Why Harvard’s Decision Not to Comply with the Federal Government Matters

“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,” Alan Garber, the president of Harvard University, wrote in a public statement directed to the members of the Harvard community.

In making the statement, Garber made clear that the university would not be threatened into complying with unreasonable demands made by the federal government, even if that meant losing federal funding dollars. In doing so, Harvard set an example of how other civil servants and university leaders can refuse to comply with unreasonable demands.

“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.”

In his statement to the Harvard community, Garber expressed why the university could not morally—or legally—comply with the demands of the federal government by linking to a letter he and Penny Pritzker, the leading member of the Harvard Corporation, had received just days prior from US Commissioner of the Federal Acquisition Service Josh Gruenbaum; US Department of Education Action General Counsel Thomas E. Wheeler; and US Department of Health and Human Services Acting General Counsel Sean R. Keveney.

The letter claims that Harvard University, the oldest institution of higher learning in the United States, “failed to live up to both the intellectual and civil rights conditions that justify federal investment.” It came after the federal government announced a multi-agency task force to conduct a “comprehensive review” of $9 billion in federal contracts and multi-year commitments to the university.

In the letter addressed to Garber and Pritzker, the Trump administration states that “an investment is not an entitlement” and emphasizes it can withhold federal funding if the university does not comply with several stipulations, which include:

• Discontinuing all diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, offices, committees, positions, and initiatives and stopping all DEI-based policies.
• Ending support and recognition of student groups and clubs that engaged in protests after October 7, 2023, including the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee, Students 4 Justice in Palestine, the National Lawyers Guild, and others.
• Instituting a mask ban and serious penalties for violating the ban.
• Investigating and disciplining those involved in pro-Palestine actions, including the Harvard Business School protest of October 2023, the University Hall sit-ins of November 2023, and the spring encampment of 2024.

“The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government,” said Harvard’s lawyers in a statement to the media.

In refusing to comply with these and other demands, Harvard’s administration knew it would risk federal funding dollars—and almost immediately, the federal government froze $2.2 billion in multiyear grants and contracts. This comes just days after the federal government announced it was pausing over $500 million in federal funds for Brown University. The federal government has also cut $400 million in federal dollars for Columbia University, $1 billion in funding for Cornell University, and $790 million for Northwestern University.

While Columbia University issued a response statement acknowledging Harvard University’s refusal, and it announced their own new fund that will assist students financial needs during this unprecedented time, they have yet to explicitly address arrest of yet another student and US resident, Mohsen Mahdawi, during his citizenship interview at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement center.

It is worth noting that Harvard, even as it decries the Trump administration for attempting to limit its free speech, has also been complicit in squelching student protests and free speech. As Ramah Kudaimi noted in an article for NPQ last year, one of the board members for Harvard Management Company, which oversees the school’s endowment, also sits on the board of defense technology company RTX, which works on missile production for the Iron Dome.

“In addition to shutting down student encampments demanding divestment from arms manufacturers, Harvard has banned multiple students from a campus library for wearing keffiyehs and taping fliers to their laptops about Israel’s airstrikes on Lebanon,” Kudaimi wrote.

In nearly all of these cases where the federal government has revoked significant funding from institutions of higher learning in recent weeks, the Trump administration has cited recent pro-Palestinian activism and framed it as anti-semitism. In refusing to accept the federal government’s terms, Harvard also refused to broadly frame pro-Palestinian protests as anti-semitic. Rather, Garber’s letter acknowledges that, in some cases, anti-semitism does exist on campus and the university is taking measures to address it.

The letter reads, “We have made it abundantly clear that we do not take lightly our moral duty to fight anti-semitism. Over the past fifteen months, we have taken many steps to address anti-semitism on our campus. We plan to do much more.”

As an Al Jazeera article notes, Harvard was not the first university to be targeted by the Trump administration, but it is the first to definitively resist stipulated demands and give the indication that it would be willing to fight the federal funds drain in court. “A very big shift from what we’ve seen from other universities, but if anyone could do it, it’s Harvard,” wrote Patty Culhane Al Jazeera’s Washington Correspondent.

In a statement posted on X, Barack Obama, a graduate of Harvard Law School, praised the university for refusing to accept the stipulations, saying it had set an example for other higher-ed institutions by rejecting “an unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom, while taking concrete steps to make sure all students at Harvard can benefit from an environment of intellectual inquiry, rigorous debate, and mutual respect.”

“We proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.”

Indeed, in recent years, the country has witnessed how decisions that take place at the university can send ripple effects across the country. Harvard was at the center of the Supreme’s Court case that struck down affirmative action in 2023.

Following the Gaza protests in 2023, some wealthy donors chose to withhold  their contributions to Harvard.  Although it put a meager dent in the university’s massive $53.2 billion endowment—more than any other university endowment in the country—it was also seen as a dog whistle to the other universities that have far less resources.

Further, as Axios noted, despite its massive endowment, Harvard may still be impacted by the recent loss in federal funds. “70% of endowment distributions are restricted by donors and only 20% of funds can be used for discretionary spending, like bailing out programs and grants slashed by the Trump administration,” writes Mike Deehan.

In making the decision to not concede to the demands of the federal government, Harvard’s administration chose the moral route, instead of the one that was more economically safe.

Though it is yet to be seen how the university will navigate the loss of funding, Garber’s letter stated that their decision was guided by the university’s motto: Veritas.

“We proceed now, as always…with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.”