In a sweeping new measure, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), along with the Department of Education (ED) and the General Services Administration (GSA), announced a comprehensive review of Columbia University’s federal contracts and grants, citing the school’s alleged failure to address antisemitic “violence and harassment.”
HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. stated in the official press release:
Anti-Semitism – like racism – is a spiritual and moral malady that sickens societies and kills people with lethalities comparable to history’s most deadly plagues.
He went on to condemn what he called “the censorship and false narratives of woke cancel culture” for fostering a hostile campus environment.
Newly appointed Secretary of Education Linda McMahon echoed this sentiment, saying:
Americans have watched in horror for more than a year now, as Jewish students have been assaulted and harassed on elite university campuses. Unlawful encampments and demonstrations have completely paralyzed day-to-day campus operations, depriving Jewish students of learning opportunities to which they are entitled.
The announcement makes clear that Columbia, accused of violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, could face severe financial consequences. The multi-agency federal Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism is considering stop-work orders on $51.4 million in federal contracts with the university, while a broader review of over $5 billion in grants is underway.
From MAHA to Speech Policing?
HHS’s involvement in an education and civil rights issue left many observers puzzled. Typically, enforcement of Title VI, the federal statute prohibiting discrimination in federally funded institutions, falls under the jurisdiction of the Department of Education and the Department of Justice (DOJ). Critics have questioned why an agency primarily responsible for healthcare and public health is now at the forefront of a campaign to regulate campus speech and protests.
Kennedy’s personal pivot is even more striking. Having campaigned on the “Make America Healthy Again” (MAHA) platform, many of his supporters expected his tenure at HHS to be different, one centered on addressing regulatory capture in the healthcare industry, investigating vaccine safety and other potential causes of what Kennedy dubs the “chronic disease epidemic,” and tackling the opioid and mental health crisis. Instead, they now see him spearheading a federal initiative that appears more focused on punishing universities over their handling of political protests than addressing pressing public health challenges.
Social Media Backlash: Bobby and Israel
Kennedy’s social media announcement ignited instant backlash. A great number of critics speculated about external influences behind the decision.
Some believe Kennedy’s strong stance on Columbia aligns with Israeli lobbying efforts in Washington. They argue that pro-Israel groups, not public welfare, may be shaping his priorities.
Many pointed to Kennedy’s past connections to known Mossad asset Jeffrey Epstein, a figure whose shadow still looms large over the intersection of American intelligence, high society, and political influence. Epstein’s deep ties to clandestine networks and his ability to ensnare the powerful in compromising situations have kept his name firmly in circulation among those who see more than just coincidence in the connections he cultivated.
Notably, RFK Jr. is documented to have flown on Epstein’s infamous “Lolita Express” at least twice, adding yet another unsettling layer to the speculation. Given Epstein’s well-documented history of sexual blackmail operations, some have raised uncomfortable questions about whether Kennedy — whose personal life has been, at times, as unrestrained as his rhetoric — may have found himself entangled in something far darker. While there is no public evidence implicating him in Epstein’s more sordid dealings, the mere association with a man whose Rolodex read like a who’s who of the global elite is enough to keep the speculation alive.
The Kennedys
Other observers speculated on the unresolved mystery of the Kennedy family assassinations. Some theorized that pro-Zionist groups played a role in orchestrating these events. Mainstream history attributes the assassinations of John F. Kennedy (JFK) and Robert F. Kennedy Sr. (RFK) to lone actors. Alternative theories, however, suggest deeper geopolitical motivations.
JFK opposed Israel’s nuclear program. RFK backed his brother, working to curb pro-Israel lobbying in the U.S. Their policies put them in direct conflict with powerful Zionist interests.
Given these historical tensions, Kennedy’s current alignment with pro-Israel interests has raised questions. Some wonder who holds the potential leverage over his HHS agenda.
Censorship
Beyond speculation about his motivations, Kennedy’s actions have reignited concerns about government-driven censorship. Critics see his intervention in the Columbia case as part of a broader crackdown on speech critical of Israel. They argue that the federal government is using its power to silence dissent.
Scott Horton, a well-known antiwar journalist, highlighted this dynamic. He noted that much of what is being labeled as antisemitism is, in reality, political opposition to Israel’s military actions. The government’s crackdown on such criticism, he implied, has only fueled greater resentment against Israel.
This sentiment was echoed by Grayzone editor Max Blumenthal, who highlighted the contradiction in Kennedy’s actions.
Blumenthal recalled how, under the Biden administration, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) declared racism a public health issue. The move was widely mocked by anti-woke commentators at the time. Now, many of those same voices remain silent as Kennedy’s HHS frames antisemitism as a “plague.”
Blumenthal’s critique suggested that Kennedy’s approach mirrors the same government overreach he once decried. The difference? This time, it’s repurposed to serve a different set of political interests.
Priorities
Kennedy has not yet responded to the criticism. However, the optics of this intervention are hard to ignore. With potential financial penalties looming, concerns are growing. The key question remains: Should government agencies have the power to regulate speech? Moreover, the Constitution never envisioned HHS or ED, yet they now wield federal power to police student activism.
As the review process unfolds, its impact remains uncertain. Will this set a precedent for greater federal control over university speech? Or will it backfire as a politically motivated overreach?
One thing is clear. Kennedy’s shift from “MAHA” to leading a federal crackdown on campus protests has many questioning where his true priorities lie.
Related:
Federal Intervention in Campus Protests: Trump’s New Antisemitism Order
