By JAKE OFFENHARTZ, Associated Press

NEW YORK (AP) — A politically motivated hacker breached Columbia University’s data systems last week, stealing troves of student documents while briefly shutting down the school’s computer systems, a university official said Wednesday.

The June 24 cyberattack prompted widespread network outages on campus, locking students and staff out of their email accounts, coursework and video conference software for several hours. On the same day, images of President Donald Trump’s smiling face appeared on several public monitors across the Manhattan campus.

A spokesperson for Columbia declined to elaborate on the political motivations behind the attack. But officials described a highly sophisticated “hacktivist” who had gained access to private student records in an attempt to further a political agenda.

Related Articles

Groups sue to stop Trump administration from using what they call unconstitutional tactics in raids

Judge blocks order barring asylum access at border, gives administration two weeks to appeal

In a big bill that hurts clean energy, residential solar likely to get hit fast

President Trump announces trade deal with Vietnam that will let US goods into the country duty-free

Daughter of assassinated civil rights leader sees painful echoes of political violence in America

The spokesperson said it was unclear if the Trump photo display was connected to the data breach.

“We are investigating the scope of the apparent theft and will share our findings with the University community as well as anyone whose personal information was compromised,” the school said.

The cyberattack comes as Columbia remains in the crosshairs of the Trump administration, which has threatened to pull $400 million in federal funds over what it claims is the school’s failure to protect Jewish students.

Negotiations over a possible settlement are ongoing. The university has already agreed to a host of changes demanded by Trump, including placing its Middle East studies department under new supervision and overhauling its rules for protests and student discipline.

In March, a cyberattack against New York University resulted in student admission records briefly appearing on the school’s website. An online hacker who took credit for that action on social media said the intent was to prove the university was not in compliance with the Supreme Court decision banning affirmative action in college admissions.

An NYU spokesperson said at the time that the data displayed on its webpage was “inaccurate and misleading,” adding that the university “scrupulously complies with the law.”

I’m a finance professor at UCLA, so let’s talk finance. Which numbers are more meaningful to you?

Having $50 to $100 cash in your pocket (rough average for an American) or knowing the total U.S. currency in circulation is $2.4 trillion?

Owing $7,300 on your credit card (average balance of those who don’t pay it off every month) or envisioning the total U.S. credit card debt of $1.2 trillion?

Being $250,000 in debt on your home (average among American consumers with a mortgage) or seeing that the nation’s total residential consumer mortgage debt is $12.8 trillion?

Holding $250,000 in your 401(k) or IRA account (average for baby boomers, now old enough to need it soon) or knowing the total U.S. savings in such accounts is about $27 trillion?

Receiving a monthly Social Security check of $2,000 (the average) or considering the balance of the Social Security trust fund at $2.7 trillion?

I’ve been researching and teaching economics for more than 30 years, and still I can’t wrap my head around trillions of dollars. I’m guessing you can’t, either — and neither can our senators and representatives who determine the federal budget. And yet, our government insists on communicating with us in this unfathomable language.

Worse, even our best media outlets rarely translate the government’s incomprehensible abstractions into understandable numbers, giving us sentences like this one from the Wall Street Journal: “President Trump’s tax-and-spending megabill would increase budget deficits by $2.4 trillion over the next decade, compared with doing nothing, according to a Congressional Budget Office estimate released Wednesday.” (By the way, that figure had been revised to $2.8 trillion as of June 18 — as if the human mind could comprehend the difference between those boggling figures.)

And so I want to help people understand both our federal budget deficit and the resulting national debt, as well as our government’s free-spending ways. (Both parties are to blame; no need for politics here.)

The national debt today stands at about $37 trillion. This means that each of our 347 million people is on the hook for about $110,000, or about 2.75 years the median income of $40,000 per year.

Of course, not every U.S. resident earns income or pays income tax. With “only” 154 million taxpayers, this means that the average taxpayer’s piece of the $37-trillion federal debt is about $240,000, or six years of the median income.

Think of this as your share of our federal debt. The government may have borrowed it, but ultimately you are on the hook for it. Feel better now? Probably not. For most people, learning that you owe $240,000 is a lot more concerning than hearing that the national debt is $37 trillion.

And your piece of our collective problem is still growing. Each year, our federal government takes in about $35,000 per taxpayer ($5 trillion) and spends about $45,000 per taxpayer ($6.75 trillion). Lawmakers are currently not paying down our debt but adding about $10,000 per taxpayer every year to our already outstanding balance of about $240,000.

Unfortunately, we have another problem. Our outstanding debt was issued at low interest rates (around 2.3% per year). This is about to change. When it comes due, refinance interest rates will likely be more like 4% per year. Federal spending on interest will rise from the current level of about $6,000 a year per taxpayer to more like $10,000.

Back to the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” that the Wall Street Journal was reporting on. Roughly speaking, over 10 years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation would add a total deficit of $18,000 per taxpayer. Whatever debt balance we expected to reach in about 10 years, under this new budget, we would be expected to reach that debt in nine years.

In itself, debt isn’t so bad. For instance, as your home’s value grows, the mortgage percentage shrinks. If your income rises, that helps, too. Our 25-year-old business school students, who have no current income but take on a six-figure debt, can typically comfortably pay off their debts and support a nice lifestyle, too.

Unfortunately, not so for our federal malaise. Our income and tax bases are growing nowhere near as fast as our obligations.

With growing deficits and rising interest rates, we are instead accelerating our obligations. Today, we are spending about $850 billion a year on our military, or about $5,500 per taxpayer. Interest payments are just about to exceed that.

Adding in our running deficits, even if we assume that we can greatly increase our economic output, tax base and tax intake, and that there will be no recession, and that tariffs will cover about one-third of our deficits (a combination that few economists believe), we are still heading straight for a date with a metaphorical bankruptcy judge. Fortunately, this is legally impossible.

So what can possibly happen?

First, we could get exceedingly lucky: Economic growth could reach higher than it has ever been. Maybe we can all collectively become more innovative (and less hamstrung by our abundant self-inflicted inefficient policies, rules and regulations). I wouldn’t count on it.

Second, our politicians could raise taxes, curb spending or do both. However, we have no collective appetite for this. (Those actions could slow growth to the point that they become counterproductive.)

Third, we could “print” money. However, this would leave us in a fiscal situation similar to that of many developing nations, with galloping inflation and untrustworthy currency. Who would then lend us money? It surely wouldn’t “make America great again.”

Living beyond our means is not a Republican or a Democratic problem. Our parties may disagree about what to spend the money on, but both show by their actions that they agree spending more is better than spending less. Politicians are reflections of their electorates, and we the people are not ready for any pain. If our voters can begin to comprehend our problem, we’ll be on our first step toward a solution.

Ivo Welch is a professor of finance and economics at the Anderson Graduate School of Management at UCLA. He wrote this column for the Los Angeles Times.

It’s not always obvious which of the multitude of species of bacteria riding around in us should be classified as germs and attacked, and which are essential workers that should be nurtured.

One that’s particularly hard to classify is H. pylori, which was the subject of the 2005 Nobel Prize for the discovery that it causes peptic ulcers. But more recent studies have connected it with benefits, including lowering the risk of esophageal cancer. In a paper published in Science Advances, researchers in Sweden described how the bacteria can inhibit the formation of amyloid deposits, which are found in the brains of individuals with Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s disease.

Scientists are just beginning to understand the microbes that have been with us for millennia — the so-called microbiome, which is being drastically depleted as an unintended consequence of antibiotic use, dietary changes, and other aspects of modern life.

Until the start of the 20th century, we all carried H. pylori. Now, it’s headed for global extinction. But before it disappears, it’s worth understanding what it does and why we all once carried it.

While many doctors are happy to say good riddance to H. pylori — which also has been associated with stomach cancer — scientists are discovering more positive benefits, including a few studies that have shown it might also lower the risk of asthma and allergies and help protect against obesity and Type 2 diabetes. As I’ve written previously, this stomach bug is a feature of our biology, not just a problem that needs to be eliminated.

These newest findings on its effects related to amyloid deposits identified a protein called CagA — secreted by most strains of human H. pylori — as the key component. That doesn’t necessarily mean CagA protects us against Alzheimer’s; scientists don’t know whether amyloid deposits are a cause of the disease, a symptom, or an attempt by the body to slow its progression.

Still, researchers continue to study the protein, which may lead to new strategies for preventing the disease. The findings also add to a growing understanding of the connection between the microbiome and the risk of developing Alzheimer’s and other neurodegenerative diseases.

They also serve as a warning: we don’t know enough about the unintended consequences of eradicating H. pylori. Genetic comparisons suggest that the bacteria have been residing in the human stomach for at least 60,000 years, and likely much longer.

Biologist Martin Blaser of Rutgers University has been one of the most vocal advocates for understanding the pros and cons of H. pylori, which he describes in his 2014 book, Missing Microbes: How the Overuse of Antibiotics is Fueling Our Modern Plagues. He said every mammal has some stomach bacteria — a relative of our H. pylori.

He was particularly excited by the findings on CagA. It was his work that initially identified the protein and showed that the only so-called CagA-positive strains were more closely connected to all health risks and benefits, including ulcers and stomach cancers, as well as a decreased risk of asthma and esophageal cancer. He later collaborated on a study that suggested a connection between the CagA-positive strains and decreased risk of stroke. “The protein is a double-edged sword,” he said.

Biologist Gefei Chen of Uppsala University in Sweden, one of the amyloid study researchers, said the CagA protein prevents other bacteria from forming communities called biofilms. This ability gives H. pylori an edge over competitors by preventing would-be rivals from forming the biofilms they would need to colonize the stomach. The effect on our health may be either beneficial, detrimental, or a combination of both.

The biofilms are held together with a scaffolding that is similar to the deposits found in the brains of Alzheimer’s patients. Chen said he wanted to see if the protein from the bacteria could also affect amyloid deposits in the brain. He and his colleagues created deposits in the lab and exposed them to CagA. “It works so well, it’s so efficient … that’s a big surprise for us.”

He’s currently using gene editing to modify H. pylori to determine whether it can be altered to control its function in the body. CagA could also be used to break up bacterial biofilms, which, like walled cities for bacteria, can prevent antibiotics from reaching infections. Harmful biofilms can also coat medical devices, such as catheters, and they form the stubborn plaque on our teeth.

Blaser said H. pylori is quickly disappearing — even without our help. He anticipates there may come a time when we’ll attempt to regain it. Perhaps it will be an edited version that highlights the benefits of the bacteria without its downsides.

It was an oversimplification to consider that microbes are all either good or bad. Our microbes are evolving in ways that help them to survive and reproduce, which may benefit or harm us depending on our stage of life and other environmental factors. They might be good in one part of the body and one stage of life, but bad in another part at another stage. It’s not in their evolutionary interest to kill us, their hosts.

Perhaps someday doctors will be able to tip the balance toward the bacteria’s benefits — with probiotics, perhaps, or even with gene editing. However, our microbial diversity is half of what it was in pre-industrial societies, and it is declining rapidly. Scientists must act quickly to understand what these bugs do while we still have them.

F.D. Flam is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist covering science. She is host of the “Follow the Science” podcast.

As international attention turns away from missile strikes and toward diplomacy following the recent ceasefire between Iran and Israel, a deeper, longer-term struggle is quietly taking shape inside the Islamic Republic — one that will define the country’s political future.

For the first time in his 36 years in power, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has publicly acknowledged that he has identified potential successors. Though overshadowed by the immediate aftermath of military escalation, this statement marks the beginning of a pivotal and unprecedented transition in the Islamic Republic.

As a legal scholar specializing in constitutional law and authoritarian governance, I view this moment not merely as a political maneuver but as a test of the Islamic Republic’s institutional durability — and its long-standing contradictions.

In a development that received limited international attention, sources close to Iranian leadership revealed that Khamenei has identified a short list of potential successors. This was reported by Newsweek citing individuals familiar with the matter. While the Iranian constitution outlines a process for succession, even indirect confirmation of such planning is rare — and it underscores the regime’s growing concern about managing an eventual transition of power.

The timing is also telling. The ceasefire with Israel, though fragile, has temporarily halted external conflict and redirected public focus to internal vulnerabilities. Decades of repression, economic mismanagement and growing legitimacy crises have left the regime weakened at home. A leadership transition in this context carries not only political weight, but also the potential to spark deeper unrest or power fragmentation within Iran’s already-opaque ruling elite.

According to Article 111 of Iran’s constitution — originally adopted in 1979 and amended in 1989 — in the event of the supreme leader’s death, dismissal, incapacity or even resignation, a temporary council composed of the president, the head of the judiciary and a cleric from the Guardian Council is tasked with assuming the leader’s responsibilities until the Assembly of Experts appoints a successor.

On paper, this process appears straightforward. But in practice, the process is anything but transparent or democratic. While the constitution places the responsibility of selecting the next supreme leader on the Assembly of Experts, the body itself is far from independent. All candidates for the assembly are subject to strict vetting and must be approved by the Guardian Council — a body whose members are, in part, appointed directly or indirectly by the sitting supreme leader. This means that the individuals tasked with choosing the next leader have already passed through filters loyal to the current one.

In principle, the sitting supreme leader is not supposed to influence the selection of his successor. Yet, the entire system — from candidate approval to ideological alignment — operates within a tightly controlled structure, undermining the notion of a genuinely representative or independent process.

Moreover, the constitution does not specify any clear criteria for leadership selection beyond vague requirements such as “religious and political authority.” This ambiguity leaves the door wide open for factionalism, internal maneuvering and even military interference.

While the constitutional structure offers a legal facade of order, the true dynamics of power transition in Iran are likely to be shaped by unelected centers of influence: the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, Khamenei’s inner circle and the expansive bureaucracy of the supreme leader’s office. These entities have accumulated immense power over the past three decades, including control over economic assets, media, surveillance and foreign policy.

Their role in selecting the next leader — or ensuring that a compliant figure rises — will be decisive. This reality underscores a broader truth: In the Islamic Republic, legal texts often mask the informal mechanisms that truly govern political life.

The last leadership transition, from Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini to Khamenei in 1989, occurred under vastly different conditions. At the time, the regime had emerged from the Iran-Iraq war with revolutionary fervor intact, and Khamenei was elevated largely due to elite consensus and political loyalty, not religious stature.

Today, the legitimacy of the Islamic Republic is far more contested. The “Woman, Life, Freedom” movement of 2022, economic decline exacerbated by international sanctions, and public disillusionment with both reformists and hard-liners have created a volatile political environment. The succession process, even if tightly controlled, could act as a flashpoint for broader challenges to state authority.

Furthermore, the regional and international context has changed dramatically. Iran’s geopolitical position is more isolated, and its relationships with global powers are strained. Any signs of instability or elite fragmentation during succession will be closely watched by allies and adversaries alike.

If the regime seeks to manage succession solely through elite backroom deals and repression, it risks amplifying the very instability it hopes to avoid. Lack of transparency, exclusion of public voices and continued reliance on harsh punishments — such as the recent wave of expedited executions— will deepen mistrust and further erode what remains of the regime’s domestic legitimacy.

Conversely, a more inclusive and transparent process, while unlikely, could offer a rare opportunity to begin bridging the widening gap between the state and society.

The ceasefire between Iran and Israel may have quieted the skies, but inside Iran, the country now faces a deeper and more complex reckoning — not only over who will lead next and under what terms, but also over the government’s handling of the crisis and whether the supreme leader intends to change his position or respond to public demands for accountability.

For the first time in decades, the question of succession is no longer theoretical. The supreme leader, who had been hiding during the Israeli assault, is expected to re-emerge. Yet his silence during the war — and the damage sustained across Iran’s military and nuclear infrastructure — have raised new doubts about the regime’s preparedness and resilience.

Perhaps no statement captures the irony of the moment more than Khamenei’s own words: “Rest assured, there will be neither war nor negotiation.” And yet, there was war — and ultimately, there was negotiation. As he returns to the public eye, will he open the path for a successor to confront the crisis he leaves behind or continue to tighten the circle of power until the very end?

The path Khamenei chooses next may determine not only the future of Iran’s leadership — but also the fate of the Islamic Republic itself.

Pegah Banihashemi, a native of Iran, is a legal scholar and journalist in Chicago whose work focuses on human rights, constitutional and international law, and Middle East politics.