Trump vs. Harvard: Here's everything you need to know

A high-stakes legal battle is brewing between the Trump administration and Harvard University, as the Ivy League giant challenges the White House’s decision to freeze $2.2 billion in federal funding over allegations of antisemitism and ideological bias on campus.

The conflict erupted when the Trump administration, led by President Donald Trump and his deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller, accused Harvard of failing to combat antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests that swept campuses following the 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and the ensuing Gaza war.

On April 15, after Harvard rejected a list of demands, including eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, banning masks at protests, and auditing faculty for “viewpoint diversity”, the White House froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in contracts. Trump escalated further on April 16, threatening to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status, calling the university a “political entity” pushing “ideological sickness” on Truth Social.

Harvard President Alan Garber has taken a defiant stance. He claims that the administration’s demands violate the university’s First Amendment rights and exceed federal authority under the Civil Rights Act of 1964. “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 they can pursue,” Garber wrote in a letter to the Harvard community on April 14. The university has enlisted two law firms with ties to Trump’s orbit, including a former Trump appointee, to prepare for a potential lawsuit, signaling a courtroom battle may be imminent.

Who Will Win?

Legal experts are divided on the likely outcome. William D. Arazia, a professor at Brooklyn Law School, believes Harvard has a strong case if it can prove the funding freeze was retaliatory. “Garber’s firm stance prior to the funding cut could strengthen the argument that the White House’s move was unlawful,” Arazia noted.

Harvard’s lawsuit, filed by the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) on April 11, alleges that the administration’s review of $9 billion in federal funding is “arbitrary and capricious” and violates free speech rights. A federal judge in Boston recently blocked a similar Trump policy cutting indirect research costs at the National Institutes of Health, suggesting courts may be skeptical of the administration’s overreach.

However, the Trump administration holds significant leverage. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, federal funds can be terminated for non-compliance with anti-discrimination laws, though only after a formal investigation and a 30-day notice to Congress, steps the White House has not yet taken.

White House spokesperson Harrison Fields defended the freeze, stating, “President Trump is working to Make Higher Education Great Again by ending unchecked anti-Semitism and ensuring federal taxpayer dollars do not fund Harvard’s support of dangerous racial discrimination.” Some on X predict a Trump victory, citing his political influence, though others, like user @freentglty, argue he has “overplayed his hand” and Harvard will prevail.

Harvard’s $53.2 billion endowment provides a financial buffer, and the university has already secured $750 million in bonds to mitigate the funding loss. But the freeze threatens critical research, including projects at affiliated hospitals like Massachusetts General and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, which Garber warned could “halt life-saving research and imperil scientific innovation.” If the case reaches the courts, former federal judge Michael Luttig told The New York Times that Harvard’s resistance could be a “turning point” in curbing Trump’s “rampage against American institutions,” potentially emboldening other universities like Columbia, which caved to similar demands after losing $400 million in funding.

Who Should Win?

The debate over who should win hinges on competing principles: academic freedom versus government accountability. Harvard’s supporters, including former President Barack Obama, argue that the Trump administration’s actions are a blatant assault on free speech. Obama, a Harvard Law alum, broke his post-presidency silence on April 15 to call the funding freeze “unlawful and ham-handed,” praising Harvard for rejecting “an attempt to stifle academic freedom.” Independent Senator Bernie Sanders echoed this sentiment on X, urging other universities to follow Harvard’s lead against Trump’s “authoritarianism.”

Critics of Harvard, however, align with Trump’s view that elite universities have fostered antisemitism and leftist bias, failing to protect Jewish students during Gaza war protests. Republican Congresswoman Elise Stefanik posted on X, “Harvard has fully embraced and tolerated the raging antisemitism threatening the lives and physical safety of Jewish students on campus.”

The Trump administration’s demands, including merit-based hiring and reporting foreign students who violate conduct rules, aim to address these concerns, though Harvard argues they infringe on its autonomy as a private institution.

Former Harvard President Lawrence Summers, while critical of Trump’s tactics, told CNN the final call may rest with the courts. “Universities are in need of reform, but that’s not a reason why the government can entirely suspend the law and make up self-serving political demands,” he said. The AAUP lawsuit contends that the administration is exploiting Title VI to silence dissent, pointing to Harvard’s preemptive policy changes, such as severing ties with Birzeit University in Judea and Samaria, as evidence of coercion.

A Broader Impact

Harvard’s defiance has already inspired others. Columbia, after initially conceding to Trump’s demands, issued a statement on April 15 rejecting any agreement that would “require us to relinquish our independence.” Universities like Brown, Princeton, and MIT have also sued the Department of Energy over research funding cuts, joining Harvard in a growing resistance movement. On April 12, hundreds of protesters, including Cambridge Mayor Denise Simmons, rallied in support of Harvard, urging the university to lead the charge against federal overreach.

A Harvard victory might empower other institutions to resist similar pressures, while a Trump win could embolden further White House crackdowns on academia. For now, the nation’s oldest and wealthiest university stands at the forefront of a fight that could redefine the boundaries of academic freedom in America.

This article draws on reporting from The Harvard Crimson, Reuters, The New York Times, and posts on X.