Three days after the Trump Administration sent a list of demands to Harvard, detailing a series of operational changes the University needed to make to maintain its federal funding, Harvard University President Alan Garber released his response.
“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” President Garber wrote on April 14 in a campus-wide email. “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.”
Some of the mandated changes from the Trump Administration included the elimination of all diversity, equity, and inclusion policies and programs within the College, a reformed hiring and admissions processes that “cease[s] all preferences based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin,” and an updated admissions process that prevents admitting international students who are “hostile to the American values.”
Garber noted that these demands followed a previous letter from the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, which threatened a review of $9 billion in federal funds amid accusations that Harvard was not adequately addressing the issue.
Hours after Garber’s refusal to comply with federal requests, the presidential administration froze $2.2 billion in research grant funding—a move that is part of a broader initiative by the Trump administration to reform higher education in the U.S.
Since then, reports have emerged indicating internal confusion within the White House—some federal officials believed the April 11 letter had been sent prematurely, while others thought it was intended solely for internal circulation among task force members, not for Harvard.
May Mailman, senior policy strategist at the White House, dismissed Harvard’s public rejection as an overreaction and blamed Harvard for not continuing discussions.
“It was malpractice on the side of Harvard’s lawyers not to pick up the phone and call the members of the antisemitism task force [whom] they had been talking to for weeks,” Mailman said.
However, administrative officials at Harvard disagreed.
“Recipients of such correspondence from the U.S. government—even when it contains sweeping demands that are astonishing in their overreach—do not question its authenticity or seriousness,” said a Harvard spokesperson.
While Harvard administrators and government officials sparred over responsibility and intent, the institution’s refusal to comply with federal demands and the subsequent withdrawal of funding affected Harvard’s campus and peer universities across the nation, spurring responses from students, faculty, and alumni.
On-campus student organizations were among some of the first to speak out on recent executive orders. Harvard College Democrats released a statement in support of Garber’s rejection of the Trump administration’s demands.
“As Trump takes aim at this university, threatens our funding, targets our students, and attempts to make an example out of us, we are pleased by Harvard’s decision to stand firm in the face of threats to academic freedom, free speech, and student safety,” the group wrote on a post on Instagram. “Though the stakes are high for our university, they are even higher for our democracy—if Harvard complied, the precedent it would set would be dangerous.”
The Harvard Republican Club took a different stance. “It is not the constitutional right for any private university to receive funding in perpetuity,” the Board of the Harvard Republican Club wrote. “While some of the funding has been allocated to reasonable programs, Harvard has shown itself to be a partisan consumer of the American taxpayer dollar.”
Beyond responses from partisan political clubs, the Independent also spoke to multiple University affiliates. A first-year student involved with Jewish life on campus, who requested anonymity, offered a layered reaction to the funding withdrawal and the Trump administration’s justification.
“I was most curious [about] what aspects of the funding were frozen, because if this is about antisemitism…then you would hope to see that the aspects of the funding that were frozen were the aspects of the University that were causing problems,” he explained. “So what’s getting frozen? It’s actually not so clear.”
“Those [recent] demands seem to me like they have absolutely nothing to do with antisemitism in the most part,” he said. “There’s a bunch of stuff [in the list of demands] that I think are just other talking points that he’s frustrated by, like merit-based admissions—in my opinion, that doesn’t have to do with antisemitism. It’s just he doesn’t like the way that the University is run, and so he wants to influence that, and he’s probably using antisemitism as the impetus to do that.”
In principle, this student said he understood why a president might want some influence over federally funded institutions. “If he’s purely using antisemitism as an excuse to go after it, I would have more of a problem with it,” he said. “I just don’t like using antisemitism as an excuse… Honestly, it might lead to more antisemitism.”
However, he added that he believes the University should do more to enforce its own rules consistently. “To me, it’s a little bit sad that it required the threat of funding for them to actually uphold their policy,” he said. “If the University had policies that they implemented, I don’t think that there would ever be a real problem. You should encourage people to do [a] proper protest and not violate University policy.”
Other students emphasized the personal and legal precarity they may now face. For some international undergraduates, the potential repercussions of President Donald Trump’s mandates extend beyond funding or free speech.
“All of us, we are so, so stressed. Anytime we’re doing something, we’re like, ‘Oh, is this legal?’” Sila Yormulaz ’28, a first-year student from Turkey, explained. “Even if we’re crossing the street, we’re afraid of jaywalking right now. And people are saying, ‘Yeah, if there’s any sort of protests or something going on, just change your way. Don’t go even near the protests and stuff.’”
In late March, as anti-government protests erupted in Turkey following the detention of the most prominent opposition figure and Istanbul’s mayor, Ekrem İmamoğlu, Yormulaz said many Turkish students at Harvard felt conflicted about showing support from abroad. “When the Turkish protests were going on, we were afraid to go there and support our own people because of this.”
Yormulaz offered a mixed reaction to Harvard’s rejection of the requests by the Trump administration.
“I felt really good after that,” she said. “I was like, ‘Oh…Harvard supports us’… Finally, because we were waiting for something like that from Harvard,” she said. “But then again, I started thinking, ‘Oh, right now [Harvard is] basically in opposition to Trump,’ which is kind of bad, because we know that Trump’s gonna ask for more and more and become more strict,” she added.
Harvard’s graduate students, too, are beginning to reflect on what the federal response might mean for the University’s future.
“I was annoyed at the notion that our loyalty to the administration could be bought, or even scared into submission,” said Alice Volfson, a graduate student at the Harvard Davis Center for Russian and Eurasian Studies. “If you are being targeted by this administration for your ideals or actions, you probably have been doing something right.”
Volfson also emphasized the effects the funding freeze could have on Harvard’s research output.
“From medical research to the humanities, the production of knowledge is integral to the progression of society, and I think this loss will have drastic implications for us in the future,” she explained.
In response to the administration’s list of demands—including the elimination of DEI initiatives and new restrictions on admitting international students—Volfson was unequivocal.
“I found them to be ridiculous and immoral,” she said. “To target international students, who are among the most vulnerable on this campus, for their constitutionally protected right to free speech is abhorrent and ignorant of the wealth of knowledge that they bring to this community.”
For Volfson, the policies that the Trump administration is seeking to eliminate are integral to a strong education.
“It has been exactly the diversity of students, both in ideology, race, socio-economic background, [and] religion, which has made American education so strong,” she said. “International students, in particular, have enriched dialogues on this campus, forced us to reckon with uncomfortable truths, and look outside of the ‘American bubble.’”
Volfson argued that Harvard must reject all of the demands without compromise.
“To accept even one demand on this list is tantamount to ‘bending the knee’ to American authoritarianism, and what Tim Snyder would term ‘obeying in advance,’” she said, referring to one of Yale’s most distinguished professors of history.
“I think this idea, which has sprung up lately to separate ‘politics from education’ completely misses the point of what education should be. Education has always been political, and it would be ignorant to ignore this,” she continued. “Universities have always been the site of protest, of difficult dialogues, and this has been integral to the production of information in this country.”
While students voiced personal fears and political concerns, their calls did not go unheard. In the weeks following the funding freeze, Harvard has released additional statements and signaled continued engagement with community concerns. Alumni groups, too, have begun mobilizing in support of the University’s response.
“We are, of course, outraged at the Trump administration’s escalating efforts to undermine Harvard and higher ed and, especially appallingly, to target students,” co-founder and board member of Coalition for a Diverse Harvard, Jeannie Park ’83 said in a statement to the Independent. “Back in February, we wrote to President Garber urging him to resist. We are grateful to all in the Harvard community who have protested, petitioned, and raised their voices.”
Park also offered a way for alumni to get involved with the ongoing conflict and political pressures facing Harvard.
“An easy way for alumni to send a message to Harvard to continue to resist and to safeguard diversity is to vote for our endorsed candidates in the current elections for Harvard Overseer and HAA Elected Director. It is critical that we stand firm together, and we hope other universities will join Harvard in a united front,” Park stated.
In addition to promoting a strong reaction from students and alumni, the recent events regarding funding have also prompted a reaction among faculty at Harvard.
Over a month ago, more than 800 Harvard faculty members signed a letter urging the University to take a stronger stand against what they called “anti-democratic attacks.”
Following that, on April 11, the Harvard faculty chapter of the American Association of University Professors, alongside the national AAUP, filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration over its demanded policy changes. In their lawsuit, they alleged the administration’s policies were a means of restricting free speech in universities.
“Harvard faculty have the constitutional right to speak, teach and conduct research without fearing that the government will retaliate against their viewpoints by canceling grants,” general counsel of the AAUP-Harvard Faculty Chapter and law professor Andrew Manuel Crespo ’05 said in a statement to “The New York Times.”
This past Monday, President Garber announced in an email addressed to the Harvard community that the University had filed a lawsuit to halt the funding freeze, describing it as “unlawful and beyond the government’s authority.”
“Today, we stand for the values that have made American higher education a beacon for the world,” Garber said. “We stand for the truth that colleges and universities across the country can embrace and honor their legal obligations and best fulfill their essential role in society without improper government intrusion.”
This lawsuit marks a significant escalation in the conflict between Harvard and the Trump administration. As the dispute continues, its implications remain far-reaching. Faculty, alumni, and students—both at the College and at graduate schools—are navigating not only the material consequences of the funding freeze, but also broader questions about students’ safety on campus, academic freedom, and the role of the government in higher education.
What comes next remains unclear. As legal challenges proceed and federal agencies determine how to implement the funding freeze, the implications for Harvard—and for other universities watching closely—are still unfolding.
Pippa Lee ’28 (pippalee@college.harvard.edu) writes News for the Harvard Independent.