By Yang Song and Liang Cheng
In April 2025, Harvard University took an unprecedented and principled stand by refusing to comply with a sweeping set of mandates issued by the Trump administration. These demands, tied to billions in federal funding, included eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs, conducting ideological audits of faculty, enforcing new restrictions on student activism, and reshaping hiring and admissions practices in ways that critics say undermined academic freedom and civil liberties.
In choosing to resist, Harvard risked the loss of more than $2.3 billion in federal research grants and government contracts. But the decision has reignited a national—and global—conversation about the boundaries of government authority, the independence of academic institutions, and the enduring value of liberal education in a democratic society. “We will not trade our values for funding. We will not allow academic freedom to be reduced to a political bargaining chip,” said Alan Garber, President of Harvard University, in an address to faculty and students. “We will continue to uphold the principles that have guided this institution for nearly four centuries.”
The federal directives were far-reaching: eliminate DEI offices and programming; revise admissions criteria to prioritize “merit-based” standards as defined by the administration; enforce audits of ideological balance in hiring; dismantle pro-Palestinian student groups accused of promoting antisemitism; and submit to new reporting mechanisms designed to monitor campus sentiment. But Harvard’s leadership argued that these demands violated constitutional protections and undermined the mission of the university. “This isn’t just about money,” said former Harvard President Larry Bacow in a statement of support. “This is about the soul of our academic institutions.”
The university’s financial position helped make this bold stand possible. With an endowment valued at $53 billion, Harvard derives approximately 40 percent of its annual operating revenue from endowment returns—roughly $2.4 billion in 2024—while federal funding accounts for about 11 percent. While the potential loss of federal research dollars is substantial, Harvard’s diversified financial base has given it the room to resist in ways that most institutions cannot.
Harvard’s decision quickly reverberated across the academic community. Columbia University, initially muted in its response, reversed course shortly after Harvard’s statement. “There are principles that are not up for negotiation—academic freedom chief among them,” said Claire Shipman, Acting President of Columbia University. Columbia has since joined a legal coalition of Ivy+ universities preparing to challenge the legality of the administration’s orders in court.
Stanford University also signaled solidarity. “Compliance under coercion is not governance—it’s capitulation,” said Stanford President Richard Saller. “We stand with our colleagues in Cambridge.”
The University of Michigan took a more measured stance. President Santa Ono stated, “We must engage our federal partners constructively, but never at the expense of our core values.” Michigan has sought a middle ground—reviewing its DEI practices while maintaining support for student speech. Meanwhile, Purdue University expressed support for some aspects of the administration’s demands, noting concerns about ideological conformity on campuses. This divergence in institutional responses reveals the political and philosophical divides shaping higher education’s future.
The legal stakes are also high. Constitutional scholars argue that the administration’s actions violate the First Amendment and the long-standing doctrine of “unconstitutional conditions,” which prevents the federal government from conditioning funding on the waiver of constitutional rights. A coalition of 14 universities has filed an amicus brief with the federal courts urging them to block implementation of the new mandates. For many, this moment represents a defining test of American democracy. “Academic freedom must be defended—not just when it’s convenient, but especially when it’s not,” said former President Barack Obama. “The strength of a democracy is tested not only at the ballot box—but in its classrooms, its libraries, and its lecture halls.”
Leading scholars have echoed this sentiment. Dr. Danielle Allen, a political theorist at Harvard, described the situation as “a referendum on the university’s role in a free society.” Martha Minow, former Dean of Harvard Law School, called the episode “a constitutional crisis for higher education.” Robert Post of Yale Law School added: “There’s a long tradition in the U.S. of universities resisting governmental intrusion. This moment will be studied for decades.”
Historically, Harvard has stood firm in the face of political pressure. During the McCarthy era, the university resisted efforts to dismiss faculty for their political beliefs. And in the post-9/11 era, it upheld civil liberties in the face of surveillance demands. These past precedents have shaped Harvard’s contemporary response.
What happens next remains uncertain. Harvard is likely to face lawsuits, as well as continued pressure from the federal government. But it has also received support from alumni networks, private philanthropy, and peer institutions. Major donors—including the Gates Foundation and the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative—are reportedly exploring ways to support universities that refuse to comply with federal mandates.
The coming months will test not just Harvard, but the entire ecosystem of American higher education. Will others stand with Harvard? Will courts uphold constitutional protections for universities? And how will public trust in academia evolve in the face of deepening political polarization?
What is certain is this: Harvard has drawn a line. And others are now being asked to decide where they stand.
As former President Obama put it, “This is not just about Harvard. This is about who we are as a nation.”
Recommended Reading List
Primary Coverage
- Harvard Gazette – Harvard Won’t Comply With Trump Administration’s Demands
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2025/04/harvard-wont-comply-with-demands-from-trump-administration - TIME – How Harvard’s Funding Works—and What It Means for Its Fight With Trump
https://time.com/7278102/how-harvards-funding-works - Politico – Obama Praises Harvard for Standing Up to Trump
https://www.politico.com/news/2025/04/15/barack-obama-harvard-reaction-00009112 - Columbia Spectator – Columbia Pushes Back Against Government “Overreach”
https://www.columbiaspectator.com/news/2025/04/01/columbias-response-to-the-trump-administrations-demands-explained - Chronicle of Higher Education – How Elite Colleges Are Navigating Federal Pressure
https://www.chronicle.com/article/defiance-or-diplomacy-colleges-navigate-trump-orders
Legal and Policy Analysis
6. Brookings Institution – The Constitutionality of Federal Retaliation Against Universities
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/the-constitutionality-of-federal-retaliation-against-universities
- Harvard Law Review – Academic Institutional Autonomy: A Legal Framework
https://harvardlawreview.org/2023/12/academic-institutional-autonomy - Inside Higher Ed – Academic Leaders Weigh the Risks of Resistance
https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2025/04/12/academic-leaders-weigh-risks-resistance