Harvard Defies Trump’s Call for Ideological Overhaul, Faces Federal Retaliation

Harvard University has refused demands from the Trump administration that it overhaul its policies, including its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and faculty hiring practices.

The exchange, involving letters between officials from the Departments of Education, Health and Human Services, and the General Services Administration and Harvard’s interim president, Alan Garber, highlighted a growing conflict between the administration and elite academic institutions.

The administration accused Harvard of failing to meet the “intellectual and civil rights conditions” tied to federal funding and issued a list of 10 reforms the university would have to meet to continue receiving support.

The demands come amid claims of rising campus antisemitism, particularly in response to pro-Palestinian protests after Israel launched its genocidal offensive in Gaza on October 7, 2023.

Critics argue the administration is using antisemitism as a pretext to dismantle what it views as liberal dominance in academia.

Earlier, Columbia University had yielded to similar pressure under the threat of losing $9 billion in federal funding.

In an April 11 letter, the administration declared that “investment is not an entitlement” and insisted Harvard comply with the new conditions.

However, backed by a $53.2 billion endowment, Garber pushed back, arguing that the administration’s real aim was not combating antisemitism, but exerting political control over academic institutions.

“The intention is not to work with us to address antisemitism in a cooperative and constructive manner,” Garber wrote.

“Although some of the demands outlined by the government are aimed at combating antisemitism, the majority represent direct governmental regulation of the ‘intellectual conditions’ at Harvard.”

He added: “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.”

Harvard’s legal team, including conservative attorneys William Burck and Robert Hur, asserted that the government’s actions violated the First Amendment.

They wrote that the university “is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.”

The administration responded by freezing $2.2 billion in grants and suspending a $60 million contract with the university.

The standoff occurred on the same day the administration ignored a Supreme Court ruling to return Kilmar Abrego García, a Salvadoran man who had been unlawfully deported.

El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele was visiting the White House at the time, a move that seemed to challenge the authority of the Supreme Court.

Harvard’s stance may strengthen calls for the court to confront the administration more assertively.

“This should be the turning point in the president’s rampage against American institutions,” said Michael Luttig, a conservative former federal judge, speaking to the New York Times.

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, said Harvard’s defiance could embolden other universities, though many lack its financial resources.

“If Harvard had not taken this stand, it would have been nearly impossible for other institutions to do so,” he said.

Some legal observers also believe the university’s resistance could encourage law firms, which have come under pressure to provide pro bono support to Trump, to reject such coercion.

Stephen Miller, White House deputy chief of staff and policy director, reportedly sought a confrontation with Harvard, aiming to break what he views as liberal dominance over higher education.

But Harvard’s reply may signal the opening of a broader front in the struggle over academic freedom.