Harvard’s vow to resist Trump sets up US$9 billion funding fight
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox
Officials have suspended hundreds of millions of dollars in federal funds for research at universities across the country.
PHOTO: AFP
Follow topic:
After weeks of saying he is willing to work with the Trump administration to combat anti-Semitism, Harvard University president Alan Garber emerged on April 14 as the highest-profile challenger to the government’s effort to force change at elite US colleges.
The retribution was swift.
A government task force on anti-Semitism said later that day that it plans to freeze US$2.2 billion (S$2.89 billion) of multi-year grants after Harvard’s decision to reject new demands from the administration.
In a statement earlier in the day, Dr Garber had argued that the expanded requests crossed red lines regarding academic freedom and interference in higher education.
“It makes clear that the intention is not to work with us to address anti-Semitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” Dr Garber wrote on Harvard’s website. “Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating anti-Semitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”
Harvard’s rebuke – backed by two law firms in a letter to US agencies – won plaudits from Democratic lawmakers, alumni and academics who have been eager to see resistance to US President Donald Trump’s use of threats and executive orders to reshape institutions.
Along with targeting law firms and cities, the Trump administration has tried to bring in sweeping changes to universities, claiming that top schools are not doing enough to fight anti-Semitism on campus. The White House has criticised schools’ response to disruptions around pro-Palestinian student protests
Already, the government has cancelled US$400 million in funding to Columbia University, paused funds to Northwestern and Cornell suspended money for Princeton reviewing about US$9 billion of Harvard’s grants and contracts.
Former president Barack Obama, a Harvard Law alumnus, said the university’s move “set an example” in rejecting what he called “an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom”.
“Let’s hope other institutions follow suit,” he added.
‘A gamble’
As the richest US university, with a US$53 billion endowment, Harvard has more financial power than others to weather a potential legal and political fight.
Yet the Trump administration’s response on April 14 – saying Harvard’s pushback “reinforces a troubling entitlement mindset” – indicates that it is willing to strip key funds for research, medicine and public health at the Massachusetts school.
“Harvard’s decision to fight the government, one of the few entities that’s bigger than Harvard, is a gamble,” said Mr Adam Kissel, a visiting fellow at the Heritage Foundation and former deputy assistant secretary at the US Department of Education. The government likely “will begin taking action to issue findings and final determinations that will inevitably bring Harvard back to the table”.
A Harvard spokesman referred to Dr Garber’s earlier statements when asked about the funding freeze: “For the government to retreat from these partnerships now risks not only the health and well-being of millions of individuals, but also the economic security and vitality of our nation.”
Columbia, which has sparked criticism over its response to some of Mr Trump’s demands, released its own statement late on April 14.
“We would reject any agreement in which the government dictates what we teach, research, or who we hire,” acting president Claire Shipman said in a message posted on the school’s website.
“Though we seek to continue constructive dialog with the government, we would reject any agreement that would require us to relinquish our independence and autonomy as an educational institution.”
New demands
Harvard posted the administration’s letter from late on April 11 that detailed the new demands tied to federal funding.
They included reforming the university’s governance; ending diversity, equity and inclusion programmes;
In his response, Dr Garber declared that Harvard would not “surrender its independence or constitutional rights”.
The statement drew support from former Harvard president Larry Summers, who said he hoped other universities would adopt a similar stance to defend academic freedom.
Massachusetts Representative Seth Moulton, a Democrat and Harvard alumnus, praised the school’s leaders “for finding the courage to stand against modern-day tyrants”, while Democratic Governor Maura Healey, also a graduate, said she was grateful to Prof Garber and Harvard for standing up for educational freedom.
“We all agree that anti-Semitism has no place in America and that it should be fought in the workplace, classrooms and everywhere,” she said in a statement. “Complying with the Trump administration’s dangerous demands would have made us all less safe and less free.”
Still, funding freezes risk hitting both the school and the local economy, including Harvard’s renowned hospital system.
The school’s most recent financial report shows that 11 per cent of its US$6.5 billion in annual operating revenue comes from federally sponsored research funding.
The school of public health is the most reliant on “sponsored support”, at 59 per cent of its operating revenue, followed by the school of engineering at 37 per cent and the medical school at 35 per cent.
The report does not break down federal support versus other money for the schools. Federal funding made up approximately 68 per cent of total sponsored revenue in fiscal 2024.
While Harvard’s US$53 billion endowment is more than three times the size of Columbia’s, the university cannot spend it like a bank account.
About 70 per cent of the annual distribution is restricted by donor terms to specific programmes, departments, or purposes, according to the school. It distributed US$2.4 billion in fiscal 2024.
Most universities do not have enough cash and cash liquidity to go indefinitely without such a large portion of their expected budget, said assistant professor of finance Matthew Wynter, from Stony Brook University in New York.
While there is potential that donations will increase in the wake of Harvard’s resistant stance, the university still has to repair relations with some of its biggest financial supporters after its initial approach to combating anti-Semitism on campus created significant rifts.
What is more, turmoil in the US stock market and concern about a potential recession may also lead some alumni to hold back.
“Even for a school like Harvard that has an enormous endowment, in this financial market, it’s very difficult to raise money because of a lot of their alumni gifts are going to be financial assets, which are also performing poorly right now,” Prof Wynter said.
Harvard said last week that it plans to borrow US$750 million in bonds amid the threats to its federal funding.
“As part of ongoing contingency planning for a range of financial circumstances, Harvard is evaluating resources needed to advance its academic and research priorities,” the school said.
The university is working with law firms Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan and King & Spalding in response to the administration.
From a legal perspective, the government’s demands on issues such as requiring diversity on ideological view points were “clearly overly aggressive,” said professor Vikram Amar at the University of California Davis School of Law and the former dean of the University of Illinois College of Law.
“I am not surprised Harvard couldn’t and didn’t accept all that was being asked of it,” he said. BLOOMBERG
