Harvard may be uniquely positioned to take on Trump. But, how far can it go?

The Trump administration has ordered a freeze of $2.26 billion in federal funding for Harvard University following its refusal to comply with demands from the White House, including dismantling diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, and altering Harvard's governance and admissions processes.

 

Harvard's President, Alan Garber, has rejected what he called government overreach and has chosen to assert the university's right to autonomy and constitutional protections. In a message to the Harvard community, Garber said, "The University will not yield its independence or forsake its fundamental rights." It represents a significant challenge to the administration’s efforts to reshape higher education, particularly targeting elite institutions accused of fostering ideological conformity."

 

The government's response was swift and severe. Within hours, federal officials confirmed the suspension of $2.26 billion in multi-year grants and contracts. This is a portion of the nearly $9 billion in federal funding Harvard and its affiliated hospitals receive annually, including $7 billion for medical institutions like Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston Children’s Hospital, and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, and $2 billion for research in areas such as space exploration, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease and tuberculosis. The full impact of the freeze remains uncertain, but it could affect critical academic and medical initiatives.

 

The Trump administration accused Harvard of an "entitlement mindset," claiming the university disregarded its obligations to comply with civil rights laws in exchange for federal support. A government task force on antisemitism had previously outlined nine requirements for Harvard to maintain its funding. These included a blanket ban on face masks during protests, the termination of DEI initiatives, and reforms to governance, leadership and admissions. The task force sought to influence academic content, demanding “essential changes” to curricula to promote "viewpoint diversity" and eliminate perceived ideological biases that, they claimed, contributed to antisemitism.

 

Harvard’s legal team, including lawyers William Burck and Robert Hur—both with ties to President Trump—argued that those demands violated the First Amendment and due process. In a letter to the task force, they highlighted Harvard’s efforts to create a welcoming environment, including disciplinary actions against policy violations and efforts to encourage ideological diversity. "Harvard is a markedly different institution today than it was a year ago," they asserted, pointing to progress made since the Hamas-led attacks on Israel on October 7, 2023.

 

The latest dispute is part of a broader administration campaign to pressure elite universities, with institutions like Brown, Princeton, Northwestern and Cornell also facing funding reviews or freezes. Columbia recently agreed to similar demands when threatened with a cut of $400 million in federal funding. Harvard, however, has taken a different approach, leveraging its vast resources—including a $53.2 billion endowment and a recent $750 million bond issuance—to prepare for a prolonged battle.

 

Legal challenges have also emerged. The Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) filed a federal lawsuit, accusing the administration of using civil rights laws to undermine academic freedom. A similar lawsuit was filed regarding Columbia’s funding cuts. The administration’s actions do not conform to established protocols under the Civil Rights Act, which suggest investigations and voluntary resolutions, not punitive freezing of funds.

 

The ongoing conflict stems from the wave of campus protests that rocked American universities last year, sparked by the Gaza war. These protests often led to vandalism and some violence, causing many Jewish students and faculty to feel concerned. Harvard has accepted such challenges, with Garber outlining the university’s efforts to combat antisemitism and promote diverse perspectives. However, the Trump administration wants an audit of the ideological moorings of students and faculty, which are seen by many as an unacceptable intrusion into academic independence.

 

Harvard’s defiance towards Trump has resonated beyond academia, encouraging other institutions wary of the administration’s tactics. Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council of Education, praised Harvard’s defiance as “essential,” exhorting other universities to emulate the move. Harvard’s critics like New York Republican Representative Elise Stefanik, who is also a Harvard alumna, however, condemned the university's move, calling it a symbol of "moral and academic decay". She also demanded a complete withdrawal of taxpayer support.

 

As the wealthiest and oldest university in the United States, Harvard may be uniquely positioned to take on Trump. Its endowment surpasses the GDP of nearly 100 countries, and its alumni include eight American presidents. Yet it will be an uphill battle, taking a president head on. It could lead to further punitive measures, including scrutiny of Harvard’s non-profit status or restrictions on international student visas, further scaling up the conflict.

World