Trump has declared war on Harvard.
This comes after Harvard has shown time and time again that they do not seriously value protecting their Jewish students against blatantly antisemitic behavior on its campus. Since October 7th, Harvard University, like many other top-notch universities such as our own UCLA, has been home to some of the most disturbing instances of antisemitism. Then-President Claudine Gay was among the first wave of university presidents to be brought to testify in front of Congress regarding this. Her embarrassing attempts at defending herself and refusing to admit a failure to protect Jewish students resulted in her resignation, a final attempt to save whatever face remained. She was replaced as President in August 2024 with Dr. Alan Garber.
On April 14, 2025, the U.S. Department of Education released a statement announcing a freeze on $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and $60 million in multi-year contract value to Harvard University.
After submitting an initial notice that Harvard’s federal funds would be under review (March 31, 2025), the Department of Education (DOE), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and General Services Administration (GSA) issued a “warning” letter to Harvard’s President Dr. Alan Garber on April 3, 2025, outlining a list of reforms necessary for the school to implement to avoid funding cuts. The demands included increased accountability, a face-coverings ban, merit-based admissions and hiring processes, dismantling of DEI (Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion) programs, cooperation with law enforcement, and transparency with federal regulators. This didn’t come out of the blue, as President Trump had already issued Executive Orders calling for strengthened protocols to combat antisemitism on campuses and eliminate DEI from both K-12 and higher education programs. The letter states that, “These funds are an investment and, like any investment, are based on the recipient’s performance, not owed as a matter of custom or right… Harvard University, however, has fundamentally failed to protect American students and faculty from antisemitic violence and harassment in addition to other alleged violations of Title VI and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.” A week later, on April 11, 2025, a second letter was issued with more detailed demands, the most note-worthy of which were international admissions reform—increased screening of international students to prevent admission of students hostile to America, such as those who are supportive of terrorism and antisemitism—and, reforming programs with records of antisemitic behavior or bias, with the University given until August 2025 to commission an external party to audit the programs listed by the letter.
President Alan Garber’s unsurprising response—Harvard University would not comply with the requests as they “will not negotiate over its independence or its constitutional rights”. This prompted the DOE to proceed with freezing $2.2 billion in federal funds, with plans to freeze an additional $1 billion.
In the ongoing high-stakes battle, Harvard University responded by suing the Trump Administration. Harvard argues that the freeze infringes upon its First Amendment rights and jeopardizes important research. On April 21, 2025, Harvard’s legal counsel filed a complaint, claiming that the government’s actions pose a threat to “academic freedom” and constitute an unlawful attempt to control what and how Harvard teaches. “No government…should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire,” said Harvard President Alan Garber, who emphasized the school’s right to determine its individualized academic path.
At the same time, Garber released a statement acknowledging Harvard’s shortcomings by promising to “reaffirm a culture of free inquiry, viewpoint diversity, … and ensuring that our students, faculty, and staff take responsibility for their actions”. Reports from task forces on antisemitism and anti-Muslim, anti-Arab, and anti-Palestinian bias are expected to follow shortly.
This lawsuit raises critical questions of where we draw the line between free speech and hate speech. While it’s essential to protect free speech and the right to protest, we must also recognize that the First Amendment does not protect against violence, harassment, or threats. During the Harvard anti-Israel demonstrations, many actions quickly crossed the line to speech unprotected by the First Amendment. When this line is ultimately crossed, it becomes a matter of safety and accountability, rather than a matter of protected speech.
In the words of U.S. District Judge Richard Stearns, Harvard University “failed its Jewish students” and recognized that “the protests were, at times, confrontational and physically violent”. His acknowledgment highlights the severity of the situation, adding judicial credibility and validating the experiences of many students. For Jewish and Israeli individuals in particular, the university environment became not one of academic growth but of genuine fear for personal safety.
On April 15, 2025, President Trump uploaded a post on the social media platform Truth Social suggesting a potential rescinding of Harvard’s tax-exempt status:
Its current tax-exempt status, held by most nonprofit universities, is facilitated through the Revenue Act of 1909, which exempts institutions operating “exclusively for religious, charitable, or educational purposes” from federal income and municipal property taxation. Organizations with this status are strictly prohibited from public endorsement or opposition of political candidates. While some political activity is allowed, President Trump asserts that Harvard has exceeded the lawful limitations. However, a review of Harvard’s status as a 501(c)(3) can only be conducted by the IRS without any promotion of such audits coming from the executive branch.
Additionally, on April 16, 2025, Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem issued a statement subjecting Harvard to a DHS review of their international admissions, potentially threatening their ability to admit foreign students moving forward, and pulling $2.7 million in DHS grants, on top of the $2 billion frozen federal grants.
Sadly, Harvard’s reluctance to act is not an isolated incident. Each university administration has a responsibility to its students to protect them and provide them with an unobstructed education. As we pass the one-year anniversary of the UCLA encampments and the horrific damage they evoked, it is essential to reflect on the University’s role as a facilitator of critical thinking and as an environment that fosters personal accountability and amicable dialogue, not a breeding ground for radicalism and mutual hatred.
The views expressed in this post reflect the views of the author(s) and not UCLA or ASUCLA Communications Board.
Cover Image: Liz Sackton/Flickr
