In its latest move against the universities, the Trump administration has threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. Schools like Harvard now face difficult decisions about whether to make the sorts of reforms the government is calling for. Donna Robinson Divine considers some of the debates around these policies, and the ways institutions of higher learning have brought their current troubles on themselves:

President Trump’s directives have caught the attention of an academy that has been more than willing to take no action to shield Jewish students until their budgets were at risk. Put on notice, they are in a rush to find ways to accommodate the demands coming from Washington if only to keep funds flowing. One might reasonably reckon such a response an implicit acknowledgement of past indifference if not of actual guilt.

It is, however, important to say explicitly that restoring funds and bringing order to university operations will be insufficient if the aim is to return academic credibility to American higher education. For decades, universities have failed to fulfill their core educational mission not only because of the deeds done on their premises since October 7 but rather because of the words flowing through their curricula. Too many courses became harnessed to a social activism seeking to remake the world rather than to understand it.

Campus idioms became the soundtrack for protests within and without the well-groomed grounds of the university. A world divided between oppressors and oppressed comes pre-installed, with free speech replacing academic freedom. It awards credit to feelings, not to thinking, to narrative and not to empirical evidence.

On Monday night, the IDF struck a group of Hamas operatives near the Nasser hospital in Khan Yunis, the main city in southern Gaza. The very fact of this attack was reassuring, as it suggested that the release of Edan Alexander didn’t come with restraints on Israeli military activity. Then, yesterday afternoon, Israeli jets carried out another, larger attack on Khan Yunis, hitting a site where it believed Mohammad Sinwar, the head of Hamas in Gaza, to be hiding. The IDF has not yet confirmed that he was present. There is some hope that the death of Sinwar—who replaced his older brother Yahya after he was killed last year—could have a debilitating effect on Hamas.

Meanwhile, Donald Trump is visiting the Persian Gulf, and it’s unclear how his diplomatic efforts there will affect Israel, its war with Hamas, and Iran. For its part, Jerusalem has committed to resume full-scale operations in Gaza after President Trump returns to the U.S. But, Gabi Simoni and Erez Winner explain, Israel does not have unlimited time to defeat Hamas:

Israel faces persistent security challenges across multiple fronts—Iran, the West Bank, Yemen, Syria, and Lebanon—all demanding significant military resources, especially during periods of escalation. . . . Failing to achieve a decisive victory not only prolongs the conflict but also drains national resources and threatens Israel’s ability to obtain its strategic goals.

Only a swift, forceful military campaign can achieve the war’s objectives: securing the hostages’ release, ensuring Israeli citizens’ safety, and preventing future kidnappings. Avoiding such action won’t just prolong the suffering of the hostages and deepen public uncertainty—it will also drain national resources and weaken Israel’s standing in the region and beyond.

We recommend launching an intense military operation in Gaza without delay, with clear, measurable objectives—crippling Hamas’s military and governance capabilities and securing the release of hostages. Such a campaign should combine military pressure with indirect negotiations, maximizing the chances of a successful outcome while minimizing risks.

Crucially, the operation must be closely coordinated with the United States and moderate Arab states to reduce international pressure and preserve the gains of regional alliances.