By COLLIN BINKLEY, AP Education Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Trump administration is pressing for a deal with Harvard University that would require the Ivy League school to pay far more than the $200 million fine agreed to by Columbia University to resolve multiple federal investigations, according to two people familiar with the matter.

Harvard would be expected to pay hundreds of millions of dollars as part of any settlement to end investigations into antisemitism at its campus, said the people, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. Harvard leaders have been negotiating with the White House even as they battle in court to regain access to billions in federal research funding terminated by the Trump administration.

The White House’s desire to get Harvard to pay far more than Columbia was first reported by The New York Times, which said the school has signaled a willingness to pay as much as $500 million.

Harvard did not immediately comment.

The Trump administration plans to use its deal with Columbia as a template for other universities, with financial penalties that are now seen as a staple for future agreements. Last week, Columbia leaders agreed to pay $200 million as part of a settlement to resolve investigations into alleged violations of federal antidiscrimination laws and restore more than $400 million in research grants.

Columbia had been in talks for months after the Trump administration accused the university of allowing the harassment of Jewish students and employees amid a wave of campus protests over the Israel-Hamas war. Harvard faces similar accusations but, unlike Columbia, the Cambridge, Massachusetts, school challenged the administration’s funding cuts and subsequent sanctions in court.

Last week, President Donald Trump said Harvard “wants to settle” but he said Columbia “handled it better.”

The Trump administration’s emphasis on financial penalties adds a new dimension for colleges facing federal scrutiny. In the past, civil rights investigations by the Education Department almost always ended with voluntary agreements and rarely included fines.

Even when the government has levied fines, they’ve been a small fraction of the scale Trump is seeking. Last year, the Education Department fined Liberty University $14 million after finding the Christian school failed to disclose crimes on its campus. It was the most the government had ever fined a university under the Clery Act, following a $4.5 million fine dealt to Michigan State University in 2019 for its handling of sexual assault complaints against disgraced sports doctor Larry Nassar.

Related Articles

Changes to federal student loans leave aspiring medical students scrambling to cover costs

Baby boomers now live next to 18-year-olds at colleges across US

These tips from experts can help your teenager navigate AI companions

Teens say they are turning to AI for friendship

For some employees, education benefits such as tuition assistance prove life-changing

The University of Pennsylvania agreed this month to modify school records set by transgender swimmer Lia Thomas, but that school’s deal with the Trump administration included no fine.

The Trump administration has opened investigations at dozens of universities over allegations of antisemitism or racial discrimination in the form of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Several face funding freezes akin to those at Harvard, including more than $1 billion at Cornell University and $790 million at Northwestern University.

Last week, Education Secretary Linda McMahon called the Columbia deal a “roadmap” for other colleges, saying it would “ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come.”

The Associated Press’ education coverage receives financial support from multiple private foundations. AP is solely responsible for all content. Find AP’s standards for working with philanthropies, a list of supporters and funded coverage areas at AP.org.

By JENNIFER SINCO KELLEHER

HONOLULU (AP) — Honolulu is not alone in its effort to sue fossil fuel companies to hold them accountable for climate change harms, but the city’s lawsuit is further along than similar litigation across the country. A hearing on Tuesday will indicate how these fights play out in court.

In 2020, Hawaii’s capital city sued major oil companies, including ExxonMobil, Shell and Chevron, arguing they knew for nearly half a century that fossil fuel products create greenhouse gas pollution that warms the planet and changes the climate. The companies have also profited from the consumption of oil, coal and natural gas while deceiving the public about the role of their products in causing a global climate crisis, the lawsuit says.

Honolulu’s lawsuit blames the companies for the sea level rise around the island of Oahu’s world-famous coastline. It also warns that hurricanes, heatwaves and other extreme weather will be more frequent, along with ocean warming that will reduce fish stocks and kill coral reefs that tourists love to snorkel over.

The lawsuit seeks an unspecified amount of damages. Attorneys and media representatives for most of the companies didn’t immediately respond to emails and phone messages from The Associated Press seeking comment on the lawsuit.

FILE – The AES Corporation coal-fired power plant in Kapolei, Hawaii, is seen during a ceremony to mark the closure of the facility on Aug. 18, 2022. (AP Photo/Caleb Jones, File)

ConocoPhillips and Phillips 66 representatives sent emails saying they don’t comment on pending litigation.

A hearing is scheduled in state court on Tuesday for a defense motion that argues the lawsuit should be dismissed because the state’s two-year statute of limitations expired. Honolulu’s claims are based on allegations that have been publicly known for decades, the defense motion for summary judgment says.

“The issue of climate change and how to tackle it has long been part of public discussion and ongoing scientific research and debate for many decades,” a Shell spokesperson said in an email. “There is a vast public record of media articles, scientific journals and government reports for well over 50 years that make this clear. The suggestion that the plaintiffs were somehow unaware of climate change is simply not credible.”

While the case is still far from trial, it’s much closer than some 30 similar lawsuits nationwide brought by other states, cities and counties. Lawyer arguments and the judge’s questions on Tuesday will give a sense of how both sides will present their cases, said Michael Gerrard, founder and faculty director of the Columbia University Sabin Center for Climate Change Law.

“The first trial in any of these cases will be very significant,” he said. “It will get a large amount of nationwide or even global attention because the oil companies have not yet had to take the stand and defend themselves in a trial.”

Related Articles

With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law

Trump Environmental Protection Agency moves to repeal finding that allows climate regulation

Trump’s AI plan calls for massive data centers. Here’s how it may affect energy in the US

Philanthropist Wendy Schmidt insists science and immersive media can inspire action for the planet

Smoky air from Canadian wildfires descends on Minnesota through Friday

Honolulu’s lawsuit has reached this hearing stage, partly because the Hawaii Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss it, and the U.S. Supreme Court refused to take it on.

Meanwhile, a similar lawsuit by Maui County, where a massive wildfire nearly two years ago burned down most of Lahaina and killed 102 people, is on hold.

The state of Hawaii has also filed a similar suit, despite the U.S. Department of Justice in May suing Hawaii and Michigan over their plans for legal action against fossil fuel companies, claiming their climate actions conflict with federal authority and President Donald Trump’s energy dominance agenda.

Hawaii’s attorney general’s office filed a motion last week seeking to stop the Department of Justice’s federal lawsuit: “Allowing this case to proceed would give the United States license to wield the federal courts as a weapon against any litigation between nonfederal parties that an incumbent presidential administration dislikes.”

Honolulu’s lawsuit has drawn the attention of Naomi Oreskes, a prominent Harvard University science history professor, who submitted a declaration in a motion opposing the defendants’ motion for summary judgment.

Oreskes drew parallels between the fossil fuel and tobacco industries. “The fossil fuel industry and its allies and surrogates created an organized campaign to foster and sustain doubt about anthropogenic global warming and prevent meaningful action,” she wrote. “They did this by influencing consumers and the general public.”

Soon before a lawsuit by a group of youths against Hawaii’s transportation department was scheduled to go to trial, both sides settled the case last year, agreeing on an ambitious requirement to achieve zero greenhouse gas emissions across all transportation modes no later than 2045.

By ERIC TUCKER

WASHINGTON (AP) — Ghislaine Maxwell, the imprisoned former girlfriend of disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, is open to answering questions from Congress — but only if she is granted immunity from future prosecution for her testimony, her lawyers said Tuesday.

A spokeswoman for the committee that wants to interview her responded with a terse statement saying it would not consider offering her immunity.

Maxwell’s lawyers also asked that they be provided with any questions in advance and that any interview with her be scheduled after her petition to the U.S. Supreme Court to take up her case has been resolved.

The conditions were laid out in a letter sent by Maxwell’s attorneys to Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the House Oversight Committee who last week issued a subpoena for her deposition at the Florida prison where she is serving a 20-year-prison sentence on a conviction of conspiring with Epstein to sexually abuse underage girls.

The request to interview her is part of a frenzied, renewed interest in the Epstein saga following the Justice Department’s July statement that it would not be releasing any additional records from the investigation, an abrupt announcement that stunned online sleuths, conspiracy theorists and elements of President Donald Trump’s base who had been hoping to find proof of a government coverup.

Since then, the Trump administration has sought to present itself as promoting transparency, with the department urging courts to unseal grand jury transcripts from the sex-trafficking investigation and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche interviewing Maxwell over the course of two days at a Florida courthouse last week.

In a letter Tuesday, Maxwell’s attorneys said that though their initial instinct was for Maxwell to invoke her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, they are open to having her cooperate provided that lawmakers satisfy their request for immunity and other conditions.

But the Oversight Committee seemed to reject that offer outright.

Related Articles

Trump gave the USOPC cover on its transgender athlete policy change. It could end up in court anyway

Changes to federal student loans leave aspiring medical students scrambling to cover costs

With AI plan, Trump keeps chipping away at a foundational environmental law

Trump’s religious rhetoric clashes with Canada’s secular politics

Trump Environmental Protection Agency moves to repeal finding that allows climate regulation

“The Oversight Committee will respond to Ms. Maxwell’s attorney soon, but it will not consider granting congressional immunity for her testimony,” a spokesperson said.

Separately, Maxwell’s attorneys have urged the Supreme Court to review her conviction, saying she dd not receive a fair trial. They also say that one way she would testify “openly and honestly, in public,” is in the event of a pardon by Trump, who has told reporters that such a move is within his rights but that he has not been not asked to make it.

“She welcomes the opportunity to share the truth and to dispel the many misconceptions and misstatements that have plagued this case from the beginning,” he said.

By LINLEY SANDERS and AMELIA THOMSON-DEVEAUX

WASHINGTON (AP) — Support for Israel’s military action in Gaza has declined substantially among U.S. adults, with only about one-third approving, according to a new Gallup poll — a drop from the beginning of the war with Hamas, when about half of Americans approved of Israel’s operation.

Related Articles

‘Worst-case scenario of famine’ is happening in Gaza, food crisis experts warn

Starmer says UK will recognize Palestinian state unless Israel agrees ceasefire, ends Gaza suffering

Palestinian death toll in Israel-Hamas war passes 60,000, Gaza Health Ministry says

Democrats implore Trump to step up role in addressing suffering and starvation in Gaza

‘My family deserved to live with dignity:’ Twin Cities residents share stories of relatives in Gaza

The new polling also found that about half of U.S. adults now have an unfavorable view of Israel’s prime minister, Benjamin Netanyahu, the most negative rating he has received since he was first included in Gallup polling in 1997. The poll was conducted from July 7-21, while reports of starvation in Gaza led to international criticism of Israel’s decision to restrict food aid but before President Donald Trump expressed concern over the worsening humanitarian situation.

The findings underscore the Israeli government’s dramatic loss of support within the U.S. But not everyone is shifting — instead, the war has become more politically polarizing. The rising disapproval is driven by Democrats and independents, who are much less likely to approve of Israel’s actions than they were in November 2023, weeks after Hamas’ Oct. 7 surprise attack and after Israel expanded its ground offensive in Gaza. Hamas has been designated as a terrorist organization by the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Republicans, on the other hand, remain largely supportive of both Israel’s military actions and Netanyahu.

Most Americans now disapprove of Israeli military action in Gaza

The new poll finds that about 6 in 10 U.S. adults disapprove of the military action Israel has taken in Gaza, up from 45% in November 2023.

Support for the war has been dwindling in Gallup’s polling for some time. In March 2024, about half of U.S. adults disapproved of Israel’s military action in Gaza, which fell slightly as the year wore on.

In a new low, only 8% of Democrats and one-quarter of independents say they now approve of Israel’s military campaign. Some of that decline may be attributed to the change in administration. While former President Joe Biden faced significant pushback from fellow Democrats on his handling of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians, they may be even more frustrated by the approach of Trump, a Republican.

Young adults are also much more likely to disapprove of Israel’s actions. Only about 1 in 10 adults under age 35 say they approve of Israel’s military choices in Gaza, compared with about half of those who are 55 or older.

Gallup senior editor Megan Brenan says the latest figures reflect the enduring partisan divide. Even as Democrats grow increasingly unhappy with Israel’s military campaign, Republicans remain supportive.

“We’ve seen this drop in approval since last fall, and it’s really driven by Democrats and independents,” Brenan says. “Republicans are still willing to be in this for the time being.”

Netanyahu’s favorability among US adults is historically low

Views of Netanyahu have also grown less favorable over the past few years, with more viewing him negatively than positively in measurements taken since the war in Gaza began.

About half of U.S. adults, 52%, now have an unfavorable view of Netanyahu in the new poll, which overlapped with Netanyahu’s recent visit to the U.S. Just 29% view him positively, and about 2 in 10 either haven’t heard of him or don’t have an opinion.

That’s a change — although not a huge one — since December 2023, when 47% of U.S. adults had an unfavorable view of Netanyahu and 33% had a favorable opinion. But it’s a reversal from as recently as April 2019, when more U.S. adults viewed him positively than negatively.

Republicans have a much more positive view of Netanyahu than Democrats and independents do. About two-thirds of Republicans view him favorably, which is in line with last year. About 1 in 10 Democrats and 2 in 10 independents feel the same way.

“This is the first time we’ve seen a majority of Americans, with an unfavorable view of him,” Brenan says. “All of these questions in this poll show us basically the same story, and it’s not a good one for the Israeli government right now.”

Trump is unlikely to face the same pressure on his approach to Israel

More than half of U.S. adults, 55%, disapprove of Trump’s handling of the situation in the Middle East, according to a July AP-NORC poll.

But the conflict has not weighed as heavily on Trump as it did on Biden, who watched Democrats splinter on the issue. That’s because of Trump’s solid support from his base on this issue, further reflected in Republicans’ continued approval of Israel’s military action. About 8 in 10 Republicans approve of Trump’s handling of the situation in the Middle East. By contrast, only about 4 in 10 Democrats approved of Biden’s handling of the conflict between the Israelis and the Palestinians last summer, shortly before he dropped out of the presidential race.

In an AP-NORC poll from March, Republicans were significantly more likely than Democrats and independents to say they sympathized more with the Israelis than with the Palestinians in the conflict.

And while Americans overall were more likely to say it was “extremely” or “very” important for the United States to provide humanitarian relief to Palestinians in Gaza than to say the same about providing aid to Israel’s military, Republicans said the opposite — more saw military aid to Israel as a higher priority than providing humanitarian relief to the Palestinians in Gaza.