The Trump administration is making an example of Columbia University. Widely regarded as the American campus most prone to violent and disruptive anti-Israel activism, the school has seen $400 million in federal grants revoked, and a noncitizen graduate now faces deportation for “activities aligned to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization.” Columbia’s response to these actions, in turn, is setting a precedent—offering a glimpse into how elite institutions may navigate unprecedented government pressure to comply with federal law.
Rather than addressing the rampant discrimination against Jews on its campus, Columbia is mounting a campaign to turn public opinion against the administration. The university appears to be engaging in “malicious compliance,” responding to government demands in a way designed to make those demands seem unreasonable. The Trump administration should refuse to take the bait and instead make clear that its priorities are unobjectionable: curbing law-breaking and vicious anti-Semitism at the school.
Finally, a reason to check your email.
Sign up for our free newsletter today.
First, Columbia’s response to the federal funding cuts closely resembles the “Washington Monument” strategy. When faced with budget reductions, government agencies often move to slash the most visible and popular services—like access to the Washington Monument—to provoke public outcry. Likewise, Columbia staff have taken to social media to highlight the cuts’ impact, particularly the potential loss of scientific research, in an effort to rally public sympathy.
Columbia could easily offset these cuts by tapping into its $15 billion endowment, a third of which is said to be unrestricted. Better yet, it could reallocate resources from departments—like Middle Eastern studies and gender studies—that have been taken over by the very radicals who contributed to this predicament. While shifting funds might not be easy, if these research areas are as vital as Columbia claims, then it’s ultimately a matter of priorities.
Second, Columbia is reportedly harassing students who have written anti-Israel op-eds in school newspapers. According to some reports, Columbia’s Office of Institutional Equity—a name that suggests something less than good-faith compliance—has begun investigating students for expressing views that “may have subjected other students to ‘unwelcome conduct’” based on national origin.
Nowhere does President Trump’s executive order on combating anti-Semitism require this response. In fact, the order explicitly states that Title VI enforcement “shall not diminish or infringe upon any right protected . . . under the First Amendment.”
At best, Columbia’s approach seems to be a clumsy extension of the same speech-policing policies universities have used in recent years to regulate discussions on race and gender. At worst, it is textbook malicious compliance: the government demanded action against anti-Semitism, so the university is making martyrs out of those exercising their right to free expression.
What makes this response particularly egregious is that a straightforward alternative is readily available. Columbia could address its discrimination problem by identifying and expelling the students who have illegally occupied campus buildings, defaced property, and even assaulted security officers. This approach requires no speech policing and would instead hold accountable those directly responsible for harassing and intimidating Jewish and Israeli students.
Unfortunately, Columbia has been slow to expel students who violated school rules and committed minor crimes in their anti-Israel activism, even as it has eagerly investigated op-ed writers—a glaring double standard.
Finally, leaders at the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism reportedly warned noncitizen students to “avoid publishing work on Gaza, Ukraine and protests related to their former classmate’s arrest.” This falsely equates writing about a controversial topic with engaging in lawless acts to advance the interests of terrorist groups, as detained Columbia graduate Mahmoud Khalil allegedly did.
The goal is clearly to make the Trump administration look like it is targeting speech, not unlawful and disorderly actions. But the message to students should be far simpler: don’t openly espouse terrorism. That’s wise counsel for citizens and noncitizens alike.
The Trump administration has rightly responded to Columbia’s malicious compliance with clear guidance. It should continue demonstrating that its focus is not on punishing scientists, op-ed writers, or journalism students, but on getting the university to address its discrimination problem at the root, as it explained in a letter sent on Thursday. That means expelling students who took part in illegal encampments, occupations, and vandalism; terminating faculty who participated; rolling back programs that have fostered anti-Semitism; and reviewing admissions practices to understand how Columbia became a hub for bigotry, lawlessness, and terrorist sympathies.
Rather than swiftly addressing civil rights violations, Columbia has chosen to throw a tantrum. Its reaction only confirms that the university deserves every consequence coming its way.
Photo by Islam Dogru/Anadolu via Getty Images
