Harvard Defies Trump Administration, Risks Billions in Federal Funding

By Devin Breitenberg

Harvard Defies Trump Administration, Risks Billions in Federal Funding

In a bold stand against federal overreach, Harvard University has rejected a series of demands from the Trump administration, putting nearly $9 billion in federal funding at risk. The confrontation, which escalated rapidly in April 2025, marks a significant clash between one of America’s most prestigious institutions and a White House intent on reshaping higher education. Harvard’s defiance, rooted in principles of academic freedom and institutional autonomy, has ignited a broader debate about the role of government in dictating university policies.

The Administration’s Demands

The Trump administration, through its Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism, initiated a review of Harvard’s federal funding in March 2025, citing concerns over alleged anti-Semitism and diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) practices on campus. On April 11, the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration sent Harvard a letter outlining sweeping conditions to maintain its $8.7 billion in multi-year grants and $255 million in contracts.

Among the demands were:

Elimination of DEI Programs: The administration called for Harvard to dismantle its diversity initiatives, arguing they promote “divisive ideologies” over merit-based practices.

Merit-Based Admissions and Hiring: The government insisted Harvard cease considering race, color, religion, sex, or national origin in admissions and hiring, demanding a strict merit-based approach.

Viewpoint Diversity Audits: Harvard was asked to conduct third-party audits of each department to ensure “viewpoint diversity,” a vague term often interpreted as requiring more conservative perspectives.

International Student Screening: The university was directed to screen international applicants for ideologies deemed “hostile to American values” and report foreign students violating conduct rules to immigration authorities.

Cooperation with Federal Agencies: Harvard was required to fully comply with the Department of Homeland Security and other regulators, including enforcing a ban on face masks during protests—a measure linked to pro-Palestinian demonstrations.

The administration framed these demands as necessary to combat anti-Semitism and ensure compliance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination in federally funded institutions. Failure to comply, the letter warned, would jeopardize Harvard’s funding, critical for research in fields like medicine, engineering, and artificial intelligence.

Harvard’s Defiant Response

On April 14, 2025, Harvard President Alan Garber issued a public letter rejecting the administration’s demands, calling them an unconstitutional overreach that threatens academic freedom. “No government—regardless of which party is in power—should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue,” Garber wrote. He argued that the demands were less about addressing anti-Semitism and more about imposing “direct governmental regulation of the intellectual conditions at Harvard.”

Garber highlighted Harvard’s efforts over the past 15 months to combat anti-Semitism, including adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism, strengthening disciplinary policies, enhancing safety measures, and promoting ideological diversity through new programs. He also emphasized the broader implications of the funding threat, noting that federal grants have fuelled “life-saving research” and innovations benefiting millions. “For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation,” he stated.

Harvard’s legal team, led by attorneys Robert K. Hur and William A. Burck, reinforced Garber’s stance, asserting that the demands violated First Amendment rights and exceeded the government’s statutory authority. They argued that Harvard’s independence as a private institution was non-negotiable, particularly when faced with conditions that would “cede control” to federal oversight.

The Fallout: $2.3 Billion Frozen

Hours after Harvard’s rejection, the Trump administration announced it was freezing $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in contracts to the university, roughly a quarter of the total funding under review. The Joint Task Force issued a statement accusing Harvard of an “entitlement mindset” and failing to uphold civil rights laws. “Harvard or any institution that wishes to violate Title VI is, by law, not eligible for federal funding,” said White House spokesman Harrison Fields, echoing the administration’s broader campaign to “Make Higher Education Great Again.”

The freeze is a significant blow to Harvard, affecting research at affiliated institutions like Mass General Brigham and Boston Children’s Hospital. However, with a $53 billion endowment—the largest of any U.S. university—Harvard is better positioned than most to weather the financial hit. Former Harvard President Larry Summers noted, “With all of those assets—if Harvard can’t resist, who can?”

A Broader Crackdown

Harvard is not alone in facing federal pressure. The Trump administration has targeted other elite universities, citing similar concerns about anti-Semitism and DEI policies. Columbia University, the epicenter of pro-Palestinian protests in 2024, lost $400 million in funding before agreeing to comply with several demands, including hiring additional security and restructuring academic departments. Cornell and Northwestern have also seen funding cuts of $1 billion and $790 million, respectively, while Princeton, Brown, and the University of Pennsylvania face ongoing reviews.

The administration’s actions stem from a campaign promise to curb what it views as unchecked anti-Semitism and ideological bias on campuses, particularly in response to protests over Israel’s war in Gaza. Critics, including rights advocates, argue that the White House conflates criticism of Israel with anti-Semitism, stifling free speech and targeting progressive policies. Some also point to rising Islamophobia and anti-Arab bias, which the administration has not addressed with similar urgency.

Support and Resistance

Harvard’s stand has galvanized supporters of academic freedom. On April 12, the American Association of University Professors and Harvard’s faculty chapter filed a lawsuit in Boston federal court, arguing that the administration’s review violated Title VI procedures and undermined free speech. The lawsuit seeks an emergency order to block the funding cuts, alleging they are a “political ploy” to silence dissent.

Public figures have weighed in as well. Former President Barack Obama posted on X, praising Harvard for “rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom.” Independent Senator Bernie Sanders congratulated the university for resisting “Trump’s authoritarianism,” urging others to follow suit. Conversely, Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik criticized Harvard, calling it the “epitome of moral and academic rot” and advocating for a complete cut-off of taxpayer funding.

Within Harvard, faculty and alumni have rallied behind the administration’s decision. Over 700 faculty members had previously called for resistance, warning of “anti-democratic attacks” on higher education. Alumni like Anurima Bhargava praised Harvard for upholding “the integrity, values, and freedoms that serve as the foundation of higher education.”

The Road Ahead

Harvard’s defiance marks a rare pushback against the Trump administration’s aggressive use of federal funding to enforce policy changes. While the university’s endowment provides a financial buffer, the loss of $2.3 billion could disrupt ongoing research and strain partnerships with federal agencies. To mitigate the impact, Harvard announced plans to borrow $750 million from Wall Street as part of contingency measures.

The broader implications are profound. Harvard’s stand could inspire other institutions to resist federal demands, but it also risks escalating tensions with an administration that has shown willingness to wield its authority. As legal battles unfold and public opinion polarizes, the conflict underscores a fundamental question: to what extent should the government influence the intellectual and operational autonomy of private universities?

For now, Harvard remains steadfast, framing its resistance as a defense of constitutional rights and academic integrity. Whether this gamble preserves its independence or invites further retaliation remains to be seen.

Devin Breitenberg is a legal consultant and senior counsel at Devin Law LLC and legal contributor  for Veritas Expositae.  You can reach her at devin.breitenberg@veritasexpositae.com