Harvard is running out of options as the conflict drags on
Since the beginning of President Trump’s second term, Harvard University has been locked in an ongoing battle with the Trump Administration over changes to how the university is run. Early on, the administration threatened certain colleges in the Ivy League, as well as several others, with federal funding cuts if their diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies weren’t removed. The list of schools threatened included the traditionally elite Ivies—Brown, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, the University of Pennsylvania, and Princeton—as well as peer institutions in Duke, Northwestern, and the University of California, Los Angeles. While this warning was made to most Ivy League schools, further demands were specifically made of Harvard University. The Trump administration could have decided to target Harvard for several reasons; perhaps it is because berating the old, respected university on a public level serves as a warning for American colleges, or maybe it’s that attacking a liberal college about its DEI measures pleases Trump’s supporters.
The government sent Harvard three separate memos detailing the invasive conditions, many about DEI policies or combating antisemitism, that it must agree to in order to continue receiving government support. Despite Trump’s ultimatums, Harvard put up a fight, turning the president’s threat into a full-fledged war. While some Ivies have also fought back against the government, the attacks against them have been comparatively smaller. Other Ivies, namely Brown, Columbia, and the University of Pennsylvania, cut deals with the government to appease the administration. Harvard, faced with the challenge of maintaining resilience in the eyes of the public, is attempting to demonstrate that they will not give in despite the government’s attacks. While Harvard has fought fiercely against the Trump administration’s attempts to control the university, it had no choice but to make several changes.
Harvard has to balance maintaining its values and freedom with making sure it still has enough money and support to keep its reputation as one of the world’s most prestigious universities. This means that it had to adjust some policies to continue receiving federal funding. Harvard has been making small adjustments to certain policies and organizations, many involving DEI efforts. For example, the Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion, and Belonging was renamed to the Office for Community and Campus Life. In addition, websites for the Foundation for Intercultural and Race Relations were taken down, and Harvard merged separate offices supporting gay, female, and minority students into one. Although these changes are rather small, they show that Harvard could not resist all of the government’s demands without making sacrifices to keep receiving funding. The university uses government funding mostly for research. The $686 million it received in the 2024 fiscal year funded ⅔ of research spending and 11% of Harvard’s operating revenue. If government funding is revoked, the university would feel the effects greatly, especially for researchers. Despite this, Harvard, unlike other universities facing Trump’s threats, has kept its changes relatively small. The University of Pennsylvania, for example, removed all mention of DEI from its websites and took down its main DEI website. The fact that the university did not draw back on all of the administration’s more significant demands shows that it is trying to make changes as small as possible while still slightly appeasing the government.
While in some situations Harvard made changes the government wanted, it has generally set a good example of resisting Trump’s overreach. The most prominent successes they have had were in court, where they have won several lawsuits after suing the Trump administration at least twice for various actions taken. The university first sued after the government froze $2.2 billion of its federal funding on April 14th, 2025. This exchange began when the Trump administration sent the first of three separate letters to Harvard in early April, detailing changes to core aspects of the university that the administration wanted to see. The government claimed that it acted to combat antisemitism in Harvard, which the university failed to address. On April 14th, Harvard rejected these demands, resulting in the freezing of funding later that day. Around a week later, Harvard sued the government, claiming that the government’s demands were too controlling and that they infringed on Harvard’s First Amendment right to share and develop ideas in the classroom. After a legal battle, Harvard won the lawsuit in September 2025. Harvard’s success against the government’s initial threat sent the message that it wasn’t going to back out without a fight.
The university also sued in June when the Trump administration attempted to revoke its ability to enroll international students, winning a temporary block on the order. A federal judge in Boston declared that President Trump’s threat of not granting visas to Harvard’s international students was likely unconstitutional, writing, “This case is about core constitutional rights that must be safeguarded: freedom of thought, freedom of expression, and freedom of speech, each of which is a pillar of a functioning democracy and an essential hedge against authoritarianism.” The university once again proved itself to be powerful in court, setting a precedent for what it means to stand up for democracy and constitutional rights as an extremely famous and prestigious university. Harvard also sought to protect its international students when it refused to obey the government’s request by sending their disciplinary records and videos of them in protests. Harvard stands in a difficult position, but it has managed not only to protect most of their core values but also to use their platform to stand up against government oppression.
If Harvard conceded to Trump’s terms, it would be poorly received by the university’s largely liberal support base. However, to continue to reject the government’s demands could lead to major financial costs. Balancing both of these extremes, Harvard has done well in putting up a public fight against the government, while still allowing for minor changes to be made in order to placate Trump officials. The government seems equally stubborn, unwilling to give in to Harvard’s attacks. It will be difficult for the groups to compromise, meaning the battle may drag on or have to be stopped in court with legal action if Harvard sues again. Whatever the outcome might be, individuals and institutions across the world must see this battle for what it is– the battle for constitutional rights, democracy, and higher education against government oppression.
