In early April, US President Donald Trump asked a simple, fire question in a private. white House Lunch: “What if we never pay them?” “Them” was Harvard UniversityAnd the “salary” was $ 9 billion in federal grant. According to a New York Times report, Trump’s question was not rhetoric. Two weeks later, Harvard’s federal funding was $ 2.2 billion frozen.
News driving
Harvard University – America’s oldest, richest and most powerful college – President Donald Trump is in an open struggle with the White House after rejecting a wide set of demands from the administration, which aims to remake the elite higher education in its ideological image.
Immediate decline: The Trump administration gathered $ 2.2 billion in federal grants and contracts, increasing a fight that some academics are calling the biggest federal challenge to the university’s freedom in decades.
Harvard President Alan Garber clarified the position of the university in a public letter: “The university would not surrender its freedom or abandon its constitutional rights.”
Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be handled by the federal government. Accordingly, Harvard will not accept the terms of the government as an agreement in theory.
Harvard’s response to Trump administration
Zoom in: Demand for Trump Admin
By August 2025, the university must adopt and implement the merit-based admission policies and should close all preferences on the basis of race, color, national original, or curtains during each of its professional schools and other programs. Such adoption and implementation must be durable and displayed through structural and personnel changes. All entry data will be shared with the federal government and will be subject to a comprehensive audit by the federal government.
Trump administration letter to Harvard
Trump’s attack on higher education is not new – but it never looks like this before. Supported by a task force to combat antisementism, Trump’s team is taking advantage of federal research dollars to force ideological reforms on elite universities. This includes:
- Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) Elimination of Programs
- Establishment of “Eligibility-based” entry and working policies
- Conducting an audit of conceptual bias between students and faculty
- Banning of student groups is considered hostile to Jewish students or accused of “illegal harassment”
- Preventing the recognition of protest groups
This is the time of the months of opposition to the intensive campus on Israel’s war in Gaza, including Palestinian student groups that collided with the police and attracted allegations of antisementic rhetoric.
While Columbia University accepted similar conditions under the threat of losing $ 400 million, Harvard Refused – to become the top goal of the administration.
Harvard’s trend
In a letter sent by Powerhouse Law firms, Quin Imanuel Urkhart and Sulivan and King and Speelding, Harvard made his position plain: “Harvard is open to talks about what Harvard University has done, and is planning to improve the experience of each member of his community.
President Garber mentioned that while Harvard has made “permanent and strong” reforms to deal with antismitism – including the Palestine solidarity committee with the Birzit University in the West Bank involving probation and separating relations – most of the demands of the administration are much beyond those goals.
“Although some of the demands mentioned by the government aims to compete with antismitism, the majority represents the direct government regulation of ‘intellectual conditions’ in Harvard,” Garber wrote.
Entry prosperous, cash poor: Why Harvard cannot write just one check
- Locked fund: 70% of Harvard’s settlement is banned by donor conditions – untouchables for earning and general use for specific programs.
- Limited flexibility: Only 20% of the money is discretionary, and even they often come with wires associated with schools or initiatives.
- Federal money still matters: Federal Money is about 16% of Harvard’s operating budget – $ 700 million a year.
- Operational stress: Harvard has already implemented a hiring freeze and tapped the bond market for $ 450 million, indicating that the pressure is real.
- Funding is not fun: Endowment funds cannot be re -re -done to cover research loss or covered frozen grants.
- Political risk, not financially financial: The danger is not just about money – it is about control, example and the ability of Harvard to control themselves.
What are they saying
The reaction has clearly divided with biased and conceptual lines.
Support for Harvard
- “I have never seen this degree of infiltration of the government, encroachment in making academic decisions-” is nothing. “
- Massachusetts Governor Maurya Hele “praised the university for standing to threaten the Brezen schools of the Trump administration and to stand up for education and freedom.”
- Former Harvard President Larry Summers called it a “right stand”.
- The alumni and faculty held a rally, with a group filing suit the administration argued that the appropriate process and educational freedom were violated.
- Harvard alumor and civil rights advocate Anunima Bhargava said: “Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation and transformative development would not yield for bullying and powerful craze.”
Attack from the right side
- Rape Ellis Stephanic (R-NY): “This is the time for this institution to cut American taxpayer funding completely which has failed to live up to its founding motto, Veritas.”
- The Antismitism Task Force of the Trump administration accused Harvard of demonstrating a “disturbed mentality”.
- Orthodox activist Christopher Roofo said that NYT said, “We want to set them back to one or two generations.”
A cultural retaliation
The playbook of the Trump administration is both aggressive and improvised. It began with the University of Columbia, which accepted federal demands after $ 400 million in funding. Since then, the administration has partially or fully suspended research funding at Princeton, Cornell, Northwestern, Brown and Pennsylvania. The approach is coordinated through an opaque and ideologically staunch group in Washington.
According to NYT report, Stephen MillerTrump’s Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy, and activist Christopher Rufo allegedly advocated using financial pressure to “set them” [elite universities] One generation or two back. “Comprehensive strategy?
The administration argues that it is responding to uncontrolled antismitism in the campus. But the demands go beyond that. These include the ideological audit of departments, restrictions on face covering (seen as a rebuke for pro-Pilstinian protesters), and the disintegration of politically unacceptable student groups is considered unacceptable.
“It’s no longer about antismitism,” Garber wrote. “Majority [of demands] Harvard represents direct government regulation of ‘intellectual conditions’. ,
The administration sees things differently. In response to the university’s disregard, the task force wrote, “Harvard’s statement strengthens the disturbing mindset today.” “The harassment of Jewish students is unbearable.”
Hold quickly: Trump’s crack so far
- Colombia: $ 400m lost, agreed to policy changes.
- Pen: Lost $ 175m in part in support of a transgender athlete.
- Princeton, Northwestern, Cornell, Brown: Contracts Frozen.
- Harvard: Facing the biggest danger – potential $ 9B loss in total funding.
- The Department of Education has opened an inquiry in 60 universities, it is only the beginning.
What will happen next
Harvard is already tightening his belt:
- A hiring freeze in March
- Bond market resumed, collecting $ 450 million in tax-free loans
- Donor Fallout, monitoring gifts in the last financial year, fell over $ 150 million after gifts
But Doner intentions limits the laws how much endowment is the right to plug the federal shortage. A university source told Exios that Harvard could “maneuver around the margin” of the budget without triggering only a legal or iconic blow.
Meanwhile, the Harvard faculty and the cases of colleagues argue that the administration of the administration violates the title VI and the first amendment, and fails to follow the legal processes required to cut federal funds.
Bottom line
Harvard can survive – but it will not avoid unchanged. University’s endowment is not a silver pill. The fight with Trump Harvard is rarely seen from the Ivory Tower in uncomfortable trade, strategic cuts and public political war.
(With input from agencies)
