Harvard loses $2.2 billion in federal funding after rejecting Trump anti-Semitism demands

Trump administration withholds funding after Harvard refuses to comply with orders targeting campus diversity and governance.

A protester holds a "Stand UP! for Democracy" sign during a rally at Cambridge Common in Cambridge, Massachusetts, on April 12, 2025. Photo by Erin Clark/Getty Images

By Anna Fadiah and Hayu Andini

Harvard loses $2.2 billion in federal funding after rejecting Trump administration demands aimed at combating anti-Semitism on campus, a dramatic escalation in the ongoing clash between elite universities and the federal government over civil liberties, diversity, and freedom of speech. On Monday, the Trump administration officially halted multi-year federal grant payments and froze $60 million in active contracts with the Ivy League institution following Harvard’s refusal to implement sweeping changes to its internal governance.

The White House had issued an expanded list of directives last Friday, calling on Harvard to shutter its diversity and inclusion offices, overhaul hiring practices, and cooperate with immigration authorities to screen international students. The list also included controversial proposals such as auditing the political views of students and faculty—something critics say amounts to ideological surveillance.

Harvard president Alan Garber, in a defiant letter to students and staff, vowed to uphold the university’s independence, stating, “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.” He insisted Harvard would not “negotiate over its independence or its constitutional rights.”

Trump’s task force accuses Harvard of failing to protect Jewish students

In response, the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism issued a fiery statement justifying the funding freeze. “Harvard’s statement today reinforces the troubling entitlement mindset that is endemic in our nation's most prestigious universities and colleges—that federal investment does not come with the responsibility to uphold civil rights laws,” the statement read.

It further declared that “the harassment of Jewish students is intolerable,” accusing Harvard of failing to address what the administration calls a persistent culture of anti-Semitism on campus. The statement pointed to last year’s campus protests over Israel’s war in Gaza, many of which occurred at Harvard and other elite institutions, as evidence of a hostile climate for Jewish students.

President Trump and Republican leaders have repeatedly accused pro-Palestinian student activists of supporting Hamas, a group the U.S. designates as a terrorist organization. The administration argues that inaction by university leaders emboldens what it sees as antisemitic rhetoric and violence.

Investigations expand across higher education

The Harvard funding cut is the latest in a series of aggressive moves by the Trump administration to reshape the landscape of American higher education. In March, the Department of Education launched investigations into more than 60 colleges and universities for alleged anti-Semitic discrimination and harassment.

Harvard was among the first institutions notified that its federal funding—amounting to $9 billion across its various schools and affiliates—was under review. Friday’s updated list of demands marked a sharp escalation in that scrutiny, with expectations that more institutions may face similar action.

Columbia University, which faced massive student-led protests last year, was also targeted. The administration cut $400 million in funding to the New York-based school, citing its failure to protect Jewish students. Columbia responded with a swift overhaul of its campus policies, agreeing to revise disciplinary procedures and expand security by hiring 36 new officers.

Harvard stands alone as other schools concede

Harvard’s decision to reject the government’s demands sets it apart from peer institutions, many of which have chosen to cooperate with the administration to preserve their funding streams. President Garber’s public refusal to comply represents a rare instance of open resistance to Trump’s directives on education.

Garber wrote, “We are open to new information and different perspectives, but we will not agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration.” He emphasized that Harvard would continue to address anti-Semitism through its own internal processes but would not allow federal overreach to dictate academic policy.

Despite the loss of funding, Harvard remains financially stable—for now. The university reported a $45 million surplus on a $6.5 billion revenue base in the most recent fiscal year. Still, the multi-year freeze threatens key research projects, student aid, and faculty initiatives.

Republicans ramp up pressure to defund elite schools

Leading Republicans have praised the Trump administration’s tough stance, using the moment to criticize what they see as the decline of moral and academic standards in elite education. Representative Elise Stefanik, who played a prominent role in Congressional hearings on campus anti-Semitism last year, called Harvard “the epitome of the moral and academic rot in higher education.”

Stefanik urged the government to fully defund the school, accusing it of tolerating “raging anti-Semitism” while refusing to hold students and faculty accountable. The New York congresswoman has emerged as one of the most vocal advocates in Congress for Israeli and Jewish causes, closely aligning herself with Trump’s hardline stance.

The growing political backlash threatens to further polarize the national debate around education, particularly at the intersection of civil rights and free speech. Critics argue that the administration’s actions amount to censorship, undermining the autonomy of higher education in service of political goals.

Broader implications for campus speech and academic freedom

The case of Harvard could become a defining test of how far the federal government can go in influencing private institutions. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s approach risks undermining constitutional protections if funding becomes contingent on political compliance.

Many university leaders, including those not yet targeted, are now weighing whether to modify policies proactively to avoid federal intervention. Behind the scenes, some have begun quietly implementing changes—tightening security, revising speech codes, and increasing oversight of student organizations.

For faculty and students, however, the chilling effect is real. Many international students are concerned that immigration authorities will be used to punish protest participation. The recent arrests of Columbia student organizers Mahmoud Khalil and Mohsen Mahdawi—both facing deportation proceedings—highlight the government’s willingness to use immigration enforcement as a tool of political control.

What comes next for Harvard?

With the freeze now in effect, Harvard faces significant decisions in the coming weeks. Legal action is expected, as constitutional lawyers prepare to challenge the federal hold on First Amendment and academic freedom grounds. Meanwhile, campus activists and civil rights groups are mobilizing in support of the university’s stance, urging other schools to resist similar demands.

President Garber’s message reflects a broader concern that accepting the administration’s conditions would set a dangerous precedent for federal overreach in education. “This is not just about Harvard,” he wrote, “but about the role of all universities in a democratic society.”

As political tensions rise and more institutions come under scrutiny, the battle over Harvard’s federal funding may be only the beginning of a much larger national fight—one that will define the boundaries of education, free speech, and government power for years to come.