universities' core missions of accumulating and disseminating ideas. Surveys indicate that significant fractions of students and professors are afraid to tackle controversial topics, with moderates and conservatives most likely to say they are uncomfortable speaking their mind. Censorship - including self-censorship - has damaged scholarly rigor and eroded public trust in academic expertise.

Understandably, conservatives are looking for ways to restore some ideological balance to college campuses so that higher education serves the entire country, including the half that votes Republican. But the Trump administration is going about it the wrong way. Its all-out attack on universities seems vindictive, destructive and counterproductive.

The White House announced this month that it would pull $400 million in government grants and contracts from Columbia University because the school had failed to control antisemitism on campus. Last week, a follow-up letter from the administration said the school could get the money back if it met certain requirements, including centralizing disciplinary action under Columbia's president and placing its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department under "academic receivership." This is part of a broader attempt to use the government's regulatory and funding powers to exert control over universities. ( On Friday, the university agreed to create an internal security force, ban the wearing of face masks for the most part, and appoint a senior vice provost to oversee the Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies department.)

To be sure, Columbia's flaccid response to last year's protests over the war in Gaza, which at times crossed into vandalism or antisemitism, warrants scrutiny to ensure that the civil rights of Jewish students are protected as enthusiastically as those of any other minority. Nevertheless, singling out a specific university department and interfering with the school's internal organizational chart are violations of academic freedom.

Columbia's lapses also do not merit an abrupt halt to funding for the school's vital medical and scientific research - which is what $250 million of the $400 million supported. The scientists who have been affected were not responsible for the university's shortcomings. This unwarranted action threatens to undermine the United States' world-leading research apparatus.

U.S. research universities, and the federal funding that supports them, are one major reason Americans have collected more Nobel Prizes than citizens of any other country. They also help make the United States the world's innovation engine and the top destination for foreign students. No other country is as adept at converting raw human talent and ideas into cutting-edge products. Research universities anchor innovation clusters such as Silicon Valley, which in turn fuel the country's economic growth.

This engine is too valuable to risk for a mere political project. If a study is cut off before its results are known, what valuable medical and technological advances might be lost? If the world's most promising researchers decide to pursue their studies elsewhere - someplace where the government won't yank their funding for perceived offenses over which they have no control - what will America lose?

Trump administration officials should also consider the precedent they are creating. How might it be used when Democrats return to office, as they eventually will? The administration should further ask itself what will be left of a university when it is done using its crowbar - not only the research apparatus but also the classrooms and auditoriums where professors teach students to grapple with humanity's biggest issues. It is true that many schools should have done more to ensure students felt comfortable airing all points of view. But the solution is not to apply similar political pressure from a different direction.

Florida pioneered the kind of crackdown the Trump administration is attempting, and now more left-leaning students and professors in that state have begun describing exactly the kind of speech-chilling atmosphere that conservatives have been complaining about for years. Professors there have steered students away from discussing topics that seem forbidden, including " intersectionality," and are afraid that students are recording them, the Wall Street Journal has reported. Students voiced similar fears that classmates would broadcast their remarks on social media, and one student publication trimmed its coverage to protect its funding.

Conservatives have recognized in their own experience why this is unacceptable. Universities cannot form good scholars, or citizens, if they are not free to explore the full universe of ideas. Some of these may be bad or misguided, and some may be dangerous. But universities exist to separate truth from falsehood and wisdom from folly. Open debate, unhindered by fear of reprisal, is the only way to achieve this.

ONLINE: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2025/03/21/universities-columbia-trump-attack/

___

March 22 – The New York Times on attacks of the Constitution

The Domino's pizzas arrived at the homes of federal judges without explanation. The message was clear: We know where you live.

The mysterious pizza deliveries are happening at the same time that President Trump, his aides and their allies have started an intimidation campaign against the legal system - through executive orders, social media posts, public comments and even articles of impeachment. The evident goal is to spread anxiety and fear among judges and keep them from fulfilling their constitutional duty to insist that the Trump administration follow the law. The campaign extends to private-sector lawyers, with Mr. Trump trying to damage the business of several firms he does not like. The scope of these tactics can sometimes get lost amid the pace of news, and we want to pause to connect the dots and explain the seriousness of what's happening.

We also want to honor the people who are taking a public stand against this campaign, including Chief Justice John Roberts, and urge more lawyers to do so in the days ahead. Every time a judge or lawyer steps forward, it becomes easier for others to speak out and harder for Mr. Trump to isolate any one person standing up for the law. He is straining the American system of checks and balances in ways it has not been tested in many decades. The most effective way to protect that system starts with courage from more people who believe in it.

The primary targets for intimidation have been federal judges, the latest being Judge James Boasberg. Last weekend, he ruled that the Trump administration could not send 261 migrants to a prison in El Salvador without first holding a hearing. The administration continued deportation flights nonetheless, and its lawyers have since dissembled about the timeline. In response, Mr. Trump described Judge Boasberg, who was appointed to the bench by George W. Bush and elevated by Barack Obama, as a "troublemaker," "agitator" and "Radical Left Lunatic" who should be impeached. A Republican House member filed articles of impeachment hours later, and Elon Musk announced he had made the maximum campaign contribution to several House members who supported the articles.

The attempts to cow Judge Boasberg continue a pattern. Mr. Trump, in an interview with Fox News this week, said, "We have rogue judges that are destroying our country." Vice President JD Vance has claimed that "judges aren't allowed to control the executive's legitimate power." Mr. Musk has posted dozens of scathing social media messages about judges who have questioned the legality of his government cuts, describing them as evil and corrupt.

Mr. Trump's allies outside government echo these attacks in even harsher ways. Media allies of Mr. Trump have published biographical details about judges' children. Federal marshals recently warned judges about an increase in personal threats. After Judge John Coughenour temporarily blocked the Trump administration's attempt to end birthright citizenship, he was the subject of a bomb threat hoax. No wonder that judges feel "mounting alarm over their physical security," according to interviews by Reuters.

We want to emphasize that criticizing a judge's decision can be entirely reasonable. Joe Biden, Mr. Obama, Mr. Bush and other presidents inveighed against rulings. The Constitution establishes the judiciary as equal to the executive and legislative branches, not dominant over them. And Republicans are not the only ones who have crossed a line when unhappy with judges. Liberal critics of the Supreme Court have harassed justices at their homes, and in one extreme case, a man unhappy with the court's approach to abortion planned to assassinate Justice Brett Kavanaugh.

Yet Mr. Trump's efforts at judicial intimidation are of a different scale. As president, he is encouraging a campaign of menace. In case after case, he argues that the only reasonable result is a victory for his side - and that he alone can determine what is legal and what is not. His allies then try to dehumanize the judges with whom they disagree and make them fear for their safety.

Mr. Trump's efforts to subdue law firms may seem separate, but they are connected. He has issued three executive orders removing the security clearances of lawyers at three large firms: Covington & Burling, Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss. In each case, the motivation is political. The firms have employed lawyers who represented Democrats, investigated Mr. Trump and sued Jan. 6 rioters.

The orders against Perkins Coie and Paul, Weiss were broad, barring their lawyers from entering federal buildings and discouraging federal employees from interacting with them. In doing so, the administration tried to devastate the firms: They cannot represent clients if their lawyers cannot speak with federal regulators, investigators and prosecutors.

These orders are not merely revenge, though. They are attempts to undermine the legal system and freedom of speech. If it becomes onerous for anybody who dares question Mr. Trump to hire a lawyer, fewer people will challenge him. Those who do will find themselves at a severe disadvantage in court. "An informed, independent judiciary presumes an informed, independent bar," as Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in a 2001 decision. On March 12, Judge Beryl Howell temporarily blocked part of the order against Perkins Coie, calling it "retaliatory animus" that "sends little chills down my spine."

The initial response from many law firms has been a disappointing mixture of silence and capitulation. The clearest example is Paul, Weiss. During Mr. Trump's first term, it helped sue the Trump administration for its separation of migrant children from their parents, and the firm's chairman, Brad Karp, boasted that the firm fought "to protect the liberties and freedoms of the most vulnerable among us." In the past few days he reversed course. He traveled to the White House and agreed that the firm would donate $40 million in legal services to causes Mr. Trump favors. In exchange, Mr. Trump said he would drop the executive order against Paul, Weiss.

It is easy to imagine that Mr. Karp and his colleagues justify this surrender in the name of protecting their business against a powerful bully, much as media companies like Disney and Meta have agreed to settlements with Mr. Trump. But these executives are ignoring the consequences of their decisions. By caving, Paul, Weiss has increased the chances that Mr. Trump will attack other firms.

More than 600 associates at top firms have signed an open letter that captures the larger dynamic: Mr. Trump is trying to create a chilling effect among law firms. The letter - signed by lawyers at stalwart firms like Cravath, Kirkland & Ellis and Skadden Arps, along with Paul, Weiss - criticizes their own firms' partners for not speaking up. "These tactics only work if the majority does not speak up," the letter says.

There are some signs of bravery. Williams & Connolly, a firm where Justice Kavanaugh and Justice Elena Kagan previously worked, has sued the Trump administration on behalf of Perkins Coie. We hope that more large firms display such courage.

The response from judges has been stronger, despite the threats that they face. During court hearings, they have tried to ascertain the facts of cases and confronted Mr. Trump's lawyers about their dubious assertions. Chief Justice Roberts, for his part, released an admirable statement the same day that the president called for Judge Boasberg's impeachment, saying that impeachment was "not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision." Even though the chief justice did not name Mr. Trump, the speed and directness of the response were highly unusual. As Stephen Vladeck, a law professor at Georgetown University, said, "The courts' behavior to this point has been spot on."

Mr. Trump's testing of America's legal system has probably only begun, and it will require a more vigilant response in coming months. If he continues to defy court orders, judges may need to begin holding his lawyers and aides in contempt. Chief Justice Roberts, as well as his Supreme Court colleagues, may have to become bolder about protecting the legal system they oversee. Law firm leaders would do well to summon more patriotism and courage. Members of Congress can do the same by asserting their own constitutional powers.

Mr. Trump, for all his bluster, does sometimes respond to political and legal pressure and pull back in the face of opposition. The more people who come forward to defend the Constitution, the greater their chances of success will be.

ONLINE: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/03/22/opinion/law-firms-judges-intimidation.html

___

March 21 – The Wall Street Journal on Trump’s gambit with the SCOTUS

President Trump downplayed Chief Justice John Roberts's statement Tuesday in defense of the judiciary, but the President had better be careful. The White House strategy of bashing judges and jamming the Supreme Court could backfire in spectacular fashion.

Guessing the thinking at the High Court is a fraught exercise. But if there's one thing we've learned about the Chief Justice in his nearly two decades at the Court it's that he hates being dragged into political fights. He prizes the reputation of the Court as a neutral arbiter of the law and protector of the Constitution.

Yet on Tuesday the Chief had little choice but to speak up for the judiciary after Mr. Trump called for the impeachment of district court Judge James Boasberg. As the judiciary's top man, the Chief has to defend the third branch of government from marauding by the political branches. The Chief's statement released by the Court was a matter-of-fact summary of the law, but we'll bet he was none too pleased with being drawn into the fray.

Mr. Trump told Fox News the next day that his Administration would never defy a court order, which we hope is true. But a day later he was taunting the High Court again on Truth Social over lower-court rulings.

"It is our goal to MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN, and such a high aspiration can never be done if Radical and Highly Partisan Judges are allowed to stand in the way of JUSTICE," Mr. Trump wrote. "If Justice Roberts and the United States Supreme Court do not fix this toxic and unprecedented situation IMMEDIATELY, our Country is in very serious trouble!"

The Chief knows, and our readers should expect, that this is only the beginning of a tough period for the Court. Mr. Trump, guided by aides Russ Vought and Stephen Miller, is deliberately pushing the boundaries of the law to achieve their policy goals. They are inviting legal challenges, often deliberately, that they hope will make it to the High Court and vindicate their views.

Some of these legal projects coincide with long-time themes of the Chief and some of his fellow Justices. As James Taranto writes nearby, the Chief has made a cause of restoring the proper understanding of executive power under the Constitution. The Chief wrote the landmark majority opinions that upheld Mr. Trump's travel ban in the first term and partial presidential immunity in 2024.

This project now means cleaning up such constitutional anomalies as Humphrey's Executor (1935), which said a President couldn't fire members of an independent agency without legal cause. Mr. Trump's firings of Federal Trade Commissioners and a National Labor Relations Board member seem likely to make it to the High Court.

But other Trump priorities will be closer calls, especially regarding the Court's so-called emergency docket. That's when the government wants the Justices to weigh in at an early stage of a case, say, to uphold or overturn a lower-court injunction or ruling. This is why Mr. Trump and the MAGA media are howling at Chief Justice Roberts to overrule Judge Boasberg on the expulsion of Venezuelan gang members under the rarely used Alien Enemies Act.

Yet the more Mr. Trump berates the Chief, the more the Chief will look like he's bending to political pressure if the Court does rule in emergency fashion. The Chief hates being put in this position, and Justice Amy Coney Barrett has made clear she thinks the Court should use the emergency docket sparingly.

Mr. Trump may find the more he speaks up the more the Court resists his demands. This isn't unlike his berating of the Federal Reserve to cut interest rates. This can make it harder for the Fed to cut lest it look vulnerable to political pressure.

All the more so if the Justices perceive that Mr. Trump is encouraging the MAGA-verse to attack the judiciary. Some Trump loyalists are already blaming the Chief for Judge Boasberg. They say he and Justice Barrett should have sent a stronger message to lower courts by overruling a lower-court decision on dispersing $2 billion in USAID funds. We thought the four dissenters on that case were right, but beating up the other Justices won't make them more likely to go along on the next one.

Mr. Trump might also think about whether he wants another Supreme Court appointment or two. Clarence Thomas is 76 and Samuel Alito turns 75 on April 1. Both will face a choice of whether to resign during the Trump Presidency or risk another election cycle.

Neither one is likely to resign if he lacks confidence in Mr. Trump's judgment about who might be his successor. They have too much respect for the law, and the Court, to resign if they think Mr. Trump will nominate a results-first, law-second legal hack.

The irony of Mr. Trump's judicial taunts is that he has a Supreme Court more favorable to his claimed constitutional views than any President in memory. Three of the Justices were his choices, and all were good ones. He's more likely to get the results he wants if he trusts their judgment.

ONLINE: https://www.wsj.com/opinion/donald-trump-supreme-court-john-roberts-james-boasberg-95419a99?mod=editorials_article_pos5

___

March 24 – The Boston Globe asks if the Trump Administration is abandoning Ukrainian children abducted by Russia

Ukrainian children abducted by Russian forces during the three-year war have become among the first victims in President Trump's so-called peace process.

Many of the Ukrainian children - numbering nearly 20,000 - were taken from their families by Russian troops early in the invasion and sent to live in Russia as part of what seemed an attempt at the Russification of the population by President Vladimir Putin. The abductions, experts say, are ongoing.

A Yale University-based research team has been tracking the whereabouts of the children, sharing its data with the International Criminal Court. The Hague-based court is still collecting evidence of war crimes against Putin and has issued arrest warrants for him in connection with the child abductions.

But now the team's work has been effectively shut down by the Trump administration, and its invaluable database -including satellite imagery and biometric data tracking the identities of the children - is no longer publicly available, its whereabouts unknown.

Abducting children as a weapon of war is criminal. The government's attempts to erase evidence of that crime are shameful. And yet here we are.

A bipartisan group of 17 congressmen, led by Democratic Representative Greg Landsman of Ohio and including Massachusetts Representative Jim McGovern, has appealed to Secretary of State Marco Rubio to reverse course.

In a letter to Rubio and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the group noted that the abductions are "ongoing" and that the Yale School of Public Health Humanitarian Research Lab "had been preserving evidence of abducted children from Ukraine it had identified, to be shared with Europol (the European Union's law enforcement agency) and the government of Ukraine to secure their return. Yale HRL's funding has been terminated and the status of the secure evidence repository is unknown. This vital resource cannot be lost."

The children, according to a December report issued by the group that is still available, ranged in age from 2 to 17 at the time they were taken. They included stories like that of the girl called by the pseudonym Lyubov, who said she only learned that she had been permanently placed in a Russian household "after her arrival in their home. She had thought that she would be returned to Ukraine after she temporarily stayed with citizens of Russia and was shocked to find out that she would be living with them until she came of age."

And then there was Vika who said that she did not want to be placed with "citizens of Russia but believed that if she refused, her younger siblings would be separated from her and placed in a boarding school."

The researchers carefully documented the routes used to transport the children, including "midpoint locations," called "temporary accommodation centers" in Russian media, which were in fact reeducation camps.

The Yale researchers found children in Russia's forced adoption program were "systematically naturalized as Russian citizens" and "exposed to pro-Russia re-education."

One state-run institution "dedicated a week to 'form in children ideas about our Motherland, its heroic past,' where children attended lectures about Russia's history." Others, nearing fighting age, were declared "orphans" - whether they had parents back in Ukraine or not - and immediately placed in cadet training.

Work on the Yale database was first halted when Trump froze all foreign aid spending by executive order. Later a State Department official named Peter Marocco - best known for his first assignment, shutting down the United States Agency for International Development - ended the contract. The Yale lab was among several recipients sharing in a $26 million congressionally approved three-year expenditure aimed at tracking Russian war crimes in Ukraine.

"Surrender on this front will result in the total abandonment of at least 30,000 innocent children from Ukraine," the congressmen wrote. "Our government is providing an essential service - one that does not require the transfer of weapons or cash to Ukraine - in pursuit of the noble goal of rescuing these children. We must, immediately, resume the work to help Ukraine bring these children home."

Where the data currently resides remains something of a mystery. But the nonprofit Bedford-based MITRE Corporation, which owns the platform on which it was run, issued a statement Wednesday saying the State Department had formally terminated all work on the project Feb. 26, The New York Times reported. That would have been two days before Trump's White House ambush of President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine.

The company said that "to the best of its knowledge" the data still exists and is being maintained "by a former partner on this contract," though it did not name that partner.

The issue attracted international attention after the story of the halting of the Yale program initially broke in the British publication The i Paper.

The Yale researches say they are fund-raising to keep their work going. But the Trump administration has dealt them a huge setback. The real tragedy is that information generated by the Yale program was shared in real time with the Ukrainian government and passed along to such organizations as the Ukraine-based Bring Kids Back UA, which has reported rescuing 1,243 children so far.

It is difficult not to view the State Department's actions as anything other than an attempt to appease Putin, perhaps as a prelude to negotiations on ending the three-year war in Ukraine. But this is not ground that the Trump administration should be yielding.

To steal children is a crime. To ignore that crime is to be complicit in it. To not restart this program would be a lasting stain on this nation's soul.

ONLINE: https://www.bostonglobe.com/2025/03/24/opinion/trump-ukraine-abducted-children-putin-russia/

___

March 21 – The Guardian say Putin has shown he does not want peace

As attention focused on diplomatic efforts to end the war in Ukraine this week, the UN human rights office published a powerful reminder of its horrors. A new report on children's lives since the Russian invasion was prefaced with a nursery director's description of their response to shelling: "Some children fall to their knees - their legs do not move because they are afraid. There are no tears, no crying or screaming, the child just freezes. One child stood there holding a toy and did not let go of it all day."

These are the survivors. Hundreds of children have been killed since February 2022. Hundreds of thousands are internally displaced, and 1.7 million are refugees, many of them separated from a parent. At least 200 have been forcibly taken to Russia. Ukraine matters - not just strategically, but humanely.

The US decision to terminate a programme tracking these abducted children is a telling indication of supreme carelessness or callousness about the fate of Ukraine and its people. Vladimir Putin's maximalist demands in his call with Donald Trump this week underlined that he does not desire peace. The US secretary of state, Marco Rubio, had previously observed that Ukraine's agreement to a ceasefire put the onus on Russia: "If they say no, we'll know what the impediment is to peace here."

Mr Putin offered a halt on attacks on energy infrastructure if Kyiv did the same (a gesture rather than a concession, with the winter drawing to an end) while declaring that peace would require the complete cessation of foreign military aid and intelligence provision to Ukraine. The impediment is obvious. But Mr Trump has little grasp of detail, his "deal-making" prowess is self-declared, and he has long been drawn to Mr Putin.

Ukraine will at least be in Saudi Arabia for parallel talks when the US speaks to Russia next week. It has won a place at the table, or a table. But it is still on the menu. Even as Kyiv attempts to attract the US president with minerals, and avoid alienating him over issues such as his new desire to take over nuclear plants, Russia appears to be outflanking US negotiators. Moscow offers improved economic relations as if that was its gift and not its goal, and is aided by the US right's fantasies that Mr Putin will turn his back on China. Bilateral relations are already thawing.

The security guarantee that Europe wanted has not materialised. If the US cuts off military aid and intelligence to Ukraine again, the consequences would be immense. But Washington can't force Kyiv to accept a ceasefire - or force Europe to abandon Ukraine. European leaders have recognised that they may shape, but cannot determine, the actions of Mr Trump - but can decide how they respond. That is clear not only through this week's discussions on a possible "reassurance force" in the event of a ceasefire, but more generally as Europe contemplates a future without US security assurances. Germany's ditching of the debt brake to turbocharge military spending was only the headline.

Russia's threat looms far larger for some than others. Domestic opinion and priorities vary widely. Strategically, leaders differ on whether to prioritise the building up of regional strength or shoring up transatlantic ties. They will differ too on where else to build partnerships. These questions are becoming more acute. The answers will shape the lives of coming generations well beyond Ukraine.

ONLINE: https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/21/the-guardian-view-on-trump-and-ukraine-putin-has-shown-he-does-not-want-peace