Columbia student sues Trump after official says her permanent legal status in the US is revoked
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
(NEW YORK) — A 21-year-old junior at Columbia University said she was the person whom federal agents were after when they showed up at a residence on West 113 Street earlier this month — and she is now suing President Donald Trump.
Federal immigration agents showed up at Yunseo Chung’s apartment near the Columbia University campus on March 13, law enforcement sources told ABC News.
However, law enforcement officials told ABC News at the time that the woman they were seeking was not there when the agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Homeland Security Investigations arrived.
Chung, who has lived in the United States since she moved from South Korea at age 7 and had become a legal permanent resident, participated in demonstrations in defense of Palestinians in Gaza and in her lawsuit accused Trump and other officials of “attempting to use immigration enforcement as a bludgeon to suppress speech that they dislike” including Chung’s.
Because Chung participated in a March 5 sit-in inside of an academic building at Barnard College, in addition to demonstrating outside, the federal agents searched her dorm, showed up at her parents’ house and said her status as a legal permanent resident had been revoked, according to her lawsuit.
“The prospect of imminent detention, to be followed by deportation proceedings, has chilled her speech. Ms. Chung is now concerned about speaking up about the ongoing ordeal of Palestinians in Gaza as well as what is happening on her own campus: the targeting of her fellow students by the federal government, the arbitrary disciplinary process she and others are undergoing, and the failure of the university to protect noncitizen students,” the lawsuit said.
“If Ms. Chung is detained and deported, she will be indefinitely separated from her family and community,” the filing continued. “Ms. Chung’s parents reside in the continental United States, and her sister is set to start college in the United States in the fall.”
Trump’s administration argued that Chung’s presence poses risks to foreign policy and to halting the spread of antisemitism — the same rationale the administration invoked for the detention of Mahmoud Khalil, a Palestinian activist who was escorted from Columbia on March 8.
According to the sources, the actions against Chung are part of the Trump administration’s crackdown on individuals it has described as espousing the views of Hamas and threatening the safety of Jewish students.
ABC News’ Katherine Faulders contributed to this report.
(WASHINGTON) — Democratic Sen. John Fetterman has accepted President-elect Donald Trump’s invitation to visit him at his Mar-a-Lago club in Florida, the senator said in a statement provided to ABC News.
“President Trump invited me to meet, and I accepted. I’m the Senator for all Pennsylvanians — not just Democrats in Pennsylvania,” Fetterman said in the statement. “I’ve been clear that no one is my gatekeeper. I will meet with an have conversations with anyone if it helps me deliver for Pennsylvania and the nation.”
Fetterman, once branded as a progressive, has increasingly signaled he’s willing to act more independently.
He was one of the first Democrats in the Senate to meet with Pete Hegseth, Trump’s pick to lead the Department of Defense, and he’s expressed willingness to back some of Trump’s other Cabinet nominees.
He also broke away from the progressive wing of his party last year by becoming an outspoken advocate for Israel, at one point traveling there to meet with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.
As Senate Majority Leader John Thune has made clear he won’t back changes to the Senate rules requiring 60 votes to pass most legislation, Trump will need Democratic allies in the Senate.
This could mark an early effort by Trump to court Fetterman.
In an interview last month with ABC News’ “This Week” co-anchor Jonathan Karl, Fetterman said he hopes Trump is successful in his second term and that he’s not “rooting against him.”
“If you’re rooting against the president, you are rooting against the nation,” Fetterman said. “So country first. I know that’s become maybe like a cliche, but it happens to be true.”
Fetterman told Karl his Democratic colleagues need to “chill out” over everything Trump does.
“I’ve been warning people, like, ‘You got to chill out,’ you know? Like the constant, you know, freakout, it’s not helpful,” Fetterman said. “Pack a lunch, pace yourself, because he hasn’t even taken office yet.”
Fetterman was elected to the Senate in 2022, beating Trump-backed Dr. Mehmet Oz, who Trump has picked to lead the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services.
He suffered a stroke during the campaign and was treated for depression the following year.
As Joe Biden’s presidency draws to a close, the reviews are being written — what will become the first draft of history.
And the reviews from most Americans are not good.
Surveys show they have mixed views on his four years at the pinnacle of power, the culmination of a career in public service that spans more than five decades.
Gallup found 54% of U.S. adults think Biden will be remembered as a below average or poor president; 19% say he’ll be remembered as outstanding or above average and 26% think he will be viewed as average.
Historians, though, say it will take years to fully assess Biden’s legacy and his lasting imprint on American politics. Several spoke to ABC News to offer a preliminary take on how they regard his presidency as he prepares to make his exit.
COVID recovery and legislative wins
“I think it is likely Joe Biden’s legacy will be assessed far more generously than some would have it today,” said Ellen Fitzpatrick, professor of history at the University of New Hampshire.
“His quick action upon taking office to address the COVID-19 pandemic, including expediting vaccinations and steering the American Rescue Plan to passage, contributed to a ‘first 100 days’ more robust in achievement than perhaps any president since FDR,” Fitzpatrick added.
The American Rescue Plan, a $1.9 trillion relief bill that provided stimulus checks directly to Americans, support for state and local governments and billions of dollars in vaccine distribution, was signed just months after he took office. By mid-May 2021, his administration announced 250 million vaccines had been administered.
“That activism continued with successes in expanding federal investment in clean energy and improved infrastructure, new job creation, efforts to address climate change, curb health care costs and expand insurance coverage among many initiatives,” Fitzpatrick said.
By the end of his second year in office, he’d also signed the Inflation Reduction Act, a massive climate, health and tax law; the CHIPS Act, a multibillion-dollar law to boost domestic computer chip manufacturing; the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first major gun safety bill in decades; and the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, which provides funding to rebuild the country’s bridges, roads and public transportation.
But some economists question how much the big-ticket bills contributed to inflation, which reached a 40-year high during his time in office though has since cooled.
“He spent a lot of money, but didn’t really change the authorities of government and change the structure of government,” said Tevi Troy, a senior fellow at the Ronald Reagan Institute. “I don’t think people are gonna look at the inflation Reduction Act, which everybody acknowledged was misnamed, the same way that we look at the Great Society legislation that Lyndon B. Johnson passed.”
Plus, Americans may not feel the full impact of Biden’s signature policies — such as infrastructure improvements or drug-pricing reforms — for years to come.
“They experienced all the disruptions without any of the payoff,” said Russell Riley, the co-chair of the Miller Center’s Presidential Oral History Program. “And what I think those who are supporters of Biden will count on is that in the long scope of history, once these projects stop being ongoing ventures with all the headaches associated with it and you see the good that came out of it, that his image will be rehabilitated some.”
Foreign policy footprint
“The things that I think will probably stand up as positives were a return to alliances and the importance of engaging in positive relationships with nations around the globe,” said presidential historian Lindsay Chervinsky. “That was something that both our allies really want and is in America’s best interest.”
Biden made support for Ukraine against Russia’s invasion a key issue, framing it as a battle for democracy against authoritarianism. He made a surprise visit to wartime Kyiv to stand alongside Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy after a year of war.
In the Middle East, Biden tried to balance unwavering support for Israel after Hamas’ terror attack in Oct. 2023 while also pushing for humanitarian assistance for Palestinians inside Gaza. He faced anger from all sides as the conflict unfolded, but managed to secure a ceasefire and hostage release deal between Israel and Hamas at the very end of his presidency.
Biden has also touted ending America’s longest war by removing remaining troops in Afghanistan. But the chaos that accompanied the withdrawal, including the deaths of 13 American service members, cast a pall over his presidency.
“On the flip side, the way in which the departure from Afghanistan unfolded — not so much the departure itself but the way it was conducted and that administration’s inability to take responsibility for that — I think really annoyed a lot of people and continued to color their perspective of the administration,” Chervinsky said.
His decision to run for reelection — and later drop out
Biden announced he was running for reelection in April 2023. At the time, he was 80 years old.
There was no competitive Democratic primary and he was on a glide path to become the party’s nominee until his June 2024 debate performance against Donald Trump.
The poor showing stoked concern among Democrats about Biden’s age and ability to campaign. He fought off the growing panic for weeks, but ultimately withdrew from the campaign on July 21 and endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris to take his place.
“He has sort of two presidencies: before the debate and then after the debate,” said Brandon Rottinghaus, a political science professor at the University of Houston and co-creator of the Presidential Greatness Project.
Riley said he believed this chapter of Biden’s presidency could overshadow his accomplishments.
“I think this is where the light of history will probably be especially harsh, particularly for those who believe that the disruptions of Trumpism are historically significant and adversely impact our constitutional system,” he added.
Biden has maintained a belief that he could have beaten Trump had he stayed in the race. He said he decided to drop out to help unify the Democratic Party.
“The tragic irony of Joe Biden is that he wanted to be president his whole life, certainly his whole Senate career, and when he finally got it, he was too old for the job,” said Troy.
(WASHINGTON) — A federal judge temporarily paused the Trump administration’s “illegal” reductions in force and reinstated approximately 20,000 probationary government employees across 18 agencies who had been terminated.
U.S. District Judge James Bredar — an Obama appointee — concluded that the Trump administration failed to provide the legally required advanced notice before it tried to conduct “massive layoffs.” The judge also prohibited the Trump administration from conducting future mass firings without giving notice.
“When the federal government terminates large numbers of its employees, including those still on probation because they were recently hired or promoted, it must follow certain rules,” Bredar wrote.
The ruling applies to 18 of the federal agencies named as defendants in the case except for the Defense Department, the National Archives and the Office of Personnel Management.
The decision came in a case brought by 20 Democratic attorneys general who sued last week to block the firings and is separate from a California judge’s decision also dealing with probationary employees that was issued earlier Thursday.
Similar to the reasoning of the judge in the California case, Bredar wrote that he believes the government lied when it listed “performance” or other individualized reasons as justification for the layoffs.
“On the record before the Court, this isn’t true. There were no individualized assessments of employees. They were all just fired. Collectively,” he wrote. “It is simply not conceivable that the Government could have conducted individualized assessments of the relevant employees in the relevant timeframe.”
Bredar concluded that the states that sued are suffering irreparable harm by having to assist thousands of unemployed workers who were fired illegally.
“Lacking the notice to which they were entitled, the States weren’t ready for the impact of so many unemployed people,” he wrote. “They are still scrambling to catch up,” he wrote.
Bredar’s order will remain in place for two weeks, and he scheduled a hearing for March 26 to consider issuing a preliminary injunction, which is a longer-term measure.
Like the California case, Bredar did not rule that the Trump administration is not able to conduct mass firings; rather, the administration just needs to provide advanced notice when it conducts a reduction in force. While the order provides a reprieve for more than 20,000 government workers, the lifeline is temporary, even if the order is extended later this month.
The judge’s order came after a hearing Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Maryland.
The Democratic attorneys general argued that the Trump administration violated federal law with the firings by failing to give a required 60-day notice for a reduction in force, opting to pursue the terminations “suddenly and without any advance notice.”
Lawyers with the Department of Justice have argued that the states lack standing because they “cannot interject themselves into the employment relationship between the United States and government workers,” and that to grant the temporary restraining order would “circumvent” the administrative process for challenging the firings.
In separate earlier lawsuits, two other federal judges had declined to immediately block firings of federal employees or to reinstate them to their positions.
