Last month, one of Donald Trump’s key advisors announced a strategy for a relentless attack on America’s prestigious universities, a plan the president has since implemented rigorously.
“We’re going to bankrupt these universities,” Leo Terrell, head of the newly formed federal task force to tackle antisemitism, stated during an interview with Fox News. “We’re going to cut off every single federal dollar.”
If these institutions did not comply, he warned, they should “lawyer up, because the federal government is coming after you.”
This was not exaggeration. Since taking office, Trump has initiated a campaign against U.S. universities that is unprecedented in the history of federal relations with higher education.
The latest move in this conflict came Wednesday evening, when American media reported that the Internal Revenue Service had been instructed to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, a day after Trump issued a threat to that effect, significantly escalating his dispute with the renowned institution.
The White House directed inquiries regarding Harvard’s tax status to the IRS, which did not provide an immediate response to a request for comment.
Trump’s rationale for this campaign is the assertion that college administrations — not only at Harvard but across many campuses — failed to safeguard Jewish students from harassment amid widespread campus protests against Israel in response to the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023.
The strategy employed involves withholding federal funds to compel institutions not only to adopt stronger policies against antisemitism but also to revise their hiring and admissions processes to ensure “viewpoint diversity” — essentially promoting a rightward political shift.
Scott Schneider, an education attorney based in Austin, Texas, remarked that the recent actions by the Trump administration marked the first instance of federal officials withdrawing financial support from universities without even a semblance of due process.
“This is without precedent in the 60-70 years that the government has funded higher education in this country,” he noted. “What’s happening is profoundly coercive.”
For Trump, a graduate of the elite University of Pennsylvania, this initiative is crucial to his political agenda — a part of the cultural warfare he has unleashed against some of America’s most prestigious liberal establishments.
The crackdown bears the unmistakable signature of Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, who is instrumental in shaping much of the president’s domestic policies.
“This is fundamental for conservatives,” declared a Republican strategist. “For decades, the conservative movement, with Miller as a key figure, has criticized college campuses as breeding grounds for radical leftist ideology. This is their opportunity to effect change.”
Miller’s disdain for “wokeness” has roots extending back many years. While attending Duke University, another elite institution, he criticized its “leftist” slant, claiming Democrats outnumbered Republicans on the faculty by a staggering ratio exceeding six to one.
“Conservative students often feel they face a difficult choice between openly expressing their beliefs and receiving a fair grade,” he articulated in the college newspaper in 2005.
In 2021, he founded America First Legal, which has initiated lawsuits against what it terms “woke corporations,” including educational institutions, over alleged discriminatory hiring and admissions practices.
These sentiments are echoed by other top figures within the Trump administration, including vice president JD Vance, a Yale Law School alumnus, who has criticized universities for propagating “ridiculous ideas” like critical race theory throughout American society.
“Universities do not seek knowledge and truth; they pursue deception and lies, and it’s time to acknowledge that fact,” he proclaimed in a widely cited speech from 2021.
This rhetoric has permeated the Republican party, providing a convenient intellectual rationale for the ongoing clash with Ivy League schools. Support for this movement also comes from Harvard alumni like Elise Stefanik, a Republican congresswoman representing New York.
“It is time to entirely cut off taxpayer funding to an institution that has failed to honor its founding motto, Veritas,” she declared. “Defund Harvard.”
The initial target of the Trump’s administration’s campaign was Columbia University in New York, which capitulated to White House demands for substantial changes in governance and student discipline after suspending $400 million in federal funding.
Nevertheless, that funding has yet to be restored. “It demonstrated that complying with the demands of a bully is futile because it will only lead to further demands,” said Michael Thaddeus, vice president of the Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors. “This is not enforcement; it’s a political vendetta.”
Instead, governmental entities intensified their aggressive demands for oversight at Columbia.
Harvard also drew the ire of the administration, with Terrell’s task force insisting on implementation of “merit-based” hiring and admissions procedures, and requiring an external audit of its student body, faculty, and staff for “viewpoint diversity.”
Defying the government’s demands, Harvard asserted its refusal to “surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” In response, the White House suspended over $2.2 billion in federal funding for Harvard and threatened to eliminate its tax-exempt status.
Following reports on Wednesday indicating the IRS was poised to act on Trump’s threat, Harvard labeled such attempts as “unlawful.”
The university stated that such actions would “jeopardize our ability to fulfill our educational mission” and result in “reduced financial aid for students, the discontinuation of vital medical research projects, and lost opportunities for innovation.”
Faculty members noted that Harvard leadership felt compelled to resist the White House’s demands. “The requests were reminiscent of Maoist tactics,” commented Ryan Enos, a political scientist from the university’s School of Government. “They were so drastically out of alignment with American traditions that it’s unsurprising the leadership stood firm.”
Others perceive the Trump administration’s claims of antisemitism as a strategy to bolster support for the Republican Party among Jewish voters.
“As a Jewish individual, I never subscribed to the notion that campus protests were an exceptional threat, but they have provided an opportunity for MAGA to solidify Jewish voter support for the Republican Party,” noted Michael Hirschorn, a Harvard alum, producer, and writer. “They are manipulating the trauma [from October 7] in an alarmingly cynical manner.”
If this confrontation escalates to court, legal experts believe Harvard has a strong case. Even some conservatives have stated that the demand for viewpoint diversity could infringe on First Amendment rights to free speech.
“Any attempt to intervene in classroom discussions is likely to face significant legal challenges for the government,” asserted Adam Kissel, an education specialist at the conservative Heritage Foundation. “It becomes exceedingly difficult to address [specific statements] without contravening the First Amendment.”
However, others contend that even if the White House’s actions are unsuccessful in the courts, they may achieve their primary objective: diminishing the stature of the Ivy League universities and weakening their perceived authority in the American consciousness.
“I suspect an underlying motive here is to erode the privileged status that elite higher education institutions have held in public perception,” suggested Beth Akers of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think-tank with a PhD from Columbia.
Polls indicate a gradual decline in public trust in universities over recent years, she added. “Thus, the political climate is favorable for shifting public opinion.”
