The US government threatened Wednesday to strip New York’s Columbia University of its accreditation for allegedly ignoring harassment of Jewish students, putting all of its federal funding and prestige at risk.With the move, the administration of President Donald Trump appeared to be doubling down on its efforts to bring several prestigious universities to heel over claims they tolerated campus anti-Semitism during protests against Israel’s war in Gaza.Several top institutions, including Columbia University, have already bowed to far-reaching demands from the Trump administration, which claims that the educational elite is too left-wing.”Columbia University looked the other way as Jewish students faced harassment,” US Education Secretary Linda McMahon said on X.She accused the reputable Ivy League school of “breaking Title VI protections,” referring to a national law that prohibits recipients of federal funding from discriminating on the basis of race, color, or national origin.”After Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University’s leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus,” McMahon said in a statement.- ‘Immoral’ -“This is not only immoral, but also unlawful.”In the statement, the US Education Department said its civil rights office had contacted Columbia’s accreditor about the alleged violation.It said it had notified the Middle States Commission on Higher Education that “its member institution, Columbia University, is in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws and therefore fails to meet the standards for accreditation set by the Commission.” Withdrawing Columbia’s accreditation would see it lose access to all federal funds.Students attending the university would also not be able to receive federal grants and loans towards tuition.Critics accuse the Trump administration of using allegations of anti-Semitism to target educational elites and bring universities to their knees.The Trump administration has already put $400 million of Columbia’s funding under review, prompting the university in March to announce a package of concessions to the government around defining anti-Semitism, policing protests and conducting oversight for specific academic departments.Following Wednesday’s announcement, a Columbia spokesperson said the university “aware of the concerns” raised by the government with its accreditor.”We have addressed those concerns directly with Middle States,” the spokesperson said, adding that “Columbia is deeply committed to combating anti-Semitism on our campus.””We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it.”Columbia found itself at the center of a firestorm last year over claims of anti-Semitism triggered by campus protests against the war in Gaza.Some Jewish students claimed they were intimidated and that authorities did not act to protect them.The protests that roiled Columbia and other US schools culminated in members of Trump’s Republican party grilling higher education leaders before Congress about anti-Semitism accusations.Columbia’s former president Minouche Shafik resigned last August just weeks before the start of the new school year, citing scrutiny she faced over her handling of the demonstrations.

Donald Trump’s sweeping domestic policy bill has careened into an Elon Musk-shaped brick wall, complicating its passage into law and risking a schism between the most powerful man in the world and the wealthiest.The US president’s “big, beautiful bill” — the centerpiece of his domestic agenda — could define his second term and make or break Republican prospects in the 2026 midterm elections.But the package is getting a rough ride in Congress over proposals to fund an extension of his 2017 tax cuts by piling on debt and cutting social welfare for the poorest Americans.  Enter tech billionaire Musk, who dropped a nuclear bomb on the 1,100-page blueprint at a crucial stage in negotiations Tuesday, calling it a “disgusting abomination.”And on Wednesday he called for Republicans to “kill the bill,” and for an alternative plan that “doesn’t massively grow the deficit.”In its latest estimate released Wednesday, the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office said the bill would add $2.4 trillion to US debt by 2034.Musk, who last week ended his brief advisory tenure as Trump’s cost-cutter-in-chief, tore into the bill in a prolonged denouncement.The South African-born tycoon has voiced concerns before, but his language was much more combative, coming across as a declaration of war on the Republican Party, if not Trump himself.The White House brushed off the criticism, saying Trump “already knows where Elon Musk stood,” but the remarks will likely have gotten under the president’s skin.- ‘Lennon and McCartney’ -The stakes could hardly be higher for Trump, who has made clear, with signature hyperbole, that he sees his bill as “arguably the most significant piece of legislation that will ever be signed.”He has yet to respond personally to Musk’s social media rant — sustained over six hours and 13 posts on Tuesday and still going well into Wednesday.But Washington watchers aren’t necessarily expecting a public falling-out. Behind the scenes, a careful circling of the wagons is underway, with pro-Trump pundits under orders to refrain from trashing Musk and to instead frame his broadside as what Politico called “principled self-interest.”Still, for analysts contacted by AFP, there may be choppier waters ahead.”It’s the Lennon and McCartney of modern politics. Two egos, one spotlight, and a fragile alliance built on mutual benefits,” said Evan Nierman, the founder and CEO of global crisis PR firm Red Banyan.”The moment either one sees more upside in conflict than cooperation, the breakup goes public.”But political consultant and former Senate aide Andrew Koneschusky, a key player in negotiations over Trump’s 2017 tax cuts, believes the Republican leader has nothing to gain by biting back.”Musk has more money. Musk’s megaphone, X, is bigger than Trump’s. And Musk was deeply embedded in the administration for months,” he told AFP. “There’s no telling what Musk heard or saw that could be embarrassing or problematic for the administration if the two were to go to war.”- ‘Bromance’ -Crucially, Musk slammed right-wing lawmakers who voiced concerns over debt but cleared the bill for Senate consideration anyway — almost the entire 220-strong House Republican group.Musk, who spent around $280 million getting Trump elected, undoubtedly has the cash to make his mark on the midterms. And the de facto leader of America’s “tech bro” community demonstrated his political firepower with a single tweet in December that blew up a government funding bill that had enjoyed bipartisan support.His take on the deficit implications of Trump’s proposals is evidenced by copious independent research and he was immediately backed by some fiscal hawks in the Senate. Continued interventions by Musk could be an ongoing headache for Trump, as he bids to shepherd his policy priorities through razor-thin Republican majorities in Congress.But cheerleaders of the package — and independent analysts contacted by AFP — believe the Tesla magnate may discover that his celebrity in Trumpworld relies on the say-so of its mercurial chieftain. “Musk may have had influence in December when his bromance with Trump was in full bloom,” said Donald Nieman, a political analyst and professor at Binghamton University in New York state. “But his break with Trump and his massive unpopularity with voters makes it easy for lawmakers to ignore him. If anything, it helps Trump by distancing him from a man who has become a pariah.”

A prosecutor told jurors at Hollywood mogul Harvey Weinstein’s rape and sexual assault trial Wednesday that “no means no” as they prepared to consider his fate.A New York state appeals court had thrown out Weinstein’s 2020 convictions after irregularities in the presentation of witnesses at his original trial, forcing two victims of his alleged abuse to testify a second time.”He raped three women, they all said no,” said prosecutor Nicole Blumberg as she recounted the evidence of the three alleged victims of Weinstein who testified at this trial.The Hollywood powerbroker had “all the power” and “all the control” over the alleged victims which is why jurors should find him guilty, she said.”The defendant thought the rules did not apply to him, now it is the time to let him know that the rules apply to him.”There is no reasonable doubt, tell the defendant what he already knows — that he is guilty of the three crimes.”Weinstein’s defense attorney insisted the sexual encounters were consensual, pointing to a “casting couch” dynamic between the movie mogul and the women.”We don’t want to police the bedroom” — except in cases of rape, Blumberg fired back.Judge Curtis Farber indicated that he would give his instructions to the jurors Thursday morning, the final step before they withdraw behind closed doors to deliberate.- ‘MeToo’ movement -Weinstein, the producer of box-office hits “Pulp Fiction” and “Shakespeare in Love,” has never acknowledged wrongdoing.The cinema magnate, whose downfall in 2017 sparked the global #MeToo movement, has been on trial again since April 15 in a scruffy Manhattan courtroom.He is serving a 16-year prison sentence after being convicted in California of raping and assaulting a European actress more than a decade ago.Two of the accusers in this case — onetime production assistant Miriam Haley and then-aspiring actress Jessica Mann — testified at Weinstein’s original trial.Their accounts helped galvanize the #MeToo movement nearly a decade ago, but the case is being re-prosecuted at a new trial in New York.His 2020 convictions on charges relating to Haley and Mann, and his 23-year prison term, were overturned last year by the New York Court of Appeals.The tribunal ruled that the way witnesses were handled in the original trial was unlawful.Some 20 years after the earliest incidents were alleged to have taken place, Weinstein’s defense team have sought to cast doubt on the credibility of the accusers. Weinstein has appeared daily in a wheelchair, physically subdued, but laughing and joking with his legal team.He did not speak at his trial, which also featured a new charge of sexual assault committed against former Polish model Kaja Sokola.

A woman told US jurors Wednesday that hip-hop mogul Sean “Diddy” Combs dangled her over a 17th-story balcony before throwing her onto furniture in an attack that left her traumatized and bruised.Bryana Bongolan testified in the music icon’s ongoing federal criminal trial in New York that she was staying over with her friend Casanda “Cassie” Ventura — Combs’s ex and a key trial witness who recently delivered searing testimony of abuse and coercion.While she was at Ventura’s place, Combs burst into the apartment and seized Bongolan on the balcony.Bongolan, a designer, said Combs repeatedly shouted with expletives that “you know what you did” — and she said she repeatedly told him she did not.The witness also recounted an incident when she saw Combs hurl a knife at Ventura, which Bongolan said Ventura then threw back at him.Bongolan told prosecutors she did not go to the police out of fear: “I was just scared of Puff,” she told the court, using another nickname for Combs.But a defense lawyer for the musician, who faces racketeering and sex trafficking charges, cast Bongolan as a drug abuser and unreliable witness whose story was shifting.Bongolan is among dozens of people who have filed civil suits against Combs in recent years, legal action she told jurors she took “because I wanted to seek justice for what happened to me on the balcony.”Bongolan, who remains friends with Ventura, says the incident left her with post-traumatic stress, including recurring night terrors and paranoia: “Sometimes I scream in my sleep,” she told jurors. Defense attorney Nicole Westmoreland bluntly indicated that Bongolan was lying, and implied that the witness had compared notes with Ventura to get their stories straight as the two filed separate civil suits against Combs.Ventura alleged that she suffered harrowing abuse under Combs, her former on-and-off partner of more than a decade, opening the floodgates against the one-time music powerhouse when she first filed suit against him in November 2023.That suit was settled out of court in less than 24 hours.Westmoreland on Wednesday pushed the narrative that Bongolan’s heavy drug use, including with Ventura, clouded her memories of the alleged events.Bongolan was testifying under an immunity order that protects her from incrimination if she speaks truthfully.She frequently responded to Westmoreland by saying she could not remember every detail — and the occasionally brusque defense questioning of her will continue Thursday morning.Afterwards, the prosecution is expected to call Jane — long-anticipated testimony from a woman who will speak under a pseudonym in relation to one of the sex trafficking charges against Combs.- $100,000 in a paper bag -Combs, 55, faces upwards of life in prison if convicted of crimes of sex trafficking and racketeering. Prosecutors say he ran a criminal enterprise of high-ranking employees and bodyguards who enforced his power with illicit acts including kidnapping, bribery and arson. On Tuesday, a hotel security guard said he received $100,000 in a brown paper bag from Combs in exchange for now-infamous surveillance footage that showed the artist-entrepreneur violently kicking and dragging Ventura in a hotel.Jurors have repeatedly been shown the disturbing clip in open court.The security officer, Eddy Garcia, said he initially rebuffed an attempt from a Combs employee — Kristina Khorram, who has been described as the music heavyweight’s “right hand” — to obtain the video.After repeated calls, including from Combs himself, Garcia eventually agreed to sell the tape, with permission from his supervisor, who got a cut.”‘Eddy, my angel, I knew you could help. I knew you could do it,'” Garcia recounted Combs telling him.Garcia — who was also speaking under an immunity order — testified that he signed a non-disclosure agreement.Last week a former assistant speaking under the pseudonym Mia described violent acts Combs committed against her and also recalled many times that she saw him beat Ventura. Now in its fourth week of testimony, witnesses have included alleged victims, former high-ranking employees as well as assistants and law enforcement officials. The trial in Manhattan is expected to last well into the summer.

Social media outlet Reddit filed a lawsuit Wednesday against artificial intelligence company Anthropic, accusing the startup of illegally scraping millions of user comments to train its Claude chatbot without permission or compensation.The lawsuit in a California state court represents the latest front in the growing battle between content providers and AI companies over the use of data to train increasingly sophisticated language models that power the generative AI revolution.Anthropic, valued at $61.5 billion and heavily backed by Amazon, was founded in 2021 by former executives from OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. The company, known for its Claude chatbot and AI models, positions itself as focused on AI safety and responsible development.”This case is about the two faces of Anthropic: the public face that attempts to ingratiate itself into the consumer’s consciousness with claims of righteousness and respect for boundaries and the law, and the private face that ignores any rules that interfere with its attempts to further line its pockets,” the suit said.According to the complaint, Anthropic has been training its models on Reddit content since at least December 2021, with CEO Dario Amodei co-authoring research papers that specifically identified high-quality content for data training.The lawsuit alleges that despite Anthropic’s public claims that it had blocked its bots from accessing Reddit, the company’s automated systems continued to harvest Reddit’s servers more than 100,000 times in subsequent months.Reddit is seeking monetary damages and a court injunction to force Anthropic to comply with its user agreement terms. The company has requested a jury trial.In an email to AFP, Anthropic said “We disagree with Reddit’s claims and will defend ourselves vigorously.”Reddit has entered into licensing agreements with other AI giants including Google and OpenAI, which allow those companies to use Reddit content under terms that protect user privacy and provide compensation to the platform.Those deals have helped lift Reddit’s share price since it went public in 2024. Reddit shares closed up more than six percent on Wednesday following news of the lawsuit.Musicians, book authors, visual artists and news publications  have sued the various AI companies that used their data without permission or payment.AI companies generally defend their practices by claiming fair use, arguing that training AI on large datasets fundamentally changes the original content and is necessary for innovation.Though most of these lawsuits are still in early stages, their outcomes could have a profound effect on the shape of the AI industry.