Trump Administration Unveils New Attacks on Harvard

Government tightens financial oversight of Harvard, threatens to pull student aid.

Historic building tower with intricate architecture against a gray sky, partially obscured by tree branches.

Citing “growing concerns” about the University’s financial stability, the government placed Harvard on heightened cash monitoring status.  | PHOTOGRAPH BY NIKO YAITANES/HARVARD MAGAZINE

During the past several days, the Trump administration has renewed its pressure campaign against Harvard, opening up fresh avenues of attack.

On September 19—the same day that $46 million in government grants began flowing back to University researchers, as mandated by a court ruling from a U.S. district judge—the Trump administration tightened its financial scrutiny of Harvard and added new restrictions on the University’s ability to access federal funds. Citing “growing concerns” about the University’s financial stability, the government placed Harvard on heightened cash monitoring status. The designation requires that Harvard use its own funds to pay out federal aid to students before requesting reimbursement from the U.S. Department of Education (DOE); under normal circumstances, that aid money is disbursed to universities in advance by the government, not reimbursed later.

In addition, the DOE said it was requiring Harvard to provide a $36 million letter of credit, guaranteeing that it would fulfill its financial obligations to students and the government. (The New York Times reported that this amount is about 30 percent of the total federal student aid that Harvard has received during the past year. Overall, the large majority of Harvard’s financial aid funding is covered by the University itself, rather than by the federal government.)

In a letter to President Alan M. Garber, the DOE said that the heightened cash monitoring status was triggered by several factors, including recent layoffs and hiring and salary freezes at Harvard. The government also cited as a concern Harvard’s issuance of $1.2 billion in bonds earlier this year—money that was borrowed partly in response to government threats to slash billions in federal research funding. (As education news outlet Higher Ed Dive put it, the DOE “cited the Trump administration’s own actions against Harvard as driving forces destabilizing the university’s ability to meet its obligations.”)

Another trigger, the government said, was a federal task force’s determination in June that Harvard had violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act through indifference or “willful” participation in antisemitism on campus—an allegation that University spokesperson Jason Newton forcefully refuted at the time. Title VI violations also threaten federal funding.

In a separate letter to Harvard, also dated September 19, the DOE threatened to cut off all access to federal student aid over what it said was the University’s “continued refusal” to turn over admissions data. The letter gave Harvard 20 days to comply. In May, the Trump administration opened an investigation, alleging that Harvard uses race-based considerations in its admissions policies, a practice that the Supreme Court banned in a 2023 ruling. Although the DOE’s letter this month did not specify exactly what admissions documentation it is seeking from Harvard, in previous settlements with the government, other universities have agreed to turn over applicants’ grades and test scores and information about their racial backgrounds. This is not data universities typically share with the government.

A Harvard spokesperson did not respond to requests for comment on these latest government demands. Previously, University officials have characterized the Trump administration’s actions against Harvard as illegal retaliation and a violation of Harvard’s First Amendment rights.

One other recent move by the government was not aimed specifically at Harvard but could potentially cost the institution millions. Last Friday, Trump signed a proclamation that would impose a $100,000 fee on every new H-1B visa petition. The visa allows foreign workers in specialized occupations to stay in the country temporarily and is a major mechanism for hiring international scholars and researchers. The Crimson reported this week that between 2017 and 2024, Harvard sponsored an average of 125 new H-1B visa petitions each year, which would add up to more than $10 million in annual fees.

Meanwhile, amid these various developments ratcheting up the financial pressure on the University, the long-anticipated settlement negotiations between Harvard and the Trump administration have reportedly stalled. At least for now.

Read more articles by Lydialyle Gibson

You might also like

Harvard’s Financial Challenges Lead to Difficult Choices

The University faces the consequences of the Trump administration—and its own bureaucracy

Trump Says a Deal with Harvard Is Close

Administration squeezes Harvard finances, and a federal judge blasts deportation efforts as unconstitutional.

Harvard Research Funding Will Resume, Government Signals

Notices of grant reinstatements follow a court ruling, but the Trump administration could still appeal. 

Most popular

Sam Liss to Head Harvard’s Office for Technology Development

Technology licensing and corporate partnerships are an important source of revenue for the University.

Harvard’s Class of 2029 Reflects Shifts in Racial Makeup After Affirmative Action Ends

International students continue to enroll amid political uncertainty; mandatory SATs lead to a drop in applications.

Explore More From Current Issue

Cover of "Harvard's Best" featuring a woman in a red and black gown holding a sword.

A Forgotten Harvard Anthem

Published the year the Titanic sank, “Harvard’s Best” is a quizzical ode to the University.

Evolutionary progression from primates to humans in a colorful illustration.

Why Humans Walk on Two Legs

Research highlights our evolutionary ancestors’ unique pelvis.

Four men in a small boat struggle with rough water, one lying down and others watching.

The 1884 Cannibalism-at-Sea Case That Still Has Harvard Talking

The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens changed the course of legal history. Here’s why it’s been fodder for countless classroom debates.