In a drastic new measure, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) together with the Department of Education (ED) and the General Services Agency (GSA) published a comprehensive review of Columbia University's federal contracts and grants.
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. said in an official press release.
Anti-Semitism, like racism – is a spiritual and moral illness that makes society sick and kills deadly people, comparable to the deadliest plagues of history.
He went on to condemn what he called “awakened censorship and false narrative cancellation culture” to foster hostile campus environments.
The newly appointed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon reiterated this sentiment.
Americans have been watching in fear for over a year as Jewish students are being assaulted and harassed on elite university campuses. Illegal camps and demonstrations are completely paralyzing daily campus operations, depriving Jewish students of qualified learning opportunities.
The announcement reveals that Colombia, accused of violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, could face serious financial consequences. The multi-agency federal task force to combat anti-Semitism is considering a $51.4 million stopwork order in federal contracts with the university, but a broad review of grants over $5 billion is underway.
From Maha to Speech Policing?
HHS' involvement in education and civil rights issues has confused many observers. Enforcement of Title VI, a federal law that prohibits discrimination in federal funding agencies, is usually under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Critics have questioned why agencies primarily responsible for healthcare and public health are at the forefront of campaigns regulating campus speeches and protests.
Kennedy's personal pivot is even more impressive. After campaigning on the “Make America Healthy” (Maha) platform, many of his supporters expected a different tenure at HHS. One will tackle regulatory safety in the healthcare industry, investigating other potential causes of Kennedy dubing with a “chronic disease epidemic,” and tackling opioids and mental health crisations. Instead, they see him now spearhead a federal initiative that appears to focus on punishing universities for handling political protests rather than addressing public health challenges.
Kennedy's social media announcement sparked an instant backlash. Many critics have been speculated about the external influences behind the decision.
Some believe Kennedy's strong stance on Columbia is consistent with Israeli lobbying in Washington. They argue that pro-Israel groups, not public welfare, may be shaping his priorities.
Many pointed to Kennedy's past connections with known Mossad property Jeffrey Epstein. Jeffrey Epstein is still in great shadow at the intersection of American intelligence, high society and political influence. Epstein's deep relationship with secret networks and his ability to seduce powerful things in compromised situations continue to circulate his name firmly among those who see more than a coincidence in the connections he cultivates.
In particular, it has been documented that RFK Jr. has flew Epstein's infamous “Lolita Express” at least twice, adding yet another unstable layer. Given the well-documented history of Epstein's sexually horrifying mail operations, some have raised unpleasant questions about whether Kennedy (sometimes not as restrained as his rhetoric) may have noticed that he was caught up in something much darker. There is no official evidence to hint at Epstein's more eerie deal, but mere relationships with people who read like the world's elite enough to keep the speculation alive.
Kennedy
Other observers speculated about the unsolved mystery of the Kennedy family's assassination. We theorized that some prozionist groups played a role in coordinating these events. Mainstream history attributes the assassination of John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Robert F. Kennedy Sr. (RFK) to the sole actor. However, alternative theories suggest deeper geopolitical motivations.
The JFK opposed Israel's nuclear program. RFK supported his brother and worked to curb Israeli lobbying in the United States.
Given these historic tensions, Kennedy's association with Israel's current interests raised questions. Some wonder who holds potential leverage in his HHS agenda.
censorship
Beyond speculation about his motivations, Kennedy's actions rekindled concerns about government-led censorship. Critics have seen his intervention in the Colombian case as part of a broader crackdown on speeches critical of Israel. They argue that the federal government is using its power to silence its objections.
Famous anti-war journalist Scott Horton highlighted this dynamic. He noted that much of what is labelled as anti-Semitism is actually a political opposition to Israeli military action. He implied that the government's crackdown on such criticism only encouraged greater responsibilities against Israel.
This sentiment was echoed by Max Blumenthal, editor of the Grayzone, who highlighted the contradictions of Kennedy's actions.
Blumenthal recalled how the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared racism a public health issue under the Biden administration. This move was widely laughed out by the anti-spirited commentators of the time. Today, many of these same voices remain silent as Kennedy's HHS has zero anti-Semitism as “plague.”
Blumenthal's criticism suggested that Kennedy's approach reflects the same government overreach that he once condemned. difference? This time, offering a different set of political interests is being recycled.
Priority
Kennedy has not responded to criticism yet. However, the optics of this intervention are difficult to ignore. Concerns are growing as potential financial penalties loom. Important questions remain. Do government agencies need the power to regulate speech? Furthermore, although the Constitution never imagined HHS or ED, they are now using federal power to students' activities.
As the review process unfolds, its impact remains uncertain. Does this set a precedent for greater federal control over university speeches? Or does it backfire as a politically motivated overreach?
One thing is clear. Kennedy's transition from “Maha” to federal crackdowns on campus protests brings many questions as to where his true priorities lie.
Federal intervention protests on campus: Trump's new anti-Semitic order
