What if we never pay them, asks US President Donald Trump in a brief White House breakfast in early April. Harvard University was the” them,” and the “pay” was$ 9 billion in federal offers. Trump’s topic was no persuasive, according to a report from the New York Times. Two weeks later, Harvard’s federal money was frozen for$ 2.2 billion.
influencing the announcement
After rejecting a string of needs from President Donald Trump’s administration, which sought to remake aristocracy higher learning in its original form, Harvard University, America’s oldest, richest, and most effective institution, is in direct conflict with the White House.
The immediate fallout: The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants and contracts, escalating a battle that some in academia are calling the biggest federal challenge to university independence in decades.
In a public letter, Harvard President Alan Garber stated in full that the school would not relinquish its constitutional rights or to sacrifice its democracy.
No personal university like Harvard or any other you consent to being taken over by the federal government. Harvard won’t, in theory, acknowledge the president’s terms as a principle agreement, in fact.
Harvard’s reaction to the Trump presidency
Zoom in: needs made by Trump administration
By August 2025, the University has adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies and end any discrimination against people based on race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof throughout its academic program, each student system singly, each of its specialized schools, and other programs. For adoption and application may be long-lasting and demonstrate through organizational and organizational changes. All admittance data may be disclosed to the federal government and subject to a thorough inspection by the federal government.
Email from the Trump administration to Harvard
Trump’s abuse on higher learning is not unusual, but it has never before appeared this way. Trump’s team is using national research dollars to compel philosophical changes in elite universities, supported by a work force to fight antisemitism. These include:
- Eliminating programs for diversity, equity, and inclusion ( DEI )
- establishing “merit-based” hiring practices and enrollment procedures
- conducting research into whether students and faculty exhibit intellectual discrimination.
- prohibiting student organizations that are perceived as angry to Jews or as being accused of “illegal abuse.”
- Stopping opposition group recognition and yet outlawing protest-related face coverings
Following decades of pro-Palestinian student teams clashing with officers and drawing accusations of antisemitism, there have been numerous powerful campus protests over Israel’s war in Gaza.
Harvard refused to accept similar terms under the threat of losing$ 400 million, making it the administration’s top target.
Harvard’s approach
Harvard made its point clear in a text from the top law companies Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and King & Spalding:” Harvard continues to be open to dialogue about what the school has done and intends to do to enhance the experience of every part of its community.” However, Harvard is unwilling to accept expectations that go beyond the scope of this or any other administration’s legal authority.
President Garber noted that while Harvard has implemented “lasting and powerful” changes to combat racism, including appointing the Palestine Solidarity Committee to be imprisoned and breaking relationships with Birzeit University in the West Bank, the majority of the government’s requirements veer far beyond those objectives.
The majority of the demands made by the government are strong governmental regulations of the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard, according to Garber.
Why didn’t Harvard simply write a check, cash rich, and create a check?
- Locked money: 70 % of Harvard’s endowment is reserved for certain programs and invincible for general usage.
- Limited flexibility: Only 20 % of funds are voluntary, and even those frequently have strings attached to activities or universities.
- Federal funding is also important: Harvard’s working budget is roughly 16 % of its annual budget, or nearly$ 700 million.
- Operational stress: Harvard has already imposed a hiring freeze and tapped the friendship business for$ 450 million, which is evidence that there is a true force.
- Endowment funds cannot be merely relocated to cover research losses or freezing grants because funding is never fungible.
- Political danger, not only monetary risk: The risk is more about control, law, and Harvard’s ability to govern itself.
What they are saying
The answer has radically shifted along political and ideological lines.
Help for Harvard
- Nothing like this has ever been seen in terms of government intrusion or invasion into scientific decision-making, according to former Columbia president Lee C. Bollinger.
- Governor of Massachusetts, Maura Healey, praised the school for” standing up for learning and flexibility by standing against the Trump Administration’s audacious attempt to bully schools.”
- Larry Summers, the former head of Harvard, referred to it as” the right stand.”
- A group filing a lawsuit alleging the administration had violated due process and academic freedom was gathered among alumni and faculty.
- Anurima Bhargava, a Harvard alumna and advocate for civil rights, said:” Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation, and transformative growth will not yield to authoritarian whims and bullying.”
Attacks by the right
- Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY):” It’s time to completely cut off US taxpayer funding to this institution that hasn’t lived up to its founding motto, Veritas.”
- Harvard was accused by the antisemitism task force of the Trump administration of having a” troubling entitlement mindset.”
- Conservative activist Christopher Rufo said to the New York Times,” We want to set them back a generation or two.”
A counteroffensive against different cultures
The Trump administration’s style of play is both improvisational and aggressive. Columbia University, which ceded to federal demands after the funding was cut by$ 400 million, got the start. Since then, the administration has partially or completely halted funding for research at Princeton, Cornell, Northwestern, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania. An opaque and ideologically hardline organization in Washington coordinates the strategy.
According to the NYT report, Christopher Rufo, Christopher Rufo’s activist and deputy chief of staff for policy at Trump, Stephen Miller, have reportedly advocated for using financial pressure to” set them ]elite universities ] back a generation or two. the overall plan? Establish civil rights enforcement as a means of eradicating progressive influence in academia.
The administration claims that it is reacting to rampant antisemitism on campus. The demands go a long way beyond that. They include departmental audits, bans on face coverings, and the disbanding of student organizations deemed politically unjustifiable.
This isn’t about antisemitism anymore, Garber wrote. The “intellectual conditions” at Harvard are directly regulated by the government in the majority of demands.
The administration views things differently. In response to the university’s defiance, the task force wrote that” Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset.” It is unacceptable to harass Jewish students.
Catch up quickly: Trump’s crackdown so far.
- Columbia: Accepted policy changes, lost$ 400 million.
- Penn: Lost$ 175 million, in part due to support for a transgender athlete.
- Brown, Cornell, Princeton, Northwestern, and Brown: Contracts are frozen.
- Harvard: facing the biggest threat, which could result in a$ 9 billion loss in overall funding.
- The Department of Education has begun inquiries into 60 universities, indicating that this is just the start.
What comes next?
Harvard is already putting more pressure on itself:
- imposed a hiring freeze in March
- Reentered the bond market and raised$ 450 million in tax-exempt debt.
- Monitoring donor fallout after gifts decreased by more than$ 150 million in the previous fiscal year
However, federal law restricts how much of the endowment can be used to address gaps created by donor intent. A source at Harvard told Axios that it can only “maneuver around the margins” of the budget without causing legal or reputational damage.
Meanwhile, lawsuits from Harvard professors and allies claim that the administration’s actions violate Title VI and the First Amendment and that they do not adhere to the legal requirements for reducing federal funding.
The bottom line is this:
Harvard may survive, but it won’t be able to leave its mark. The endowment of the university is not a magic solution. Harvard is being forced to engage in uncomfortable trade-offs, strategic decisions, and public political conflict that is uncommon in the ivory tower.
( With input from organizations )
