Why Trump’s $2 billion cut to Harvard could change US higher education forever
The Trump administration‘s revocation of more than $2 billion in federal funding from Harvard University marks an unprecedented escalation in the national conflict over campus politics and academic freedom. The move has positioned Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 to either comply with the White House’s demands or mount a legal battle that could redefine the limits of federal power over US higher education.
In an April 15 message to Harvard affiliates, Garber strongly indicated that the University would not back down. As quoted by The Harvard Crimson, Garber wrote, “The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.” He also asserted that the administration’s demands violate Title VI of the Civil Rights Act and infringe on Harvard’s First Amendment protections.
Harvard responds to federal demands with legal muscle
The Trump administration’s ultimatum included a list of directives: dismantling DEI programs, allowing regular federal reviews of academic content, and derecognizing pro-Palestine student groups. According to The Harvard Crimson, Harvard is the only institution that received a formal list of demands before its federal funding was revoked. Legal experts cited by The Harvard Crimson suggest this could support a retaliation claim if the matter proceeds to court.
Garber’s decision to involve two outside law firms—one led by a former Trump appointee and the other by a Trump Organization ethics advisor—signals a serious preparation for litigation. As reported by The Harvard Crimson, Harvard Law School professor Noah R. Feldman ’92 said Garber’s message made it clear that Harvard “is not going to comply with any unlawful demands.”
A contrast with Columbia and a potential precedent
The Trump administration previously revoked $400 million in federal funding from Columbia University under similar accusations. Unlike Harvard, Columbia complied with the federal demands within days. As noted by The Harvard Crimson, Columbia’s then-interim President Katrina A. Armstrong was removed after facing heavy criticism from within the university, an outcome that likely influenced Harvard’s decision not to follow suit.
Former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers also weighed in, stating—as quoted by The Harvard Crimson—that Harvard had both the moral and financial capacity to stand firm. He emphasized that the case for litigation was “overwhelming.”
Could the battle reach the Supreme Court?
Legal scholars believe this conflict could escalate to the highest levels of the US judicial system. Peter H. Lake ’81, a higher education attorney, told The Harvard Crimson that Harvard’s pre-cut resistance may help establish the administration’s move as retaliatory. “I am absolutely convinced that they would get the attention of the Supreme Court if they want to fight this,” he said.
If Harvard proceeds with a lawsuit and succeeds, it could establish a legal and strategic blueprint for other US universities, reshaping the future relationship between academia and federal oversight.
