Under the administration of former President Donald Trump, several international and domestic policies left a lasting impact. Two events have recently come to the forefront, involving Columbia University in New York and Colombia, the South American nation. Both of these incidents reflect Trump’s strategic approach to wielding influence—whether through cutting federal funds to U.S. institutions or applying economic pressure on foreign nations. These actions have sparked intense debate, from discussions on freedom of speech on university campuses to U.S. foreign policy and relations with Latin American countries.
This article takes an in-depth look at two major events that illustrate the broader consequences of Trump’s policies: the funding cuts to Columbia University and the diplomatic fallout with Colombia.
Trump and Columbia University: Funding Cuts Over Antisemitism
One of the most recent and controversial moves made by the Trump administration involved Columbia University, one of the most prestigious academic institutions in the United States. In March 2025, the Trump administration announced it was cutting over $400 million in federal funding from the university due to what it claimed were insufficient measures to address antisemitic incidents on campus. This funding cut, amounting to about 8% of the university’s federal contracts and grants, came in response to claims that Jewish students at Columbia had been subjected to harassment and discrimination since October 2023.
This decision sent shockwaves across the academic world. Columbia University, located in the heart of New York City, has long been seen as a center for progressive education. However, over the past few years, there have been increasing reports of antisemitism on campus, especially amid growing political tensions surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict. Critics argue that university administrators failed to sufficiently address these issues, leaving many Jewish students vulnerable to targeted harassment.
The Trump administration’s response to this situation came swiftly. In addition to withdrawing significant funding, federal agencies announced that they would be investigating the university for violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin in federally funded programs. This move was part of a broader campaign by the Trump administration to crack down on what it perceived as unchecked antisemitism at various U.S. universities.
This was not the first time that the Trump administration had used federal funding as a tool to influence universities’ policies on sensitive issues. During his tenure, Trump repeatedly threatened to withhold federal funds from universities that failed to address what he considered “anti-American” or discriminatory speech, particularly targeting political speech against Israel and Jews. Columbia’s case, however, marked one of the most significant instances of such action.
While some defended the Trump administration’s decision as necessary to uphold the rights of Jewish students, others saw it as a dangerous infringement on academic freedom. Critics of the funding cuts argued that it was a political move aimed at suppressing free speech and stifling debate on campus. Columbia, they claimed, was not the right target for such drastic measures. Instead, the focus should be on encouraging dialogue and education to combat hate speech, rather than penalizing universities financially.
At the heart of the debate was the balance between fighting discrimination and ensuring that university campuses remain places for open and free expression. Columbia University itself expressed strong opposition to the cuts, emphasizing its commitment to diversity and inclusion. The administration vowed to continue efforts to combat antisemitism on campus, including bringing in outside experts to address the issue and implementing stronger policies to protect Jewish students from harassment.
Despite the controversy, the Trump administration made it clear that this move would not be the last. In the following weeks, other universities with similar reports of antisemitism were put on notice. The administration promised further investigations into academic institutions across the country. This shift in policy served as both a warning to schools and a clear message about Trump’s stance on antisemitism and freedom of speech.
Trump’s Economic Pressure on Colombia: Diplomatic Fallout and Tariffs
Another significant international move made by the Trump administration revolved around the South American nation of Colombia. In January 2025, a major diplomatic crisis erupted between the United States and Colombia after Colombian President Gustavo Petro refused to allow U.S. military aircraft carrying deported Colombian nationals to land in the country. This incident marked a high point in the deteriorating relationship between the two nations, which had previously been strong allies.
The U.S. government, under President Trump, took swift action in response to Petro’s decision. Trump imposed a 25% tariff on all Colombian imports, arguing that the South American country’s refusal to cooperate in the deportation of its citizens was unacceptable. This was part of Trump’s broader “America First” foreign policy—a strategy that often involved applying economic pressure on countries that did not align with U.S. interests.
At the heart of this dispute was the issue of deportations. The United States, under Trump, had been aggressively enforcing immigration laws, including the deportation of undocumented immigrants, some of whom had criminal backgrounds. Trump viewed Colombia’s actions as a direct challenge to U.S. sovereignty and policy. By refusing to allow the landing of military aircraft carrying deportees, Petro was seen as hindering U.S. efforts to return undocumented nationals to their home countries.
The tariff imposition was an unprecedented move in U.S.-Colombia relations. Colombia’s economy, heavily dependent on exports such as coffee, oil, and flowers, was hit hard by the tariffs. The impact on Colombian farmers and manufacturers was immediate, causing widespread concern throughout the country. Petro’s government, already dealing with internal political challenges, was faced with the difficult task of addressing both the domestic fallout from the tariffs and the diplomatic consequences of its actions.
The situation escalated quickly. Within weeks, the Trump administration threatened to raise the tariffs to 50% if Colombia did not reverse its stance on the deportation flights. The U.S. government was also considering additional sanctions, which could have further hurt Colombia’s struggling economy. Faced with mounting pressure, the Colombian government eventually relented.
In late February 2025, Colombia agreed to allow the U.S. military flights to land, but under stricter conditions. The deal included provisions for better management of the deportation process and guarantees that the U.S. would adhere to Colombia’s national sovereignty. The tariffs were subsequently lifted, but the diplomatic tensions between the two countries remained high.
This episode exemplified the Trump administration’s use of economic leverage to achieve its policy objectives. By applying tariffs, Trump made it clear that the U.S. would not tolerate what it saw as undermining its immigration policies. However, critics of Trump’s actions argued that using tariffs in this way undermined long-standing diplomatic relations between the U.S. and Colombia, which had been built on cooperation in areas like drug control and trade.
The Broader Impact of Trump’s Actions on International Relations
Trump’s actions in both the case of Columbia University and Colombia highlight his approach to governance: one that is bold, confrontational, and often polarizing. Whether imposing economic sanctions on a foreign country or leveraging domestic funding to address what he perceived as social issues, Trump’s style of leadership left a lasting impact on both domestic and international relations.
In the case of Columbia University, Trump’s decision to cut funding was a direct challenge to academic freedom. For universities across the United States, the message was clear: failure to address controversial issues like antisemitism could result in significant consequences. However, the move also raised concerns about the politicization of university policies and the potential chilling effect on free expression.
In Colombia, Trump’s decision to impose tariffs was seen as a stark reminder that foreign relations under his leadership would be heavily influenced by economic interests and national security concerns. While the conflict was eventually resolved, it underscored the United States’ willingness to wield economic power to achieve diplomatic goals.
Conclusion
The Trump administration’s actions regarding both Columbia University and Colombia serve as prime examples of his distinctive and often controversial leadership style. Whether it was using federal funding to influence university policies or applying tariffs to force diplomatic concessions from foreign governments, Trump’s approach left an indelible mark on the political and economic landscape. While these actions were often divisive, they also demonstrated Trump’s commitment to enforcing his vision of what he saw as American interests—at home and abroad.
As the world continues to grapple with the legacy of the Trump era, it’s clear that these incidents, particularly those involving higher education and international diplomacy, will remain a significant chapter in the history of his presidency.
Tom Suozzi: A Veteran Voice in U.S. Politics and Public Service
