Historic Harvard University has become the epicenter of an unprecedented battle between President Donald Trump’s administration and the American higher education system. On Monday, federal officials announced the freezing of $2.2 billion in federal grants earmarked for the institution after it rejected a list of demands involving reforms to its admissions, hiring, governance, and student life policies.

The standoff was triggered by a letter from senior government officials ordering Harvard to shut down its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) offices, hand over data on its hiring and admissions processes, conduct ideological audits of its faculties and departments, and cooperate with immigration authorities to assess the “alignment with American values” of its international students.

In a letter addressed to the university community, interim Harvard President Alan Garber expressed that the institution would not yield to what it sees as an overreach of federal power. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government,” Garber wrote, as reported by The New York Times.

The government responded by freezing not only the $2.2 billion in long-term grants but also a $60 million federal contract. Although this amount represents only a fraction of the approximately $9 billion Harvard receives in federal funding — most of it channeled to its 11 affiliated hospitals, including Massachusetts General and the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute — the measure marks a critical moment in the relationship between the Executive Branch and academia.

The New York Times described the showdown as “a battle that President Trump and his powerful aide, Stephen Miller, want to have.” The paper noted that the administration sees Harvard as “big game” in its effort to dismantle what it considers liberal dominance in higher education.

Michael S. Roth, president of Wesleyan University and a rare critic of the White House among university administrators, welcomed Harvard’s decision. “What happens when institutions overreach is that they change course when they meet resistance,” he said. “It’s like when a bully is stopped in his tracks.”

Former federal appeals court judge J. Michael Luttig, a revered figure among conservatives, also emphasized the significance of the university’s decision: “This is of momentous, momentous significance,” he said. “This should be the turning point in the president’s rampage against American institutions.”

The demands from the White House extended beyond Harvard. Columbia University, which also came under fire for its handling of pro-Palestinian protests following the Hamas-led attacks on October 7, 2023, accepted a series of government-imposed conditions. According to The New York Times, the New York institution agreed to install new oversight of its Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department.

In Harvard’s case, the requirements included mandatory audits of each department to ensure “viewpoint diversity” and the hiring of a “critical mass” of faculty with opposing views in cases of ideological bias. Harvard psychologist Steven Pinker criticized the government’s proposal as both absurd and self-contradictory: “Will this government force the economics department to hire Marxists or the psychology department to hire Jungians or, for that matter, for the medical school to hire homeopaths or Native American healers?” he asked, according to The New York Times.

Despite government pressure, Harvard stated it would continue to take steps to protect free speech, combat antisemitism, and foster a climate of pluralism. “Harvard remains open to dialogue about what the university has done, and is planning to do, to improve the experience of every member of its community,” wrote attorneys William A. Burck and Robert K. Hur in a letter to the government. “But Harvard is not prepared to agree to demands that go beyond the lawful authority of this or any administration,” they added, as reported by The New York Times.

Politically, Harvard’s stance has sparked intense reactions. Republican Representative Elise Stefanik, one of the administration’s leading critics of antisemitism on college campuses, posted on social media: “Harvard University has rightfully earned its place as the epitome of the moral and academic rot in higher education.” She continued: “It is time to totally cut off U.S. taxpayer funding to this institution that has failed to live up to its founding motto Veritas. Defund Harvard.”

Ted Mitchell, president of the American Council on Education, underscored the broader symbolic impact of Harvard’s move: “If Harvard had not taken this stand,” he said, “it would have been nearly impossible for other institutions to do so.”

The standoff between the White House and Harvard is now viewed as a defining moment for the future of academic autonomy in the United States. As The New York Times put it, this is a confrontation that could set the course for national debates over academic freedom, diversity, and government influence over intellectual life.

With information from AFP.