Jasper Goodman
Tue, April 15, 2025
POLITICO
The oldest and wealthiest university in America — long a training ground for cultural elites — is quickly becoming a face of the resistance to President Donald Trump.
Harvard University vowed this week to fight a wide-ranging set of demands from the Trump administration, pitting the biggest name brand in American higher education against the White House and setting up a remarkable clash of power that could wind up in court.
The fight is quickly escalating. Federal officials have frozen more than $2 billion in grants to the university after it refused to comply with policy changes requested by the Trump administration, including to crack down on student protests, change admissions and hiring practices and submit to government audits. Trump on Tuesday suggested on social media that Harvard could lose its tax-exempt status and instead “be Taxed as a Political Entity.”
Harvard, fueled by a massive endowment valued at more than $53 billion and a powerful alumni network, is now uniquely positioned to become the most prominent U.S. institution yet to actively fight Trump’s efforts to bend elements of American civil society to his will.
“Harvard — by virtue of its resources, its history and its commitment to free speech — is in a position to defend itself,” said Steven Hyman, who previously served as Harvard’s provost, the top academic officer at the school.
While the clash has been brewing for months as the Trump administration targeted other elite schools, this week represents a remarkable inflection point in Trump’s campaign to target institutions his administration sees as hostile — and in the 388-year-old history of America’s wealthiest university.
“Politicians have traditionally, bottom line, been proud of the fact that American higher education was the envy of the world,” said Thomas Parker, a Harvard alum who is a senior associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a Washington-based advocacy organization. “It is unprecedented for the view to be the opposite.
The blitz against the country’s top universities is being led by some of the most powerful people in the West Wing, including Stephen Miller, Trump’s top policy adviser; Vince Haley, director of the Domestic Policy Council; and May Mailman, a senior policy strategist and graduate of Harvard Law School.
Harvard now must decide whether to negotiate with the Trump administration or fight back in court. The university is being represented by two lawyers with significant street credibility on the right: William A. Burck, who has represented many Trump allies in legal disputes, and Robert Hur, a Harvard alum who authored a report on former President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents that conservatives cited as evidence of his mental decline during the 2024 campaign.
The clash is putting a spotlight on Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, who was thrust into the school’s top job last year after his predecessor, Claudine Gay, resigned amid a plagiarism scandal and concerns about her handling of campus antisemitism.
A 69-year-old lifelong academic with degrees in both economics and medicine and a reserved demeanor, Garber is hardly a natural fit to become a resistance leader. But his response to Trump this week is being hailed by Democrats and many on Harvard’s campus as an example of how to fight the president’s aggression.
Garber wrote in a statement Monday that the Trump administration’s demands to the school violate “Harvard’s First Amendment rights and [exceed] the statutory limits of
“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,” he wrote.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that Harvard “has not taken the administration’s demand seriously.”
“All the president is asking is, don’t break federal law, and then you can have your federal funding,” she said. Leavitt added that Trump “wants to see Harvard apologize” for “the egregious antisemitism that took place on their college campus against Jewish American students.”
Many on the left now hope Harvard’s resistance will spur a new wave of pushback from institutions the administration is seeking changes from. But the funding freeze could create significant issues for the university, even despite its wealth — and it’s unclear if others will follow suit.
“Historically, universities in general have been pretty good at fending off government intervention,” Parker said. “What I’ve been asking myself lately is, Harvard has made this historically important and grand gesture — but where’s everybody else? Where’s the coalition?”
Irie Sentner contributed to this report.
Harvard sees $2.2 billion in grants frozen after telling Trump to back off
The oldest and wealthiest university in America — long a training ground for cultural elites — is quickly becoming a face of the resistance to President Donald Trump.
Harvard University vowed this week to fight a wide-ranging set of demands from the Trump administration, pitting the biggest name brand in American higher education against the White House and setting up a remarkable clash of power that could wind up in court.
The fight is quickly escalating. Federal officials have frozen more than $2 billion in grants to the university after it refused to comply with policy changes requested by the Trump administration, including to crack down on student protests, change admissions and hiring practices and submit to government audits. Trump on Tuesday suggested on social media that Harvard could lose its tax-exempt status and instead “be Taxed as a Political Entity.”
Harvard, fueled by a massive endowment valued at more than $53 billion and a powerful alumni network, is now uniquely positioned to become the most prominent U.S. institution yet to actively fight Trump’s efforts to bend elements of American civil society to his will.
“Harvard — by virtue of its resources, its history and its commitment to free speech — is in a position to defend itself,” said Steven Hyman, who previously served as Harvard’s provost, the top academic officer at the school.
While the clash has been brewing for months as the Trump administration targeted other elite schools, this week represents a remarkable inflection point in Trump’s campaign to target institutions his administration sees as hostile — and in the 388-year-old history of America’s wealthiest university.
“Politicians have traditionally, bottom line, been proud of the fact that American higher education was the envy of the world,” said Thomas Parker, a Harvard alum who is a senior associate at the Institute for Higher Education Policy, a Washington-based advocacy organization. “It is unprecedented for the view to be the opposite.
The blitz against the country’s top universities is being led by some of the most powerful people in the West Wing, including Stephen Miller, Trump’s top policy adviser; Vince Haley, director of the Domestic Policy Council; and May Mailman, a senior policy strategist and graduate of Harvard Law School.
Harvard now must decide whether to negotiate with the Trump administration or fight back in court. The university is being represented by two lawyers with significant street credibility on the right: William A. Burck, who has represented many Trump allies in legal disputes, and Robert Hur, a Harvard alum who authored a report on former President Joe Biden’s handling of classified documents that conservatives cited as evidence of his mental decline during the 2024 campaign.
The clash is putting a spotlight on Harvard’s president, Alan Garber, who was thrust into the school’s top job last year after his predecessor, Claudine Gay, resigned amid a plagiarism scandal and concerns about her handling of campus antisemitism.
A 69-year-old lifelong academic with degrees in both economics and medicine and a reserved demeanor, Garber is hardly a natural fit to become a resistance leader. But his response to Trump this week is being hailed by Democrats and many on Harvard’s campus as an example of how to fight the president’s aggression.
Garber wrote in a statement Monday that the Trump administration’s demands to the school violate “Harvard’s First Amendment rights and [exceed] the statutory limits of
“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,” he wrote.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Tuesday that Harvard “has not taken the administration’s demand seriously.”
“All the president is asking is, don’t break federal law, and then you can have your federal funding,” she said. Leavitt added that Trump “wants to see Harvard apologize” for “the egregious antisemitism that took place on their college campus against Jewish American students.”
Many on the left now hope Harvard’s resistance will spur a new wave of pushback from institutions the administration is seeking changes from. But the funding freeze could create significant issues for the university, even despite its wealth — and it’s unclear if others will follow suit.
“Historically, universities in general have been pretty good at fending off government intervention,” Parker said. “What I’ve been asking myself lately is, Harvard has made this historically important and grand gesture — but where’s everybody else? Where’s the coalition?”
Irie Sentner contributed to this report.
Harvard sees $2.2 billion in grants frozen after telling Trump to back off
John L. Dorman,Kelsey Vlamis
INSIDER
Mon, April 14, 2025
Harvard rejected the Trump administration's demands to change myriad policies.
The administration responded by freezing $2.2 billion in grants to the university.
The administration has sought to exercise greater control of affairs at several elite universities.
President Donald Trump's administration said it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard University on Monday after the school rejected a series of demands to change its policies or risk losing its federal funding.
"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," university president Alan M. Garber wrote in a letter on Monday.
"These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate," he continued. "The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community."
Later on Monday, the Trump administration said in a statement it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts.
"Harvard's statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges — that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws," said the joint statement, which was issued by the General Services Administration, the Department of Education, and Health and Human Services.
The Trump administration has demanded Harvard cut its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and make changes to certain programs that his administration feels have fueled "antisemitic harassment."
"Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration," lawyers for Harvard wrote in a letter to administration officials.
The Trump administration announced in March that it was reviewing approximately $9 billion in federal grants and contracts given to Harvard as part of its investigation into how institutions have tackled antisemitism.
The administration also asked Harvard to make changes to its admissions process and work with immigration officials.
The move by Harvard makes it the first university to fight back against the Trump administration over funding threats.
Harvard's decision comes after Columbia University, another Ivy League institution, recently agreed to meet a series of demands in order to obtain $400 million in restored federal grant and contract funding that the administration canceled last month.
Columbia announced that it had agreed to bring onboard nearly 40 "special officers" who would have the power to remove individuals from its campus or arrest them, if needed. It also agreed to ban face masks on campus for the intent of withholding identification, although exceptions are carved out for religious or health reasons. And it agreed to tap a new senior vice provost to oversee the university's Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies.
A week after agreeing to Trump's demands, the interim head of Columbia resigned.
Business Insider
Trump administration freezes $2B in Harvard funding after university refuses to comply
Mon, April 14, 2025
Harvard rejected the Trump administration's demands to change myriad policies.
The administration responded by freezing $2.2 billion in grants to the university.
The administration has sought to exercise greater control of affairs at several elite universities.
President Donald Trump's administration said it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard University on Monday after the school rejected a series of demands to change its policies or risk losing its federal funding.
"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," university president Alan M. Garber wrote in a letter on Monday.
"These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate," he continued. "The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community."
Later on Monday, the Trump administration said in a statement it was freezing $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts.
"Harvard's statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges — that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws," said the joint statement, which was issued by the General Services Administration, the Department of Education, and Health and Human Services.
The Trump administration has demanded Harvard cut its diversity, equity, and inclusion programs and make changes to certain programs that his administration feels have fueled "antisemitic harassment."
"Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration," lawyers for Harvard wrote in a letter to administration officials.
The Trump administration announced in March that it was reviewing approximately $9 billion in federal grants and contracts given to Harvard as part of its investigation into how institutions have tackled antisemitism.
The administration also asked Harvard to make changes to its admissions process and work with immigration officials.
The move by Harvard makes it the first university to fight back against the Trump administration over funding threats.
Harvard's decision comes after Columbia University, another Ivy League institution, recently agreed to meet a series of demands in order to obtain $400 million in restored federal grant and contract funding that the administration canceled last month.
Columbia announced that it had agreed to bring onboard nearly 40 "special officers" who would have the power to remove individuals from its campus or arrest them, if needed. It also agreed to ban face masks on campus for the intent of withholding identification, although exceptions are carved out for religious or health reasons. And it agreed to tap a new senior vice provost to oversee the university's Department of Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies.
A week after agreeing to Trump's demands, the interim head of Columbia resigned.
Business Insider
Trump administration freezes $2B in Harvard funding after university refuses to comply
Irene Rotondo | IRotondo@masslive.com
Tue, April 15, 2025
The Trump administration froze $2.2 billion in funding to Harvard University after the school refused to comply with its demands for a major overhaul.
On Monday, Harvard President Alan M. Garber sent a letter to the school community addressing the list of demands made the first week of April. The government said it would cut nearly $9 billion in Harvard funding and grants if the school did not comply with changes to its leadership structure, admissions and hiring.
Garber said the administration’s demands go ”beyond the power of the federal government,” violate Harvard’s First Amendment rights and are over “the statutory limits of the government’s authority under Title VI.”
“... It threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production and dissemination of knowledge. 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’s letter read.
Hours after a formal rejection was sent from Harvard’s attorneys, the government’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism released a statement.
“Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges – that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws," the statement on the U.S. Department of Education website read.
The statement announced a freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60M in multi-year contract value to Harvard University.
“The disruption of learning that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable. It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support,” the statement read.
Harvard was the first school to push back against he government’s efforts to restructure top schools in the country.
The Trump administration has also threatened to pull funding from Columbia University, Brown University, Princeton University and the University of Pennsylvania.
Columbia agreed to a list of demands from the Trump administration after facing an ultimatum to abide by the requirements or jeopardize federal funding. The decision was met with outrage from community members and the higher education community despite it placing Columbia “on the right track” toward recovering the funding, according to The Associated Press.
The threatened funding also comes after a series of arrests by ICE, including Tufts University doctoral student Rümeysa Öztürk who was arrested by six masked federal immigration agents in Somerville on March 25, in apparent retaliation to an op-ed article she co-authored in the school’s newspaper last year. schools boss defies Trump DEI edict: State will ‘continue to promote diversity’
Trump administration freezes $2.2 billion in grants to Harvard over campus activism
MICHAEL CASEY
Associated Press
Mon, April 14, 2025 at 8:30 PM MDT
The federal government says it’s freezing more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard University, after the institution said it would defy the Trump administration’s demands to limit activism on campus.
In a letter to Harvard Friday, President Donald Trump’s administration had called for broad government and leadership reforms at the university, as well as changes to its admissions policies. It also demanded the university audit views of diversity on campus, and stop recognizing some student clubs.
The federal government said almost $9 billion in grants and contracts in total were at risk if Harvard did not comply.
On Monday, Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands.
“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said in a letter to the Harvard community. “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.”
Hours later, the government froze billions in Harvard’s federal funding — marking the seventh time the Trump administration has taken the step at one of the nation’s most elite colleges. Six of the seven are in the Ivy League.
The first university targeted by the Trump administration was Columbia, which acquiesced to the government’s demands under the threat of billions of dollars in cuts. In an attempt to force compliance with its agenda, the administration also has paused federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern.
Trump’s administration has normalized the extraordinary step of withholding federal money to pressure major academic institutions to comply with the president’s political agenda and to influence campus policy. The administration has argued universities allowed antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests last year against Israel’s war in Gaza.
Harvard, Garber said, already has made extensive reforms to address antisemitism. He said many of the government’s demands don’t relate to antisemitism, but instead are an attempt to regulate the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
Withholding federal funding from Harvard, one of the nation’s top research universities in science and medicine, “risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.” It also violates the university’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the government’s authority under Title VI, which prohibits discrimination against students based on their race, color or national origin, Garber said.
The government’s demands included that Harvard institute what it called “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies and conduct an audit of the study body, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity. The administration also called for a ban on face masks at Harvard — an apparent target of pro-Palestinian campus protesters — and pressured the university to stop recognizing or funding “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment.”
Harvard’s defiance, the federal antisemitism task force said Monday, “reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges — that federal investment does not come with the
“The disruption of learning that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable.”
Trump has promised a more aggressive approach against antisemitism on campus, accusing former President Joe Biden of letting schools off the hook. It has opened new investigations at colleges and detained and deported several foreign students with ties to pro-Palestinian protests.
The demands from the Trump administration had prompted a group of Harvard alumni to write to university leaders calling for it to “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.”
“Harvard stood up today for the integrity, values, and freedoms that serve as the foundation of higher education,” said Anurima Bhargava, one of the alumni behind the letter. “Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation and transformative growth will not yield to bullying and authoritarian whims.”
The government’s pressure on Harvard also sparked a protest over the weekend from the campus community and residents of Cambridge and a lawsuit from the American Association of University Professors on Friday challenging the cuts.
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration has failed to follow steps required under Title VI before it starts cutting funds, including giving notice of the cuts to both the university and Congress.
Mon, April 14, 2025 at 8:30 PM MDT
The federal government says it’s freezing more than $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard University, after the institution said it would defy the Trump administration’s demands to limit activism on campus.
In a letter to Harvard Friday, President Donald Trump’s administration had called for broad government and leadership reforms at the university, as well as changes to its admissions policies. It also demanded the university audit views of diversity on campus, and stop recognizing some student clubs.
The federal government said almost $9 billion in grants and contracts in total were at risk if Harvard did not comply.
On Monday, Harvard President Alan Garber said the university would not bend to the government’s demands.
“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Garber said in a letter to the Harvard community. “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.”
Hours later, the government froze billions in Harvard’s federal funding — marking the seventh time the Trump administration has taken the step at one of the nation’s most elite colleges. Six of the seven are in the Ivy League.
The first university targeted by the Trump administration was Columbia, which acquiesced to the government’s demands under the threat of billions of dollars in cuts. In an attempt to force compliance with its agenda, the administration also has paused federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, Princeton, Cornell and Northwestern.
Trump’s administration has normalized the extraordinary step of withholding federal money to pressure major academic institutions to comply with the president’s political agenda and to influence campus policy. The administration has argued universities allowed antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests last year against Israel’s war in Gaza.
Harvard, Garber said, already has made extensive reforms to address antisemitism. He said many of the government’s demands don’t relate to antisemitism, but instead are an attempt to regulate the “intellectual conditions” at Harvard.
Withholding federal funding from Harvard, one of the nation’s top research universities in science and medicine, “risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.” It also violates the university’s First Amendment rights and exceeds the government’s authority under Title VI, which prohibits discrimination against students based on their race, color or national origin, Garber said.
The government’s demands included that Harvard institute what it called “merit-based” admissions and hiring policies and conduct an audit of the study body, faculty and leadership on their views about diversity. The administration also called for a ban on face masks at Harvard — an apparent target of pro-Palestinian campus protesters — and pressured the university to stop recognizing or funding “any student group or club that endorses or promotes criminal activity, illegal violence, or illegal harassment.”
Harvard’s defiance, the federal antisemitism task force said Monday, “reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation’s most prestigious universities and colleges — that federal investment does not come with the
“The disruption of learning that has plagued campuses in recent years is unacceptable. The harassment of Jewish students is intolerable.”
Trump has promised a more aggressive approach against antisemitism on campus, accusing former President Joe Biden of letting schools off the hook. It has opened new investigations at colleges and detained and deported several foreign students with ties to pro-Palestinian protests.
The demands from the Trump administration had prompted a group of Harvard alumni to write to university leaders calling for it to “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance.”
“Harvard stood up today for the integrity, values, and freedoms that serve as the foundation of higher education,” said Anurima Bhargava, one of the alumni behind the letter. “Harvard reminded the world that learning, innovation and transformative growth will not yield to bullying and authoritarian whims.”
The government’s pressure on Harvard also sparked a protest over the weekend from the campus community and residents of Cambridge and a lawsuit from the American Association of University Professors on Friday challenging the cuts.
In their lawsuit, plaintiffs argue that the Trump administration has failed to follow steps required under Title VI before it starts cutting funds, including giving notice of the cuts to both the university and Congress.
Harvard’s defiance of Trump’s ‘authoritarian incursion’ supported by 60 past and present college and university presidents
The News
US President Donald Trump threatened Harvard University’s tax-exempt status Tuesday, escalating the tensions between the administration and the country’s oldest university.
The threat to tax Harvard as if it were a political entity comes after the Ivy League school rejected administration demands for widespread changes to its policies, prompting Trump to freeze more than $2 billion in federal funding.
The Ivy League’s president suggested the demands — which include screening international students over antisemitism — were illegal and equated to government overreach. While Columbia University capitulated to President Donald Trump’s demands, Harvard’s defiance marks a major rebuke to his crackdown on higher education.
SIGNALS
Harvard could open door to more institutional opposition to TrumpSources: The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Harvard Crimson
Harvard’s opposition to Donald Trump could encourage more universities to stand up to the administration: “If Harvard had not taken this stand… it would have been nearly impossible for other institutions to do so,” the president of the American Council of Education told The New York Times. Still, the university has sought to minimize tensions with the administration: It has hired lawyers close to the White House, dismissed some faculty targeted by conservatives, and adopted an expansive definition of antisemitism. Harvard must consider whether cooperation is even rewarded, The Atlantic argued — Columbia’s funding remains frozen. For now, Harvard seems likely to sue the Trump administration, several law professors told The Harvard Crimson., setting up another contentious legal test of presidential authority.
Trump allies push to expand pressure campaign
Law firms offer a ‘playbook’ for how to organizeSources: Politico, The New Yorker, The New York Times
FORTUNE
Tue, April 15, 2025
Alan Garber, president of Harvard University.
The Trump administration has recently escalated its destructive and illegal attacks on the core freedoms of American colleges and universities, which we have called on it to halt (Fortune, April 8). The demands issued to Harvard University (in an April 11 letter), followed by the freezing of $2.2 billion of federal research funds along with threats to Harvard's tax-exempt status, violate no less than the freedom of all colleges and universities to admit students, hire faculty, and govern themselves consistently with the law, the First Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and long-standing principles of academic freedom. As current and former presidents of academic institutions, we strongly support Harvard’s President Alan Garber, who has rejected the demands on these grounds while the Trump administration threatens to demand control of numerous other schools. Just over three miles from Harvard Square is the Boston Tea Party site where, in 1773, American patriots fought government tyranny.
When the Trump administration conditions federal grants and contracts to universities on these demands, it threatens all Americans. Higher education is the greatest source of U.S. global competitiveness, cultural enrichment, and learning. By partnering with the federal government for decades, American universities have made lifesaving discoveries and increased the prosperity, safety, security, and creativity of our country. When the Trump administration insists on anyone’s compliance with likely illegal and unconstitutional conditions, it is threatening everyone’s freedom from arbitrary rule. When it insists on controlling the admission of students, faculty hiring, and governance of a university, it is also threatening a prime source of the opportunity and economic prosperity of all Americans. We all know from Martin Neimoller’s haunting lament, this authoritarian incursion does not end with Harvard.
Authors:
Edward Ayers, University of Richmond (Virginia)
Lawrence Bacow, Tufts University (Massachusetts), Harvard University (Massachusetts)
Kimberly Benston, Haverford College (Pennsylvania)
Katherine Bergeron, Connecticut College (Connecticut)
Henry Bienen, Northwestern University (Illinois)
Lee Bollinger, Columbia University (New York), University of Michigan (Michigan)
Phil Boroughs, SJ, College of the Holy Cross (Massachusetts)
William Brody, Salk Institute, The Johns Hopkins University (Maryland)
Robert Brown, Boston University (Massachusetts)
Alison Byerly, Carleton College (Minnesota)
Albert Carnesale, University of California – Los Angeles (California)
Carol T. Christ, University of California – Berkeley (California)
Mary Sue Coleman, University of Michigan (Michigan), University of Iowa (Iowa)
Ron Crutcher, Wheaton College (Massachusetts)
Nicholas Dirks, University of California – Berkeley (California)
Adam Falk, Williams College (Massachusetts)
Jonathan Fanton, The New School (New York)
Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University (Massachusetts)
Wayne A. I. Frederick, Howard University (Washington DC)
Stephen Friedman, Pace University (New York)
Amy Gutmann, University of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)
Phil Hanlon, Dartmouth College (New Hampshire)
Robert Head, Rockford University (Illinois)
Mark A. Heckler, Valparaiso University (Indiana)
John Hennessy, Stanford University (California)
Catharine Bond Hill, Vassar College (New York)
Jonathan Holloway, Rutgers University (New Jersey)
Freeman Hrabowski, The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (Maryland)
Nan Keohane, Duke University (North Carolina), Wellesley College (Massachusetts)
Brit Kirwan, University System of Maryland (Maryland)
Bernie Machen, University of Florida (Florida)
Gail Mellow, LaGuardia Community College – City University of New York (New York)
Pat McGuire, Trinity Washington University (Washington DC)
Anthony Monaco, Tufts University (Massachusetts)
Richard Morrill, Centre College (Kentucky)
M. Duane Nellis, Ohio University (Ohio), Texas Tech University (Texas), University of Idaho (Idaho)
Lynn Pasquerella, Mount Holyoke College (Massachusetts)
Laurie Patton, Middlebury College (Vermont)
Susan Poser, Hofstra University (New York)
Steven Poskanzer, Carleton College (Minnesota)
Gregory Prince, Hampshire College (Massachusetts)
Stuart Rabinowitz, Hofstra University (New York)
L. Rafael Reif, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Massachusetts)
Kevin Reilly, University of Wisconsin (Wisconsin)
L. Song Richardson, Colorado College (Colorado)
Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan University (Connecticut)
George Rupp, Rice University (Texas), Columbia University (New York)
Leonard A. Schlesinger, Babson College (Massachusetts)
Mark Schlissel, University of Michigan (Michigan)
Jake Schrum, Emory & Henry College (Virginia), Southwestern University (Texas), Texas Wesleyan University (Texas)
Allen Sessoms, Queens College, City University of New York (New York), Delaware State University (Delaware), University of the District of Columbia (Washington DC)
Donna Shalala, University of Miami (Florida), University of Wisconsin-Madison (Wisconsin), Hunter College of the City University of New York (New York)
Robert Sternberg, University of Wyoming (Wyoming)
Teresa Sullivan, University of Virginia (Virginia)
Beverly Daniel Tatum, Spelman College (Georgia)
Lara Tiedens, Scripps College (California)
Steve Trachtenberg, George Washington University (Washington DC)
Laura Walker, Bennington College (Vermont)
Daniel H. Weiss, Haverford College (Pennsylvania), Lafayette College (Pennsylvania)
Julie Wollman, Widener University (Pennsylvania)
Meredith Woo, Sweet Briar College (Virginia)
Nicholas Zeppos, Vanderbilt University (Tennessee)
Institutional affiliations provided for identification only.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Trump threatens Harvard’s tax status after freezing billions in funds
Tue, April 15, 2025
Alan Garber, president of Harvard University.
The Trump administration has recently escalated its destructive and illegal attacks on the core freedoms of American colleges and universities, which we have called on it to halt (Fortune, April 8). The demands issued to Harvard University (in an April 11 letter), followed by the freezing of $2.2 billion of federal research funds along with threats to Harvard's tax-exempt status, violate no less than the freedom of all colleges and universities to admit students, hire faculty, and govern themselves consistently with the law, the First Amendment, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, and long-standing principles of academic freedom. As current and former presidents of academic institutions, we strongly support Harvard’s President Alan Garber, who has rejected the demands on these grounds while the Trump administration threatens to demand control of numerous other schools. Just over three miles from Harvard Square is the Boston Tea Party site where, in 1773, American patriots fought government tyranny.
When the Trump administration conditions federal grants and contracts to universities on these demands, it threatens all Americans. Higher education is the greatest source of U.S. global competitiveness, cultural enrichment, and learning. By partnering with the federal government for decades, American universities have made lifesaving discoveries and increased the prosperity, safety, security, and creativity of our country. When the Trump administration insists on anyone’s compliance with likely illegal and unconstitutional conditions, it is threatening everyone’s freedom from arbitrary rule. When it insists on controlling the admission of students, faculty hiring, and governance of a university, it is also threatening a prime source of the opportunity and economic prosperity of all Americans. We all know from Martin Neimoller’s haunting lament, this authoritarian incursion does not end with Harvard.
Authors:
Edward Ayers, University of Richmond (Virginia)
Lawrence Bacow, Tufts University (Massachusetts), Harvard University (Massachusetts)
Kimberly Benston, Haverford College (Pennsylvania)
Katherine Bergeron, Connecticut College (Connecticut)
Henry Bienen, Northwestern University (Illinois)
Lee Bollinger, Columbia University (New York), University of Michigan (Michigan)
Phil Boroughs, SJ, College of the Holy Cross (Massachusetts)
William Brody, Salk Institute, The Johns Hopkins University (Maryland)
Robert Brown, Boston University (Massachusetts)
Alison Byerly, Carleton College (Minnesota)
Albert Carnesale, University of California – Los Angeles (California)
Carol T. Christ, University of California – Berkeley (California)
Mary Sue Coleman, University of Michigan (Michigan), University of Iowa (Iowa)
Ron Crutcher, Wheaton College (Massachusetts)
Nicholas Dirks, University of California – Berkeley (California)
Adam Falk, Williams College (Massachusetts)
Jonathan Fanton, The New School (New York)
Drew Gilpin Faust, Harvard University (Massachusetts)
Wayne A. I. Frederick, Howard University (Washington DC)
Stephen Friedman, Pace University (New York)
Amy Gutmann, University of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania)
Phil Hanlon, Dartmouth College (New Hampshire)
Robert Head, Rockford University (Illinois)
Mark A. Heckler, Valparaiso University (Indiana)
John Hennessy, Stanford University (California)
Catharine Bond Hill, Vassar College (New York)
Jonathan Holloway, Rutgers University (New Jersey)
Freeman Hrabowski, The University of Maryland, Baltimore County (Maryland)
Nan Keohane, Duke University (North Carolina), Wellesley College (Massachusetts)
Brit Kirwan, University System of Maryland (Maryland)
Bernie Machen, University of Florida (Florida)
Gail Mellow, LaGuardia Community College – City University of New York (New York)
Pat McGuire, Trinity Washington University (Washington DC)
Anthony Monaco, Tufts University (Massachusetts)
Richard Morrill, Centre College (Kentucky)
M. Duane Nellis, Ohio University (Ohio), Texas Tech University (Texas), University of Idaho (Idaho)
Lynn Pasquerella, Mount Holyoke College (Massachusetts)
Laurie Patton, Middlebury College (Vermont)
Susan Poser, Hofstra University (New York)
Steven Poskanzer, Carleton College (Minnesota)
Gregory Prince, Hampshire College (Massachusetts)
Stuart Rabinowitz, Hofstra University (New York)
L. Rafael Reif, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (Massachusetts)
Kevin Reilly, University of Wisconsin (Wisconsin)
L. Song Richardson, Colorado College (Colorado)
Michael S. Roth, Wesleyan University (Connecticut)
George Rupp, Rice University (Texas), Columbia University (New York)
Leonard A. Schlesinger, Babson College (Massachusetts)
Mark Schlissel, University of Michigan (Michigan)
Jake Schrum, Emory & Henry College (Virginia), Southwestern University (Texas), Texas Wesleyan University (Texas)
Allen Sessoms, Queens College, City University of New York (New York), Delaware State University (Delaware), University of the District of Columbia (Washington DC)
Donna Shalala, University of Miami (Florida), University of Wisconsin-Madison (Wisconsin), Hunter College of the City University of New York (New York)
Robert Sternberg, University of Wyoming (Wyoming)
Teresa Sullivan, University of Virginia (Virginia)
Beverly Daniel Tatum, Spelman College (Georgia)
Lara Tiedens, Scripps College (California)
Steve Trachtenberg, George Washington University (Washington DC)
Laura Walker, Bennington College (Vermont)
Daniel H. Weiss, Haverford College (Pennsylvania), Lafayette College (Pennsylvania)
Julie Wollman, Widener University (Pennsylvania)
Meredith Woo, Sweet Briar College (Virginia)
Nicholas Zeppos, Vanderbilt University (Tennessee)
Institutional affiliations provided for identification only.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Trump threatens Harvard’s tax status after freezing billions in funds
Mathias Hammer
Tue, April 15, 2025
Tue, April 15, 2025
SEMAFOR
The News
US President Donald Trump threatened Harvard University’s tax-exempt status Tuesday, escalating the tensions between the administration and the country’s oldest university.
The threat to tax Harvard as if it were a political entity comes after the Ivy League school rejected administration demands for widespread changes to its policies, prompting Trump to freeze more than $2 billion in federal funding.
The Ivy League’s president suggested the demands — which include screening international students over antisemitism — were illegal and equated to government overreach. While Columbia University capitulated to President Donald Trump’s demands, Harvard’s defiance marks a major rebuke to his crackdown on higher education.
SIGNALS
Harvard could open door to more institutional opposition to TrumpSources: The New York Times, The Atlantic, The Harvard Crimson
Harvard’s opposition to Donald Trump could encourage more universities to stand up to the administration: “If Harvard had not taken this stand… it would have been nearly impossible for other institutions to do so,” the president of the American Council of Education told The New York Times. Still, the university has sought to minimize tensions with the administration: It has hired lawyers close to the White House, dismissed some faculty targeted by conservatives, and adopted an expansive definition of antisemitism. Harvard must consider whether cooperation is even rewarded, The Atlantic argued — Columbia’s funding remains frozen. For now, Harvard seems likely to sue the Trump administration, several law professors told The Harvard Crimson., setting up another contentious legal test of presidential authority.
Trump allies push to expand pressure campaign
Sources: The Economist, Christopher Rufo, The Wall Street Journal
The president’s most ardent supporters are eager for the administration to expand its pressure campaign on higher education, seeing the schools as hotbeds for leftwing radicalism that have fostered damaging ideas about race and gender, The Economist argued. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo said the showdown with Columbia University can serve as a “prototype” for how to weaken progressive influence in schools, showing universities are “vulnerable to financial pressure and fold easily.” “Cutting off the funding spigot is a nuclear-type weapon of enforcement,” one education lawyer told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s outside the legal system and is a remarkable exercise of executive authority.”
The president’s most ardent supporters are eager for the administration to expand its pressure campaign on higher education, seeing the schools as hotbeds for leftwing radicalism that have fostered damaging ideas about race and gender, The Economist argued. Conservative activist Christopher Rufo said the showdown with Columbia University can serve as a “prototype” for how to weaken progressive influence in schools, showing universities are “vulnerable to financial pressure and fold easily.” “Cutting off the funding spigot is a nuclear-type weapon of enforcement,” one education lawyer told The Wall Street Journal. “It’s outside the legal system and is a remarkable exercise of executive authority.”
Law firms offer a ‘playbook’ for how to organizeSources: Politico, The New Yorker, The New York Times
No comments:
Post a Comment