An aversion to tax increases has long been one of the Republican Party’s core pillars, but tradition was upended in recent weeks as discussions of a potential new millionaires’ tax hike hit Capitol Hill.

It’s baffled some members of the GOP’s old guard, though Republican operatives who spoke with Fox News Digital were less surprised. They said those conversations were largely ushered in by the party’s growing populist wing.

‘I’m not sure if I’m surprised anymore, because the party has changed so much in just a short period of time. But it is noteworthy,’ longtime GOP strategist Doug Heye told Fox News Digital. 

Heye recalled his time as a senior House leadership aide in 2012, when a Republican proposal for a uniform tax rate for people making under $1 million per year was blown up ‘by a rebellion within our own ranks’ over raising taxes.

‘It all exploded in our faces,’ he said. ‘And now this is what more and more of those Republicans who rejected the idea in 2012 want to do.’

Sources told Fox News Digital this month that the White House was socializing a plan among Republicans to create a new 40% tax bracket for people making more than $1 million.

Various reported plans floated among House Republicans included raising taxes on the ultra-wealthy to rates between 38% and 40%. 

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has been seeking to quash that this week, even posting a purported message from President Donald Trump himself on X that said, ‘If you can do without it, you’re probably better off trying to do so.’

Fox News Digital reached out to the White House on Wednesday morning for comment on Gingrich’s note, including the context of the message and why Trump described that he would ‘love’ increasing taxes, but did not receive a reply.

The top income tax rate is currently about 37% on $609,351 in earnings for a single person or $731,201 for married couples. It was lowered from just over 39% by Trump’s 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

‘The politics are good for raising taxes on wealthy Americans,’ said John Feehery, a partner at EFB Advocacy and veteran of House GOP leadership staff. ‘The downside is it does have an impact on economic growth. So if you want the cheap political score, that’s the way to go. On the other hand, if you want a solid economy where people are working, you want to be careful on how you do that.’

Asked if the discussions caught him off guard, Feehery said, ‘I’m not surprised by it because Trump is such a populist, and he has a lot of folks who are populist.’

He signaled the appeal of higher taxes for the wealthy was born from that shift.

‘If you look at the constituencies, the biggest constituency, it’s really interesting because the parties have kind of changed,’ he continued. ‘It used to be the country-club Republicans and working-class Democrats; now it’s working-class Republicans and country-club Democrats.’

Heye said when asked about the increase in tax hike talks, ‘I think it’s a mixture of Trump and populism.’

‘Raising taxes used to be an anathema to Republicans, and you know, when George Bush did it after saying ‘Read my lips,’ that was the beginning of the end of his presidency,’ Heye said. ‘That world just doesn’t exist anymore.’

House GOP leaders have publicly made clear that they’re opposed to raising taxes on anyone. But Republicans must find a way to pass Trump’s budget, including new tax policies eliminating duties on tipped and overtime wages, while meeting conservatives’ demand to cut at least $1.5 trillion in government spending to make up for it.

House Freedom Caucus Chair Andy Harris, R-Md., previously signaled that he is open to the idea if spending cuts can’t be reached by other means.

‘What I’d like to do is, I’d actually like to find spending reductions elsewhere in the budget, but if we can’t get enough spending reductions, we’re going to have to pay for our tax cuts,’ Harris told ‘Mornings with Maria’ on FOX Business last week.

‘Before the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act, the highest tax bracket was 39.6%; it was less than $1 million. Ideally, what we could do – again, if we can’t find spending reductions – we say, ‘OK, let’s restore that higher bracket, let’s set it at maybe $2 million income and above’ to help pay for the rest of the president’s agenda.’

Rep. Dan Meuser, R-Pa., similarly floated raising the top tax bracket to 38.6%.

He later told Fox News Digital in a statement, ‘I believe we must help the president deliver on his promise of a tax and regulatory plan that supports pro-American economic and manufacturing growth, and delivers for the vast majority of Americans – while creating savings and promoting fiscal responsibility. Any adjustments in taxes to accomplish these goals should be considered.’

Both Meuser and Harris declined to provide more comment for this story.

Former Vice President Mike Pence, who refers to the 2017 tax cuts as the ‘Trump-Pence tax cuts,’ last week urged House Republicans to stand firm against raising taxes on the country’s top earners and to make the 2017 tax cuts permanent. 

One House GOP lawmaker told Fox News Digital last week that reaction among their colleagues to possible tax hikes was ‘mixed.’

But a former Republican member was skeptical on Wednesday.

‘Raising taxes is a short-term high, which ultimately does more harm than good,’ the former House Republican said. ‘This strategy is contrary to conservative values.’

Meanwhile, Marc Goldwein, senior policy director at the nonpartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget, said it was ‘healthy’ that lawmakers are entertaining fiscal ideas outside their party norms.

He was wary about the push for a tax hike, however.

‘I’m not a fan of doing things that look fiscally good at the same time that you’re doing things that actually are fiscally bad … on top of that, I don’t think raising tax rates is the best way to raise revenue,’ Goldwein said. ‘But with those two things said, I think it is very healthy move that the GOP kind of is talking about that rates actually can go in both directions.’

Fox News Digital reached out to Gingrich for an interview for this story but did not receive a response.

Fox News Digital’s Emma Colton contributed to this report.

Sen. John Fetterman, D-Pa., is continuing to advocate for the destruction of Iran’s nuclear program.

‘Waste that s—,’ the lawmaker declared to the Washington Free Beacon. ‘You’re never going to be able to negotiate with that kind of regime that has been destabilizing the region for decades already, and now we have an incredible window, I believe, to do that, to strike and destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities.’

‘Years ago, I completely understood why Trump withdrew from the Obama deal. Today, I can’t understand why Trump would negotiate with this diseased regime. The negotiations should be comprised of 30,000-pound bombs and the IDF,’ Fetterman noted, according to the outlet. The IDF is the Israel Defense Forces.

Fox News Digital reached out to Fetterman’s office to request a comment from the senator on Thursday morning but did not receive a response by the time of publication.

The lawmaker, who is a staunch supporter of Israel, had already been calling for the elimination of Iran’s nuclear program.

Fetterman declared last week in a post on X, ‘The only purpose of Iran’s nuclear program is to create weapons. We can’t allow that or negotiate with this regime. Provide our comprehensive military support and whatever else Israel requires to destroy Iran’s capabilities.’

President Donald Trump noted earlier this week that he had spoken to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

‘I’ve just spoken to Prime Minister of Israel, Bibi Netanyahu, relative to numerous subjects including Trade, Iran, etc. The call went very well – We are on the same side of every issue,’ Trump said in a Tuesday post on Truth Social.

Fetterman declared in part of an X post in January, ‘Whatever remains of Iran’s nuclear program needs to be destroyed and I fully support efforts to do so.’

The Trump administration is warning of ‘serious consequences’ over Russia’s plans to open a naval base in war-torn Sudan. News of the development of the base has triggered an unusual warning from the State Department, Fox News Digital was told.

A State Department spokesperson told Fox News Digital, ‘We encourage all countries, including Sudan, to avoid any transactions with Russia’s defense sector.’

The Kremlin appears to be desperate to join the Horn of Africa global powers ‘naval club,’ with its approved plans for a base for warships and nuclear-powered submarines at Port Sudan. This is not far down the Indian Ocean coast from Djibouti, where there are U.S. and Chinese bases. With the new Syrian government likely to kick the Russians out of their base in Tartus, Port Sudan would be Russia’s only foreign naval base.

‘Moscow views Sudan, because of its strategic location, as a logical place to expand Russia’s footprint into Africa, which Putin views as a key place of geopolitical confrontation with the United States and China,’ Rebekah Koffler, a strategic military intelligence analyst, told Fox News Digital. 

‘Russia views the U.S. and China as its top adversaries, with whom Moscow may in the long-term have a kinetic conflict. Hence, Putin wants intelligence and military capabilities stationed close to the U.S. Djibouti base and Chinese facilities,’ she said.

‘Given that the U.S. and China already have [a] naval presence off of the Horn of Africa,’ Koffler added, ‘Russia is looking at Port Sudan as a logistics hub for weapons transfers, storage of military hardware ammunition, all sorts of war-fighting capabilities.’

‘The potential Russian naval logistics facility in Sudan would support Russian power projection in the Red Sea and Indian Ocean,’ John Hardie, deputy director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD), told Fox News Digital. He added that ‘this issue has gained greater importance for Moscow, given the uncertainty over the future of its Tartus naval logistics facility.’

A Russian naval base in the Indian Ocean has strategic military implications — it’s a relatively short sailing distance to the Red Sea and the Suez Canal, a choke point through which an estimated 12% of the world’s shipping passes, while 61% of global oil tanker traffic is also said to use the canal. Koffler said this poses a significant security threat. 

‘If Russia perceives an impending escalation against Russia, let’s say in Ukraine — such as an impending deployment of NATO forces or draconian economic measures designed to tank [the] Russian economy — I would not rule out the possibility that Putin could authorize something disruptive to exploit the choke point and destabilize or disrupt global shipping, as a way of deterring Western actions threatening Russia.’

The deal permitting Moscow to build a military base has been given the green light, although there are serious logistical challenges involved. ‘The agreement between Sudan and Russia was finalized in February, following a meeting between Sudan’s Foreign Minister Ali Yusef Sharif and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Moscow,’ Koffler explained. 

Hence the strongly worded comments to Fox News Digital from the State Department that ‘the United States is aware of the reported deal between Russia and the SAF [Sudanese Armed Forces] on establishing a Russian naval facility on Sudan’s coast. We encourage all countries, including Sudan, to avoid any transactions with Russia’s defense sector, which could trigger serious consequences, potentially including sanctions on entities or individuals associated with those transactions.

‘Moving forward with such a facility or any other form of security cooperation with Russia would further isolate Sudan, deepen the current conflict, and risk further regional destabilization. ‘

On the (very) dry land that is Sudan, the situation Monday around the city of Al Fasher and the neighboring massive Zamzam refugee camp in the Darfur region is ‘horrifying,’ U.N. Assistant Secretary-General Tom Fletcher posted.

The civil war in Sudan, between the government’s SAF and the rebel Rapid Support Forces (RSF), has just passed its grisly second anniversary. Tens of thousands have been killed, and an estimated 13 million people have been uprooted from their homes. The U.N. describes it as the world’s worst humanitarian crisis, and UNICEF calls it ‘hell on earth.’

‘There can be no overstating the brutality and destructiveness of the RSF assault on Zamzam (refugee camp),’ Sudan researcher Eric Reeves told Fox News Digital this week. ‘The camp that has existed since 2004 is no longer, even as it had grown to more than 500,000 people.’

Ominously, Reeves added that ‘the real dying has only just begun. Nearly the entire population of Zamzam has fled, and in all directions the threat of RSF violence remains. This creates insecurity of a sort that prevents humanitarians from reaching these scattered people. Tremendous numbers will die either from RSF violence or the lack of food, water and shelter.’

Another 30 were reported killed on Tuesday in a fresh RSF attack on Al Fasher. And just this past week, the RSF rebels announced they are setting up their own government. The State Department told Fox News Digital, ‘The United States is deeply concerned about the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) and aligned actors’ declaration of a parallel government in Sudan. This attempt to establish a parallel government is unhelpful for the cause of peace and security and risks a de facto partition of the country.’

‘It will only further destabilize the country, threaten Sudan’s territorial integrity, and spread wider instability throughout the region. The United States has made clear that our interest is in the restoration of peace and an end to the threats the conflict in Sudan pose to regional stability. The best path to peace and stability is an immediate and durable cessation of hostilities so that the processes of establishing a civilian government and rebuilding the country can begin,’ the spokesperson said.

Caleb Weiss, editor of the FDD’s Long War Journal and also a Defections Program Manager at the Bridgeway Foundation, put some of the blame for not ending the Sudanese war on the Biden administration. He told Fox News Digital that it ‘stopped short of seriously facilitating any sort of meaningful peace talks/mediation/or being tough on outside backers of various groups to really get them to be serious in previous negotiation attempts. This is where the Biden administration failed.’ 

Elon Musk may be easing off his role at the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE ), but President Donald Trump isn’t easing off his praise. 

On Wednesday, Trump praised Musk’s smarts and patriotism during an executive order signing in the Oval Office, brushing off critics and defending the tech mogul’s work on federal reform.

‘He’s an incredible… brilliant guy,’ Trump said. ‘He was a tremendous help both in the campaign, and in what he’s done with DOGE.’

DOGE, launched in 2025, has served as a hallmark of Trump’s second-term agenda to cut waste, streamline federal agencies, and apply private-sector principles to federal operations. 

Musk’s informal advisory role in the effort has drawn both attention and criticism.

In an exchange with a reporter, Trump addressed what he described as unfair treatment of Musk and Tesla. ‘They took it out on Tesla, and I just thought it was so unfair because he’s trying to help the country, but he has helped the country… He didn’t need to do this. He did it,’ he said.

Trump’s remarks came as tensions have hit an all-time high for Musk’s electric vehicle company Tesla. 

A Kansas City dealership was recently firebombed, causing over $200,000 in damage. In Europe, a Tesla executive canceled a scheduled appearance in Rome over reported security threats. These incidents have occurred alongside ongoing protests at Tesla’s Berlin gigafactory.

Trump continued his praise, referencing Musk’s aerospace work with SpaceX: ‘When you see those rockets go up and come back and land in the same gantry, nobody else can do that but this man. So he’s just an incredible person, and he’s a friend of mine as a nice person too, as a very nice person.’

He also noted Musk’s broad technological contributions. ‘He’s a great patriot… he makes a great product… it’s a great car. It’s [a] great everything. Starlink is great. What he does is good. He’s doing medical things that are amazing.’

A recent Fox News poll shows that while 49% of Americans think DOGE will make the government more efficient, 52% believe the Trump administration has not been ‘competent and effective’ in managing federal operations — a sentiment unchanged from 2017.

Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard referred two intelligence community professionals to the Department of Justice for criminal prosecution Wednesday over alleged leaks of classified information, Fox News Digital has learned. 

An ODNI official told Fox News Digital that the intelligence community professionals allegedly leaked classified information to the Washington Post and the New York Times. A third criminal referral is ‘on its way’ to the DOJ. 

The official told Fox News Digital that intelligence community professionals should take the move ‘as a warning.’ 

‘Politicization of our intelligence and leaking classified information puts our nation’s security at risk and must end,’ Gabbard told Fox News Digital. ‘Those who leak classified information will be found and held accountable to the fullest extent of the law.’ 

‘Today, I referred two intelligence community leakers to the Department of Justice for criminal referral, with a third criminal referral on its way, which includes the recent illegal leak to the Washington Post,’ Gabbard said. ‘These deep-state criminals leaked classified information for partisan political purposes to undermine President Trump’s agenda.’ 

Gabbard added: ‘I look forward to working with the Department of Justice and the FBI to investigate, terminate and prosecute these criminals.’

An ODNI official said the move to refer for criminal prosecution is the first step in the process of ‘holding these individuals accountable.’ 

The official explained the process in their decision-making, telling Fox News Digital that they conducted an internal review and then sent the criminal referral to the Justice Department. The DOJ would then send the referral to the FBI to begin a formal, criminal investigation. 

‘We are aggressively investigating other leaks and will pursue further criminal referrals as warranted,’ the official told Fox News Digital. ‘Any intelligence community bureaucrat who is considering leaking to the media should take this as a warning.’ 

The official added that the Trump administration ‘will identify leakers and leakers will face legal consequences.’ 

Earlier this month, Gabbard established a new task force to restore transparency and accountability in the intelligence community. Fox News Digital first reported on the Director’s Initiative Group (DIG), which started by investigating weaponization within the intelligence community.

Officials said the group will also work to root out politicization and expose unauthorized disclosures of classified intelligence. In addition, it will work to declassify information ‘that serves a public interest.’ 

Gabbard also has held employees who participated in sexually explicit NSA chatrooms accountable, and is pursuing action on those who have made unauthorized leaks of classified information within the intelligence community. 

Much remains unknown regarding the progress of Washington’s nuclear talks with Iran, but the head of the U.N. nuclear watchdog, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), said the international community must ‘trust but verify’ that Tehran is engaging in good-faith negotiations. 

The U.S. and Iran are set to hold a third round of discussions on Saturday, which will deal with the technical aspects of Iran’s nuclear program, as well as political negotiations, according to reports. 

IAEA Director General Rafael Grossi has applauded the U.S.-Iran negotiations mediated by Oman, but said the top nuclear agency has not yet been asked to assist in the negotiations, though he has been in communication with Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff. 

‘I think there’s a general expectation that this goes well, and that the agreement is verified by the IAEA,’ Grossi told reporters from Washington, D.C., on Wednesday. ‘It’s good the United States and Iran have a direct conversation. Of course, there are parallel processes.

‘We have to keep our eyes on the ball. We must avoid Iran or prevent Iran from getting weapons. This is the objective.’

Grossi said that from the perspective of not only the top nuclear agency, but from world leaders he has been in communication with, there is a ‘degree of expectation’ that after the political agreements are hashed out between Washington and Tehran, it will be the IAEA that makes the nuclear terms ‘credible’ and ‘verifiable.’

‘They all are expecting the IAEA to step in at the right time,’ he said. ‘We are at their service to support, to make this thing credible. In a certain sense, they may have a political agreement, but then we have to make it verifiable.’ 

Fox News Digital obtained a copy of an address Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi — who traveled to China on Wednesday to reportedly discuss progress in the nuclear negotiations — was set to give at the Carnegie International Nuclear Policy Conference, though he never delivered the address due to format change requests by Tehran that were denied by the host. 

But in his address, he was set to position Iran as a proponent of nuclear non-proliferation and said Iran’s position had been ‘mischaracterized.’

Since the U.S.’ withdrawal from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), which Tehran has argued made the deal mute, Iran has significantly advanced its programs by stockpiling near-weapons-grade-enriched uranium to levels that, if further enriched, could produce five nuclear warheads, as well as its centrifuges and missile capabilities. 

When asked by Fox News Digital if Grossi assessed the Islamic Republic’s position to be honest, he said, ‘Trust, but verify. We need to verify.’

‘We are inspectors — that’s the only way we build trust,’ he added. 

Grossi said the administration needs to identify what the end goals of this latest deal will be, as the framework of the JCPOA — widely criticized by Trump — is now very dated due to the advancements Iran has made. 

Issues like uranium stockpiles, inventories, centrifuge advances and weaponization capabilities are all on the table in the U.S.-Iran negotiations. 

‘We have a much more complex field in front of us,’ Grossi warned. ‘The good thing is we know what we need to look at. We have a unique perspective of that.’ 

Several Supreme Court justices signaled sympathy Tuesday toward Maryland parents who are seeking to opt their children out of LGBTQ-themed classroom materials. One education expert said the case could lead to a ruling that expands parental rights in public schools nationwide. 

‘This looks pretty promising for the parent petitioners in this case,’ said Sarah Parshall Perry, vice president and legal fellow of the grassroots organization Defending Education. ‘I heard a lot of very aggressive questioning from the three liberal justices, but no matter how you slice this apple, it looks to be a very clear violation of the First Amendment, as exercised through the 14th Amendment’s right to direct a child’s religious upbringing.’

Perry previously served as the lead lawyer to the Assistant Secretary for Civil Rights at the U.S. Department of Education from 2020 to 2021, where she drafted the Office for Civil Rights’ (OCR) annual report to Congress.

‘They’re very malleable,’ Perry said of the 4-and 5-year-olds in the case. ‘They’re very much shaped by their environment, by what they’re exposed to, and they don’t have the meaningful agency to be able to opt out or object or push back. And so these individuals are learning their own familial values while being exposed to material that is, as Justice [Amy Coney] Barrett and Justice [Neil] Gorsuch pointed out, designed to influence their thinking.’

At the heart of Mahmoud v. Taylor is a lawsuit brought by religious parents—Muslim, Roman Catholic, and Ukrainian Orthodox—who argue that the school district’s policy violates their First Amendment rights by forcing their children to engage with instruction that contradicts their faith.

The Fourth Circuit Court, a federal appeals court, ruled last year that there was no violation of religious exercise rights, stating that the policy did not force parents to change their religious beliefs or conduct and that parents could still teach their children outside of school.

Several conservative justices, including Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, appeared sympathetic to the parents’ concerns during the two-and-a-half-hour oral debate. Alito questioned the moral messages conveyed by books like ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,’ suggesting that such content might conflict with deeply held religious beliefs. Justice Brett Kavanaugh also pressed the school district’s attorneys on why opt-out provisions, similar to those in sex education, could not be extended to these storybooks.

Meanwhile, the liberal justices argued that mere exposure to these books may not constitute coercion or a violation of religious freedoms. The school district contended that the policy promotes inclusivity and exposure to LGBTQ viewpoints does not equate to forced belief changes.

‘I think it was highly sort of predictable,’ Perry said of the liberal justices’ arguments. ‘They are trying to prove that there is going to be too much of a burden on the school district to allow these children to opt out because the consequences could, for example, be catastrophic for the ability of a public school to manage its own affairs.’

‘The reason we see an issue like this at the Supreme Court is because these are issues directly related to religious liberty and directly related to the very early cognitive stages of development for minor children,’ Perry said. ‘And it’s very clear … that a burden of religious liberty within public education has to be treated quite seriously by the court and deference must be given to religious parents if the burden is very clear.’

‘I think in this instance, it is indeed crystal clear,’ she added. 

Among the storybooks at the center of the case is ‘Prince & Knight,’ a modern fairy tale aimed at children ages 4 to 8, which tells the story of two men who fall in love after joining forces to defeat a dragon and later marry. Another book frequently referenced during oral arguments was ‘Uncle Bobby’s Wedding,’ which follows a young girl processing her favorite uncle’s decision to marry another man.

‘Because parental rights have become sort of the cultural zeitgeist for where we are in this political day and age, I think we are certain to see more litigation, not less, and more pushback,’ Perry said. 

The Supreme Court is expected to issue a ruling in the case by late June.

Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas demanded Hamas disarm, relinquish power and release the hostages.

The Palestinian leader said that by letting the hostages go, Hamas would ‘shut down’ Israel’s ‘excuses’ to continue the war that began after the terror group’s massacre on Oct. 7, 2023.

‘The first priority is to stop the war of extermination in Gaza. It must be stopped – hundreds are being killed every day,’ Abbas said, according to the Times of Israel. ‘Why don’t you hand over the hostages?’ 

The Palestinian Authority president also apparently called Hamas ‘sons of dogs’ during his address.

Abbas was speaking at a meeting of the Palestine Liberation Organization (PLO) Central Council, which is expected to select a deputy who could be a successor to the 89-year-old PA president.

This marks the first time since the start of the war in Gaza that Abbas has called on Hamas to transfer its authority to the PA, according to Reuters, but he has done so in the past. 

It is unclear whether Hamas will comply with Abbas’ demand, despite his assertion that it could help end the war and save Palestinian lives in Gaza. Hamas and the PA have been at odds for nearly two decades, since the terror organization seized power in 2006 and pushed the PA out of Gaza.

The international community has pushed for the PA to play a role in a ‘day after’ plan for Gaza, but Israel has not been receptive to this idea.

The Israeli government and the Trump administration have long criticized the PA’s ‘pay for slay’ policy, which Abbas reformed in February of this year. The policy saw payments go to family members of Palestinians who were imprisoned, killed or injured in connection with attacks against Israelis.

‘This is a new fraudulent trick by the Palestinian Authority, which intends to continue making payments to terrorists and their families through other payment channels,’ the Israeli Foreign Ministry said at the time, according to Axios.

Deborah Lipstadt, who served as special envoy to monitor and combat antisemitism during much of the Biden administration, has indicated that she is ‘pleased’ the Trump administration is seeking to tackle antisemitism.

‘I’m pleased that they’re addressing it, because that’s what I did for the past three years, which was to really push the Biden Administration to seriously address it. So I am very, very pleased that it’s on their agenda,’ she told the New Yorker. The outlet noted that the conversation with Lipstadt was edited for length and clarity.

Emory University announced in December that Lipstadt would return to the higher educational institution later in the academic year.

Fox News Digital attempted to reach to Lipstadt on Wednesday via the email and number listed on Emory University’s website, but did not receive a response to the comment request by the time of publication.

Lipstadt told the New Yorker that the Trump administration has been ‘calling universities to account.’ 

‘I also think there are many Jews, and some non-Jews, too, but many Jews who are disappointed by how universities have behaved since October 7th, and they see a strong – to use Passover terminology – a strong hand being used. Now, whether that hand is being used properly or not raises certain questions about what’s happening,’ she reportedly said, noting, ‘a lot of people were relieved to see this forceful approach. I think, in many respects, it’s going too far.’

She indicated that many colleges have fallen short in tackling antisemitism.

‘Look, the universities failed to address this seriously. And by failing to address this seriously, they failed the Jewish students on campus. They dismissed their grievances. They created an inhospitable atmosphere. We’re now seeing the fruits of that failure. What disturbs me so much is that the debate will now become over whether antisemitism is being used as a weapon to fight against people we don’t like. Antisemitism should not be a cudgel,’ she noted, according to the outlet.

‘The fight should be against antisemitism and not against the institutions. The institutions opened the door. Most universities failed miserably to address this, and we’re seeing the consequences of that now,’ she told the New Yorker.