Harvard University has been the leader of academia's resistance to the Trump administration, rated by White House critics, rejecting a roster of intrusive demands and taking the government to court last month.
Legal experts have reclaimed billions of research dollars that the government has stripped after seeing a powerful case built by a team of elite conservative lawyers. Supporters cheered Harvard's unusually sharp public tone.
“Congratulations to Harvard for refusing to waive Trump's constitutional rights to authoritarianism,” Vermont Sen. Bernie Sanders wrote on social media last month.
But behind the scenes, Harvard University officials and their Supreme Governance Committee believe the university is facing a crisis that continues until President Trump comes to power, according to three people involved in the debate. Even if the Harvard lawsuit is successful, these officials say the school will still face major troubles that force the nation's oldest and wealthy universities to rethink its identity and size.
All results seem likely to lead to significant reductions in Harvard's research and workforce, and undermine its excellence for many years. Without the vast research equipment, there is a fear that it could turn out to be like a small, educationally focused liberal arts college.
The university leaders believe the only clear option is to work with Trump or quickly secure a huge sum of money from private donors, the three said. They spoke on condition of anonymity as they were not permitted to discuss private deliberations of school officials.
Cross-current is not what universities faced with modern history. For centuries, Harvard has cherished its independence, its incredible pride, and its record of academic excellence. But Trump enjoys unlocking the confusion that many consider difficult to contain as long as he sees college as his target.
On Monday, the Trump administration threatened to intensify the clashes and suffocate funds for Harvard indefinitely.
“Even if they are violating the law, they can make your life uncomfortable and the court will ultimately find that they are violating the law,” said Samuel R. Bagenstos, an advisor to the Department of Health and Human Services during the Biden administration.
Harvard declined to comment Thursday. However, the head of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences, Harvard's largest division, acknowledged the scale of the university's issues during this week's faculty meeting.
“These federal actions set a change in unrevoked movements, at least not a foreseeable future,” said Dean Hopi E. Hawkstra, according to campus newspaper Harvard Crimson.
“Harvard is trying to freeze funding in court, but we can't assume that if we get to a solution quickly or Harvard wins, the funds will be returned in full,” Dr. Hoekstra said.
Trump and the executive branch have a great leverage in the schools. Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Monday that the federal government will either suspend or at least attempt to halt grants and contracts to Harvard. Harvard received approximately $687 million in federal research funds during fiscal year 2024, making the federal government the largest revenue stream in its portfolio of projects ranging from tuberculosis to space travel research.
Harvard recently issued $750 million in bonds, valued at over $53 billion. However, most donations are limited and cannot be freely spent.
Harvard has already imposed a job freeze and has begun layoffs. Dean Hextra's department has an internal group now known as the Research Continuity Committee, studying how universities can use much smaller research money that is not coming from the federal government.
For now, Harvard Corporation, the board of directors overseeing the university, has decided to maintain the course and continue fighting. Two of the three involved in the debate said board members are sharply sensitive to the uproar that followed when major law firms like Columbia University and Paul cut deals with Trump.
However, some officials wonder whether schools might face less blows for the deal, as Harvard leaders can frame any agreement as a successful settlement in the muscle lawsuit they brought. The lawsuit required universities to submit new audits to change admission and employment practices, dilute faculty impacts, and establish “diversity of perspectives.”
The company told school lawyers not to engage with the Trump administration, according to two people involved in the debate.
What complicates the issue is whether the White House respects the deal.
Former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers said in an interview that it would be difficult to determine a potential settlement before the term is made public. But he said, “If Harvard solved this, he would solve it and give support and encouragement to the idea of ​​foreign terror.”
“Harvard is almost in a unique position – far superior to individual law firms, individual businesses, or almost every other institution. Because of its resources, it resists illegal terrors because of its network width,” he said.
The Trump administration encourages universities to negotiate. White House spokesman Harrison Fields said last month that Harvard's positive response to the administration's demands was “showboating.” He added: “They know more than anyone that not playing ball hurts a team.”
This week, the Trump administration reiterated its purpose to do as much damage as possible when McMahon fired a letter to Harvard University informing him that he would not receive future federal grants. Government contract and grant experts scoffed at Misib, but the government can essentially do blacklist contractors through a process known as bar shaming.
The ban can be challenged rather than an overnight procedure. However, the Trump administration said in an interview this week that it could be a hollow victory as the Trump administration could still try to manipulate grants.
Dr. Daniel W. Jones, former prime minister of the University of Mississippi, said that even if peer reviews were involved, the federal agency was quite upset by the funding decision.
“They were able to find a reason,” said Dr. Jones, former president of the American Heart Association, who frequently consults about grants. “So many have turned upside down.”
The lawsuit can last for months or years. Harvard is seeking a quick end to a pending lawsuit against the government, but the next hearing will not be until July. The appeal also extended the fight, stripping Harvard of money and time.
Dr. Jones also says that researchers “can't stop science and get it back.” Even if Harvard ultimately won the courtroom, the funding disruption could have declined or violated an already carefully structured project.
“Harvard is in a really bad place,” said Bavenstos, a Biden employee. All higher education is “in a really bad place here,” he added.
Aside from research funding, there is nothing to stop the administration from grieving schools with more troublesome and potentially expensive investigations, such as those currently being carried out by at least five different departments and agencies, including the Department of Justice and the Department of Homeland Security.
Some university officials are afraid of these investigations that so far seem nothing more than civil issues, and could swell into full-scale criminal investigations in the coming months.
