In yet another sweeping decision, President Donald Trump-led US administration announced to freeze more than USD 2.2 billion in grants and contracts to the Harvard University, citing the institution's refusal to comply with federal demands aimed at curbing campus activism. The decision comes after Harvard, in a statement on Monday, announced it would not bow to the administration's controversial directives. These include implementing what the government describes as "merit-based" policies in admissions and hiring, conducting a sweeping audit of faculty, students, and leadership regarding their stances on diversity, and banning the use of face masks -- a measure seemingly directed at pro-Palestinian demonstrators on campus.
In a letter sent to the university last Friday (April 11), the administration also demanded Harvard to stop recognition or funding for any student group or organisation that, in its view, endorses criminal acts, violence, or harassment. Notably, these demands were a revision of an earlier communication to the university.
What did Harvard president say on matter?
Harvard president Alan Garber strongly pushed back in a letter addressed to the university community on Monday, denouncing the administration's demands as "unconstitutional". He asserted that the directives infringe on First Amendment rights and surpass the legal scope of government power under Title VI, which protects students from discrimination based on race, color, or national origin. Garber also emphasised the institution's commitment to academic freedom and diversity, framing the standoff as a matter of principle.
"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," Garber wrote, adding that the university had taken extensive reforms to address antisemitism. "These ends will not be achieved by assertions of power, unmoored from the law, to control teaching and learning at Harvard and to dictate how we operate. The work of addressing our shortcomings, fulfilling our commitments, and embodying our values is ours to define and undertake as a community," he added.
Trump administration on demands to Harvard
As per reports, the demands of Harvard are part of a broader push of using taxpayer dollars to pressure major academic institutions to comply with President Donald Trump's political agenda and to influence campus policy. The administration has also argued that universities allowed what it considered to be antisemitism to go unchecked at campus protests last year against Israel's war in Gaza; the schools deny it.
Harvard is one of several Ivy League schools targeted in a pressure campaign by the administration, which also has paused federal funding for the University of Pennsylvania, Brown, and Princeton to force compliance with its agenda. Harvard's demand letter is similar to the one that prompted changes at Columbia University under the threat of billions of dollars in cuts.
Pro-Palestinian protests at Harvard in 2024
The Pro-Palestinian protests at Harvard weren't just another flash-in-the-pan moment of campus activism—they became a defining chapter in the university's long history of political engagement and ideological debate. Student groups like the Harvard Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) and the Harvard Undergraduate Association for Justice in Palestine quickly mobilized. They organised vigils, teach-ins, and public demonstrations, calling for an immediate ceasefire, an end to US military aid to Israel, and institutional accountability within Harvard itself.
By October, the protests had grown into a full-blown movement. Harvard Yard turned into a mini-encampment zone, echoing shades of Occupy Wall Street and the Vietnam War protests decades earlier. Tents were pitched, banners were unfurled—"From the river to the sea," "Ceasefire now," and "Books not bombs" were among the slogans that caught every passerby’s eye.
(With inputs from AP)
ALSO READ: Donald Trump exempts smartphones, computers and chips from ‘reciprocal’ tariffs