Harvard University President Alan Garber received a letter on April 11 from the Trump administration detailing a list of demands the university was expected to follow, with the warning that failure to comply would result in the freezing of federal funding. Harvard refused, and within hours, the administration froze $2.2 billion in federal grants and a $60 million contract. A lawsuit against the administration followed on April 21. The Trump administration claims that these demands are to combat antisemitism on campus, but the demands suggest a broader attempt to assert power and control over higher education.
The demands include shutting down all diversity, equity and inclusion programs, replacing faculty based on political ideology and removing decision-making power from students and untenured faculty. It also institutes a mask ban with suspension-level penalties, reporting foreign students who violate conduct rules to the Department of Homeland Security, publicly identifying student groups for punishment and banning them entirely — such as Harvard’s Palestine Solidarity Committee. It even gives federal authorities access to all admissions and hiring data for both admitted and rejected students.
While these demands are being justified as efforts to protect Jewish students, many go far beyond ensuring student safety and appear more focused on exerting federal control over how universities operate. The administration is trying to make an example out of Harvard, warning other universities that they must either comply or face large-scale consequences. Federal funding was frozen almost instantly after Harvard’s rejection, showing how aggressive the government is willing to act.
Garber wrote in a message that “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights” and “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.”
Antisemitism on college campuses is a serious issue and deserves serious solutions, but if the Trump administration were truly committed to combating hatred, then it would be making more mindful choices like promoting education around antisemitism and funding support services.
Instead, the administration has chosen to use antisemitism as a justification for its actions that appear more focused on asserting power more than protecting students.
Garber acknowledges that the university’s objectives in fighting antisemitism 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.”
Trump also threatened to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, despite federal law preventing presidents from directly ordering IRS investigations on taxpayers. Making that threat publicly raises concerns about whether political loyalty is being prioritized over legal boundaries.
Regardless of political party, these current events are alarming, as arguably one of the most powerful and well-known institutions in the nation is being financially punished for refusing to meet ideological demands of the Trump administration.
Only time will tell what these events mean for smaller colleges, public schools and higher education as a whole.
Universities and schools should be institutions where students and faculty are free to ask questions, challenge authority and explore different viewpoints without fear of punishment from the federal government.
Freezing billions in funding over a refusal to comply with political demands sets a dangerous precedent that questions the autonomy of every educational institution in America.
