Pepper…and Salt

The Trump administration is accusing Columbia University of violating Title VI, a federal law that bars discrimination based on race or national origin, and has alerted the school's accreditor. The move puts Columbia’s accreditation at risk, with officials claiming the university no longer meets the required standards.

Editor’s Note: Accreditation is a big deal—it affects everything from federal funding to student financial aid. If Columbia loses it, the school’s reputation and operations could take a major hit. This also signals a broader push by the administration to scrutinize universities over compliance with federal anti-discrimination laws, which could ripple across higher ed.

Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene is raising concerns about a sneaky little detail tucked into the "One Big Beautiful Bill Act"—a 10-year ban on states regulating AI. She claims she would’ve voted against the bill if she’d known about it, calling it a power grab that stifles local control over emerging tech.

Editor’s Note: This isn’t just another political squabble—it’s about who gets to call the shots on AI, a technology that’s reshaping everything from jobs to privacy. If the feds block states from setting their own rules, it could mean a one-size-fits-all approach to AI, for better or worse. Greene’s outcry highlights how big decisions often slip through unnoticed in massive bills.

A report from the Center for Practical Federalism reveals that several states continue to enforce gender-identity policies for 4-H camps—policies that were originally scrapped during the Trump administration. These rules involve grouping kids and adult counselors by gender identity rather than biological sex, sparking controversy. Critics argue this approach is inappropriate, while supporters see it as inclusive.

Editor’s Note: This story taps into the ongoing culture wars around gender and youth programs. It matters because 4-H is a federally funded organization with deep roots in rural America, making its policies a flashpoint for broader debates about government influence, parental rights, and how institutions handle identity. Whether you see this as overreach or progress likely depends on your stance—but either way, it’s fueling tensions.

The Trump administration is taking aim at Columbia University's accreditation, marking a major escalation in the government's ongoing clash with the prestigious Ivy League school. This isn't just bureaucratic nitpicking—it's a direct challenge that could undermine Columbia's standing and funding.

Editor’s Note: Accreditation is like a university's seal of approval—losing it would be a huge blow to Columbia's reputation and students' access to federal aid. This move signals a broader battle over who controls academic standards and could set a precedent for how the government interacts with elite institutions. It’s not just about Columbia; it’s about power, politics, and the future of higher ed.

A federal judge has dismissed the case against former Trump adviser Peter Navarro, who was accused of using a private email for official government business and improperly handling presidential records. The case is now closed without further legal action.

Editor’s Note: This might seem like just another legal footnote in the post-Trump era, but it highlights the ongoing scrutiny over how government officials handle sensitive information. Navarro’s case was one of several involving former administration officials accused of sidestepping record-keeping rules—so while this particular chapter is over, the broader debate over transparency and accountability isn’t.