Harvard University shares the same purpose as the Trump administration, and its president, Alan M. Gerber, wrote a respectful but solid letter on Monday. This is the extraordinary latest exchange between schools and the federal government in recent weeks.
The letter came a week after the Trump administration told Harvard that he would stop giving research grants.
Last month, the university took to court what the government said was an illegal invasion of government businesses.
But on Monday, Dr. Gerber honoredly claimed that Harvard's efforts to combat anti-Semitism and other prejudices and cultivate the environment for free expression had been hurt by the government's invasion of higher education. He said otherwise he agreed with some of the Trump administration's concerns about higher education.
Dr. Gerber said he embraced his goal of suppressing anti-Semitism on campus. Promoting more intellectual diversity, including a welcoming conservative voice. Reduce the use of race in admission decisions.
These goals are “harmed and threatened by the federal government's continued ignorance of private universities' constitutional freedoms and Harvard's law compliance,” he wrote to Education Secretary Linda McMahon.
The university's response came a week after McMahon wrote to Harvard in writing to advise him that “no one will be provided” from applying for future grants. The letter sparked new concerns within Harvard University about the long-term consequences of the clash with the Trump administration.
“In its best, the university must meet the finest ideals of our nation and educate the thousands of hopeful students walking through its grand gates,” McMahon wrote. “But Harvard has betrayed that ideal.”
Running through the roster of conservative school complaints, McMahon has also sparked the university's “bloated bureaucracy,” its admission policies, the embrace of international students and Democrats, and even the mathematics curriculum.
McMahon called Harvard a “publicly funded institution” despite being private and the majority of its revenues not coming from the government. She suggested that the university relies more on its own funds, noting that Harvard University's donations, worth more than $53 billion, will give a “head start.” (Many of Harvard's contributions are bound by limited funds and cannot be reused freely.)
“Today's letter,” McMahon wrote. “It marks the end of the new university grant.”
In a letter to Dr. Gerber on Monday, he said the university had developed strategies to combat anti-Semitism and other prejudices and invested in academic research in Judaism and related fields. However, he said the university “will not abandon legally protected principles to the heart of fear of unfounded federal retaliation.”
He denied McMahon's claim that Harvard University is political.
“It's not Republican or democratic,” he said of the university. “It's not the arms of other political parties or movements. It's never the case. Harvard is a place where people from all backgrounds gather and learn in an inclusive environment where ideas thrive, whether they are considered “conservative”, “liberal” or whatever. ”
Harvard is the country's wealthiest university, but officials there warn that federal cuts could have devastating consequences on campus and beyond. During Harvard's 2024 academic year, the university received approximately $687 million from the federal government for research. This accounts for around 11% of the university's revenue.
Governments can block the flow of federal money through a process known as a taboo. However, the procedure is tedious and the outcome may be appealed. Government contract experts said McMahon's letter showed that the administration was not following the usual procedures for blacklisting recipients of federal funds.
Harvard officials recognize that even if they successfully challenge the administration's tactics in court, Trump's government can take other steps to suffocate money that is difficult to fight.
The federal government often prioritizes research that shapes the agency's everyday decisions about how and where federal dollars are spent. Some scholars are worried that the government may move away from Harvard's field of research that he has deep expertise, and are worried about effectively shutting out university researchers. Alternatively, the administration could simply argue that Harvard's proposal is not compatible with government needs.
Jessica Tilipman, a government contract law expert at George Washington University, said it would be difficult to show that the government is using backdoors to blacklist grant recipients.
“You basically need to demonstrate and point out concrete evidence, not just feelings,” she said.
Still, she said McMahon's letter could provide Harvard with an opening to challenge the long-term denial of grants.
“It's not that difficult to prove,” Tilipman said.
