Even by its own standards, the weekly Friday news recap featuring PBS News Hour host Geoff Bennett, Washington Post associate editor Jonathan Capehart, and New York Times columnist David Brooks was especially tone-deaf and unintelligent. The trio would have you believe that Columbia University settling with the Trump administration is both a threat to universities through “institutional capture” and democracy itself. Nobody at the table thought that concerns about anti-Semitism on campus were worth discussing.

After recalling how Columbia will pay a $200 million fine to get its $1.3 billion in funding back, Bennett asked, “Jonathan, what's your take on Columbia's decision to settle? And what message does it send to other universities? I didn't know until I was talking with our team there's some 60 universities right now in active conversations with the Trump administration about protests and discrimination complaints. You see the list there. What do you make of it?”

Capehart declared, “It's terrible. I think we were talking about this months ago, when Columbia University did something, and I think David put his finger on it. It was like, on the one hand, you feel for the universities because the money that's taken away is money that goes to research, that goes to fund really important things that are not just important to the university, but important for all of us, in terms of advancing knowledge and advancing science.”

A bit later, he added:

Not sure, if I were at Columbia, I would feel really good about that. And this decision only sort of highlights what Harvard University has done from moment one, which is, you know, we're not playing this game. There's a bigger thing here. And, yes, we're going to be hurt by it, but standing up for ourselves, standing up for academic freedom and also standing up for all those other colleges and universities that look to Harvard as the leader. If Harvard crumbles, what does that mean for the rest of them? And I think Columbia has ceded a lot of, sort of, academic moral authority by what they were forced to do.

Bennett then turned to Brooks for the only mention of anti-Semitism in the entire segment, “We spoke with Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan, on this program last night. And he said that the Trump administration isn't just using this — the issue of anti-Semitism to support and defend Jewish students. They're using this as a way to chill speech that they find politically offensive. How do you see it?”

Columbia’s own internal investigation was incredibly damning, so Columbia probably settled because it didn’t want to open itself up to federal investigators to see just how bad things were.

Nevertheless, Brooks began, “That's how I see it. Michael Roth is right. You know, if I'm the leader of a university or of a nonprofit or of a foundation or of a private business, I'm thinking, this is an administration that uses extortionary power to try to destroy organizations or severely weaken organizations.”

Brooks then came up with two options: either organizations could keep quiet and hope Trump ignores them or, his preferred option, “not only of all universities, but all law firms, businesses, nonprofits, foundations, anybody in any sector that could be part of the extortion attempt. And they would say, we will band together. There's strength in numbers. If they come for one of us, they come for all of, sort of a domestic NATO Article V.”

After Brooks concluded, Bennett gave Capehart a truly weak question, “Building on that point, I mean, is this part of a broader pattern of using institutional levers, Jonathan, to weaken democracy? Do you see this as a form of institutional capture?”

Of course, Capehart did, “Yes. I mean, that's — there's no need to explain anymore. I mean, what have we been watching for six months? He's been doing it to the media. He's been doing it to academia. He's been doing it to the military. He's been doing it to the federal — to the judiciary up and down the ranks.

Yes. The simple answer to your question is yes. And I think it's the sort of flood-the-zone nature of all of this, that we sort of lose sight of the fact that all of these things are chipping away at our democracy, all of them.”

 The left has institutionally captured academia to the point where social science students are more likely to have a Marxist professor than a conservative, and PBS doesn’t care. The fields that deal with the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict are even more captured. The idea that anti-Zionism—Zionism simply being the belief Israel should exist—isn’t anti-Semitism is a radical and anti-Semitic idea that gets treated with respect in academia and naturally has real-world consequences. This time those consequences became so great, the government couldn’t ignore them.

Here is the transcript for the July 25 show:

PBS News Hour

7/25/2025

7:38 PM ET

GEOFF BENNETT: Well, I want to shift our focus to the news this past week that Columbia University will pay more than $200 million to the federal government after several investigations and months of negotiations with the Trump administration.

And the settlement restores Columbia's access to some $1.3 billion in federal funding. The university agreed to take steps to curb antisemitism on its campus.

Jonathan, what's your take on Columbia's decision to settle? And what message does it send to other universities? I didn't know until I was talking with our team there's some 60 universities right now in active conversations with the Trump administration about protests and discrimination complaints. You see the list there. What do you make of it?

JONATHAN CAPEHART: It's terrible. I think we were talking about this months ago, when Columbia University did something, and I think David put his finger on it. It was like, on the one hand, you feel for the universities because the money that's taken away is money that goes to research, that goes to fund really important things that are not just important to the university, but important for all of us, in terms of advancing knowledge and advancing science.

But, on the other hand, the fact that the president of the United States is strong-arming, pressuring universities to basically give up some piece of their academic freedom is what's so alarming. And, again, so Columbia's paying $200 million — or actually 221 million if you throw in the court fees — in order to get back one-point-something billion dollars in funding.

Not sure, if I were at Columbia, I would feel really good about that. And this decision only sort of highlights what Harvard University has done from moment one, which is, you know, we're not playing this game. There's a bigger thing here. And, yes, we're going to be hurt by it, but standing up for ourselves, standing up for academic freedom and also standing up for all those other colleges and universities that look to Harvard as the leader.

If Harvard crumbles, what does that mean for the rest of them? And I think Columbia has ceded a lot of, sort of, academic moral authority by what they were forced to do.

BENNETT: We spoke with Michael Roth, the president of Wesleyan, on this program last night. And he said that the Trump administration isn't just using this — the issue of anti-Semitism to support and defend Jewish students. They're using this as a way to chill speech that they find politically offensive. How do you see it?

DAVID BROOKS: That's how I see it. Michael Roth is right. You know, if I'm the leader of a university or of a nonprofit or of a foundation or of a private business, I'm thinking, this is an administration that uses extortionary power to try to destroy organizations or severely weaken organizations. And so what's my response to that?

Well, there are two possible responses. One, the one that's being chosen by most organizational leaders right now, is lay low. It's so “well, maybe they won't pick on me,” or “maybe we will make a concession and they won't pick on me.”

And if you go to a business conference and you hear what CEOs say about the Trump administration in private, I guarantee you it's nothing like what they don't say in public, because they're laying low. That's one option, just hope they don't come for me.

The other option, which I thought we were going to have, is a broad coalition, not only of all universities, but all law firms, businesses, nonprofits, foundations, anybody in any sector that could be part of the extortion attempt. And they would say, we will band together. There's strength in numbers. If they come for one of us, they come for all of, sort of a domestic NATO Article V.

And that's what I think needs to happen, because you leave Claire Shipman, the acting president of Columbia, out there all alone, well, of course she has no choice. So there has to be a coalition. And the coalitions that I have been hearing about are all defensive nature and quiet and private.

Somebody's got to take the fight back to the administration. And it has to be organizational leaders acting together who collectively have a lot more power than they do alone.

BENNETT: Building on that point, I mean, is this part of a broader pattern of using institutional levers, Jonathan, to weaken democracy? Do you see this as a form of institutional capture?

CAPEHART: Yes. I mean, that's — there's no need to explain anymore. I mean, what have we been watching for six months? He's been doing it to the media. He's been doing it to academia. He's been doing it to the military. He's been doing it to the federal — to the judiciary up and down the ranks.

Yes. The simple answer to your question is yes. And I think it's the sort of flood-the-zone nature of all of this, that we sort of lose sight of the fact that all of these things are chipping away at our democracy, all of them.