Harvard’s challenge to Trump administration could test limits of government power
By COLLIN BINKLEY
On one side is Harvard, the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university, with a brand so powerful that its name is synonymous with prestige. On the other side is the Trump administration, determined to go further than any other White House to reshape American higher education.
Both sides are digging in for a clash that could test the limits of the government’s power and the independence that has made U.S. universities a destination for scholars around the world.
On Monday, Harvard became the first university to openly defy the Trump administration as it demands sweeping changes to limit activism on campus. The university frames the government’s demands as a threat not only to the Ivy League school but to the autonomy that the Supreme Court has long granted American universities.
“The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” the university’s lawyers wrote Monday to the government. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.”
The federal government says it’s freezing more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard. The hold on funding marks the seventh time the Trump administration has taken such a step at one of the nation’s most elite colleges, in an attempt to force compliance with Trump’s political agenda. Six of the seven schools are in the Ivy League.
Harvard is uniquely equipped to push back
No university is better positioned to put up a fight than Harvard, whose $53 billion endowment is the largest in the nation. But like other major universities, Harvard also depends on the federal funding that fuels its scientific and medical research. It’s unclear how long Harvard could continue without the frozen money.
Already, Harvard’s refusal appears to be emboldening other institutions.
After initially agreeing to several demands from the Trump administration, Columbia University’s acting president took a more defiant tone in a campus message Monday, saying some of the demands “are not subject to negotiation.”
In her statement, Claire Shipman said she read of Harvard’s rejection with “great interest.”
“Harvard is obviously a particularly powerful institution. And its decision has potential to galvanize other universities into some kind of collective pushback,” said David Pozen, a Columbia law professor who argued that the government’s demands are unlawful.
Trump threatened Tuesday to escalate the dispute, suggesting on social media that Harvard should lose its tax-exempt status “if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’”
The impasse raises questions about how far the administration is willing to go. However it plays out, a legal battle is likely. A faculty group has already brought a legal challenge against the demands, and many in academia expect Harvard to bring its own lawsuit.
In its refusal letter, Harvard said the government’s demands violate the school’s First Amendment rights and other civil rights laws.
University poses first big obstacle in administration’s push for change
For the Trump administration, Harvard presents the first major hurdle in its attempt to force change at universities that Republicans say have become hotbeds of liberalism and antisemitism.
The conflict is straining the longstanding relationship between the federal government and universities that use federal money to fuel scientific breakthroughs. Long seen as a benefit to the greater good, that money has become an easy source of leverage for the Trump administration.
Federal money is an investment and not an entitlement, federal officials wrote in a letter to Harvard last week, accusing the school of failing to meet civil rights obligations that are a condition for federal aid. They argued that Harvard has allowed political ideology to stifle intellectual creativity.
Trump’s campaign has targeted schools accused of tolerating antisemitism amid a wave of pro-Palestinian protests on U.S. campuses. Some of the government’s demands touch directly on that activism, calling on Harvard to impose tougher discipline on protesters and to screen international students for those who are “hostile to the American values.”
Other demands order Harvard to cease all diversity, equity and inclusion programs and to end admissions or hiring practices that consider “race, color, national origin, or proxies thereof.”
Harvard president says demands exceed the government’s authority
Harvard President Alan Garber said the demands go beyond the government’s authority. In a campus message, he wrote that “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.”
Some conservatives have suggested that if Harvard wants independence, it should follow the example of colleges that forgo federal funding to be free of government influence. Hillsdale College, a small conservative school in Michigan that’s among the most prominent examples, quipped on social media that Harvard could become the “Hillsdale of the East.”
“Not taking taxpayer money should be Harvard’s next step,” the school said.
That’s an unlikely scenario, but Harvard may have to find other ways to weather the government’s funding cuts. Harvard generally steers about 5% of its endowment value toward university operations every year, accounting for about a third of its total budget, according to university documents.
The university could draw more from its endowment, but colleges generally try to avoid spending more than 5% to protect investment gains. Like other schools, Harvard is limited in how it spends endowment money, much of which comes from donors who specify how they want it to be used.
The government hasn’t publicly said which grants and contracts are being frozen, but if the university has to survive with little federal funding for an extended period, it would likely require cuts.
“All universities need to be planning for this situation and thinking about how they can survive in a leaner form through the coming years, if it comes to that,” Pozen said.
Among those applauding Harvard’s decision was former President Barack Obama, who called it a rejection of the government’s “ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom.”
“Let’s hope other institutions follow suit,” he said on social media.
A statement from Harvard’s Republican Club implored the university to reach a resolution with the government and “return to the American principles that formed the great men of this nation.”