The US Government vs Harvard: The War of Funding

April 21st, 2025

Arnav Goyal

Harvard University is often regarded as the greatest university in the world, where you can get the best education in the world on subjects ranging from law to medicine. Yet, in recent years, stakeholders and faculty have voiced concerns about the university’s handling of anti-Semitism and issues relating to DEI. Former Harvard President Lawrence Summers voiced major concerns about the mishandling of and the lack of action relating to anti-Semitism at the University. In the aftermath of the Israel-Hamas war, and accompanying student protests last April, Jewish students from Harvard have sued the university for allegations of discrimination and assault. It led to then-President of Harvard, Claudine Gay, resigning just after a few months, after widespread ridicule from both sides of the aisle after her mismanagement of anti-Semitic activities and her fumble in a Congressional hearing. Moreover, Harvard has continued to take a notably pro-DEI stance on their college campuses at a time when many universities have taken restrictive action on DEI initiatives, mostly prompted by the federal government, such as:

Columbia, which after funding threats and an executive order, altered language and scaled back its DEI practices
UNC, which did so mainly at its own leisure, cutting out most DEI programs
UPenn, which after an executive order, renamed all DEI-related departments and scrubbed DEI mentions

Naturally, the federal government, which has imposed anti-DEI measures, wanted Harvard to take similar action. However, Harvard wouldn’t budge, and this has created a federal funding fiasco. On April 11th, the Trump administration released a list of demands they wished Harvard to grant if they wanted to keep federal funding, crucial for research and various other programs across the university.

Surprisingly, the White House later said they didn’t intend to send that letter at that specific time. Regardless, numerous analysts and the White House themselves have said that the letter is authentic in form. So what did the letter contain?

Calls for Governance and Leadership Reforms, saying that power held by students and “activist faculty” should be reduced, and that accountability needs to be upheld, including submitting to three years of federal audits.
Merit Based Hiring and Admission Reform, saying that all allusions to race, color, religion, sex, or nationality can’t be considered during the hiring or admissions process, and admissions data must be sent to the federal government.
Reforming International Admissions by screening international students to prevent students who are “hostile” to the US (like anti-Semites) and reporting “hostile” students to the government, as well as cooperating with immigration authorities.
Discontinuation of DEI programs across the board
Read the full letter here.

Harvard quickly fought back with a statement from President Garber. He said that Harvard University would not “surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.”, and that the letter violated Harvard’s 1st Amendment rights, among a host of other things. This was the final straw for the Trump administration concerning Harvard. Within a few days, the administration cut more than $2 billion of funding to Harvard University, funding that is vital to their research and science programs; threatened to revoke their tax-exempt status; and also threatened to bar Harvard from housing international students. This has created an unprecedented change in the administration’s position on higher education. Trump posted on Truth Social about the funding cuts, saying “Harvard is a JOKE filled with radical Leftists who aren’t acting in the public’s interest.” However, scrutiny has come to light about the President’s plans to use the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, an unprecedented and possibly illegal move, since federal law prohibits the president from requesting (even indirectly) the IRS to conduct an audit or investigation.

On international admissions, the administration said that Harvard is harboring an environment for anti-Semitic activity through these international students, and requested records by April 30th. If this didn’t happen, President Trump has threatened to use the Department of Homeland Security to revoke Harvard’s usage of international student visas. This is also unprecedented, as most universities rely on funding from international students to operate.

It has become evident that the Harvard War has just started, and it won’t end anytime soon. Unless Harvard bows down to the government like Columbia, they are almost certainly going to be facing even more scrutiny from the federal government because of their resistance.

Extemp Analysis by Jana Schodzinski

Q: Will Harvard’s response to the Trump administration’s list of demands affect other colleges’ responses to federal threats?

A: This question requires the speaker to make a concrete ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer. While each has plenty of evidence, this analysis will answer, ‘no.’ Be sure to do your background research- understanding current federal feuds with colleges is crucial to fully grasping the question at hand. Additionally, this question requires the speaker to have a basic understanding of expectation-violation/verification substructure.

AGD: To showcase the disorganized manner in which the Trump administration has torn down colleges, use a humorous AGD. For example, connect the unauthorized and unorganized manner of how the letter of demands was sent out to college deadlines. I.e., “It is clear that time management is a skill that college students and government officials alike struggle with.”

Background: The comparison between college students and government officials provides an easy and efficient way to lead into your background knowledge. Spoonfeed your audience the basics: what the letter entailed, the compliance of other universities, and how Harvard strayed from this.

Example Points: When answering this question in the negative, evidence of compliance is crucial. Three examples of this/potential points include:

P1: Potential endangerment of students, especially those of foreign descent.

P2: Controversy concerning “anti-Semitic” ideation.

P3: The restrictions of crucial federal funding.

Naturally, P3 has the strongest potential for an argument. Using expectation-verification substructure, P3 may look like this:

P3: The restrictions of crucial federal funding.

SA: Harvard’s dependency on federal research grants.

SB: If Harvard refuses to comply, they will lose nearly ⅔ of their overall funding.

SC: As seen through the responses of other Ivy League schools (Cornell, Columbia,) Harvard is simply unable to fight the federal government if it wants to protect its main source of funding.

Though this is what a competitive speech may look like in a regional or statewide scale, nat-circuit extempers would be wise to utilize a more neat expectation-verification substructure to truly wow the judges. My overarching advice as an extemper who prioritizes USX is to make sure that your sources are timely. I can personally vouch that it is beyond difficult to keep up with the Trump administration’s latest actions. In even a week’s time, change is inevitable.

Stay informed, and good luck at TOC!