Harvard’s $2.3 Billion Gamble: Trump’s Demands and the University’s Response | Donald Trump News

By
Joe Killer
-

President Donald Trump’s efforts to pressure universities to abandon diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, as well as to penalize student protesters, met their strongest resistance yet when Harvard University declined several demands from his administration.

The decision on Monday quickly led the US Department of Education to suspend nearly $2.3 billion in federal funding for the prestigious Ivy League institution, which is recognized among the top universities in the nation.

In a post on his Truth Social platform on Tuesday morning, Trump accused Harvard of promoting “political, ideological, and terrorist-influenced” ideas rather than serving the public good.

So, what transpired between Harvard and Trump, and what motivated the university to risk billions by rejecting the administration’s demands?

What did the Trump administration request from Harvard?

On Friday, the heads of the US Department of Education, Department of Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration co-signed a letter to Harvard accusing the university of “failing to meet the intellectual and civil rights standards that justify federal investment” in recent years.

This was accompanied by a list of demands for the Cambridge, Massachusetts university to fulfill. Among the key requests were:

  • Hiring faculty aligned with the Trump administration’s directives for Harvard as outlined in the letter, while “reducing the influence” of faculty and administrators “more focused on activism than on scholarship”.
  • Eliminating all affirmative action in both faculty hiring and student admissions by August, while ensuring “viewpoint diversity” by removing criteria from admissions and hiring processes that could be seen as ideological litmus tests.
  • Modifying the admissions process “to prevent the admission of international students who oppose American values”, including “students supporting terrorism or anti-Semitism”. The letter did not clarify what constitutes “American values”. For the 2024-2025 academic year, international students accounted for 27.2 percent of Harvard’s total enrollment, an increase from less than 20 percent in 2006-2007.
  • Altering disciplinary policies to prohibit recognition and funding for student groups or clubs that promote “criminal activities, illegal violence, or illegal harassment”.
  • Enforcing a comprehensive mask ban with severe penalties for violations, including suspension, in response to protests by some students wearing masks. The letter did not mention any exceptions, such as for health reasons.
  • Shutting down all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs and offices, alongside executing organizational reform to guarantee transparency with federal regulators.

Harvard was given a deadline of August to implement these changes. This letter marked the second communication from the Trump administration, the first being sent on April 3, which requested Harvard to prohibit face masks and reform academic departments accused of anti-Semitic bias. Accusations of anti-Semitism have emerged against numerous US universities and colleges in light of mass campus protests related to the Gaza conflict.

How did Harvard react to the demands?

Harvard’s legal team responded to the Trump administration by stating that the university rejected the demands, asserting that they violated its First Amendment rights, as recognized by the US Supreme Court, which uphold rights to free speech, expression, and assembly.

The university made clear its strong opposition to anti-Semitism and reaffirmed its commitment to creating a welcoming and supportive learning environment for all students.

Additionally, President Alan Garber signed a separate letter published online on Monday, highlighting that federal grants have driven research and innovation in science and medicine, significantly benefiting people nationwide and globally. “These innovations have made countless people in our country and throughout the world healthier and safer,” he stated.

In the letter, Garber also referenced the government’s threats to withdraw federal funding from various universities, including Harvard, due to accusations of anti-Semitism on campus. He noted that governmental withdrawal from funding agreements with higher education institutions “not only jeopardizes the health and well-being of millions but also threatens the economic security and vitality of our nation.”

While some of the government’s listed demands target anti-Semitism, Harvard argued in the letter that “the majority effectively represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”

“The University will not compromise its independence or its constitutional rights,” Garber added.

On Friday, the Harvard chapter of the American Association of University Professors filed a lawsuit in federal court in Boston, charging the Trump administration with “an unlawful and unprecedented misuse of federal funding and civil rights enforcement authority aimed at undermining academic freedom and free speech on campus.”

In his latest online statement, Trump suggested that “perhaps Harvard should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be taxed as a Political Entity if it continues to promote political, ideological, and terrorist-influenced ‘Sickness?’ Remember, Tax Exempt Status is entirely dependent on acting in the PUBLIC INTEREST!”

What is the backdrop to this confrontation?

In January 2024, Garber established presidential task forces on campus aimed at combating anti-Semitism and addressing bias against Muslims and Arabs amidst Israel’s ongoing conflict in Gaza, which has inflamed tensions on campuses worldwide, including in the US.

In April 2024, pro-Palestinian protesters set up a camp on the Harvard campus known as Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine (HOOP), demanding that the university divest from companies associated with weapons or Israel.

Garber noted that HOOP disrupted educational activities on campus. In May, Harvard and the protesters claimed they reached an agreement to conclude the encampment, though both parties provided differing accounts regarding the agreement’s terms.

While the student protesters asserted that Harvard had consented to their demands, the university explained that it had only expressed willingness to engage in dialogue regarding those demands. For instance, regarding the students’ request for divestment from companies with ties to Israel, Harvard stated it would improve transparency regarding its endowment practices.

What federal funding is at risk for Harvard?

On Monday, shortly after Harvard’s response, a task force established by the US Department of Education to combat anti-Semitism announced that $2.3 billion in federal funding to the university was being frozen.

The statement remarked, “Harvard’s statement today reinforces the disconcerting entitlement mentality pervasive in our nation’s most esteemed universities – the belief that federal investment is devoid of the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws.” The frozen funds to Harvard comprise $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts.

However, even more funding is potentially at stake—approximately $9 billion. On March 31, the Education Department, alongside the Department of Health and Human Services and the General Services Administration, issued a warning that they would review $255.6 million in contracts between the federal government and Harvard as well as its affiliates. They also indicated plans to assess over $8.7 billion in multi-year grant commitments to Harvard and its affiliates.

Harvard’s endowment reached $53.2 billion for the 2024 fiscal year, making it the largest among universities. It’s important to note that donors influence the allocation of 70 percent of the annual endowment distribution. Additionally, the university’s endowment donations experienced a decline of $151 million in 2024 as several billionaire donors ceased funding due to concerns regarding Harvard’s response to anti-Semitism on its campus, as reported by the university’s student-run newspaper, the Harvard Crimson, in October.

How have events unfolded at other US universities?

While Harvard is the first university to reject the Trump administration’s demands, it is not the first Ivy League institution to face scrutiny.

Last year, Columbia University in New York became the focal point of pro-Palestine activism. Protesters occupied Hamilton Hall on April 30, prompting the university to involve the New York Police Department in handling the situation.

In February, the Trump administration withdrew $400 million in federal funding from Columbia, citing its “failure to protect Jewish students from anti-Semitic harassment.” In March, ICE agents detained Mahmoud Khalil, a recent Columbia graduate and leader of the protests who had negotiated with the university during the demonstrations. Shortly before, the US State Department revoked the visa of Ranjani Srinivasan, an urban planning doctoral candidate at Columbia. Soon after, Columbia unenrolled Srinivasan, who managed to escape to Canada prior to potential deportation.

On March 13, the Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism sent a letter to Columbia outlining nine demands for negotiations to restore the withheld funding. By March 18, Columbia conceded to the government’s demands, as detailed in a new memorandum. The memorandum stated that protesting students must present university identification if requested, and it specified that face masks would be banned if used to conceal identity; however, such coverings remain allowed for religious or medical reasons. Additionally, Columbia had hired 36 security officers with authority to arrest students and continued to seek assistance from the New York police for added security.

Recently, the Trump administration has also suspended or frozen funding for Princeton, Cornell, and Northwestern universities. These universities have expressed frustration and highlighted the critical importance of federal funding for research efforts.

On April 11, the US Department of Energy, which provides research funding to many universities, announced a cap on the indirect costs it would finance for supported projects, citing a potential savings of $405 million annually for the government.

Nine universities and three higher education institution associations have since filed a lawsuit challenging that cap. The plaintiffs include the Association of American Universities, American Council on Education, Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities, Brown University, California Institute of Technology, Cornell University, Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Board of Trustees of Michigan State University, the trustees of Princeton University, and the University of Rochester.

What are the reactions to Harvard’s dispute with Trump?

Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders congratulated Harvard on X on Monday for “refusing to concede its constitutional rights to Trump’s authoritarianism.”

Former US President Barack Obama stated on Tuesday, “Harvard has set an example for other higher education institutions – rejecting an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom.”

Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey released a statement on X congratulating Harvard for “standing against the Trump Administration’s brazen attempt to bully schools and weaponize the US Department of Justice under the false pretext of civil rights.”