Trump, Harvard, and the Consequences of Public Funding
“For three-quarters of a century, the federal government has awarded grants and contracts to Harvard and other universities.” – President Alan Garber, The Promise of American Higher Education
On April 11th, 2025, the Department of Education sent letters to 60 American universities requiring them to comply with a list of demands at the cost of the federal government withholding millions—in some cases, billions—of public funds from the universities. Most notably, Harvard University received such a letter in which the government threatened to freeze $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million more in government contracts.
Harvard immediately rejected the conditions of the Department of Education and soon after, sued the federal government in President and Fellows of Harvard College v. United States Department of Health and Human Services arguing that by freezing funds, the Trump administration violated the First Amendment and undermined institutional integrity. In response to this lawsuit, Trump posted on TruthSocial that Harvard is, among other things, “a threat to Democracy” and threatened to revoke the university's tax-exempt status.
The reactions to this story have been largely predictable: Leftists are outraged and rightwingers are elated. Whether you are team Trump, team Harvard, or neither, I hope to avoid slinging Hitler-slurs and rather, focus our attention on the most basic issues with the Trump administration’s demands and the university’s reaction.
The Principle and the Problem
In principle, I agree with the president… of Harvard. The federal government has no business dictating the speech or actions of students on university campuses, or anywhere else for that matter. Harvard gave up the luxury of independence and holding to its principles when it accepted government funding and is now reaping the consequences. The consequences of accepting public funding can be summarized in three principles:
First, public funding makes institutions public.
Second, public institutions require public control.
Third, public control corrupts institutional integrity.
It is important that we intently consider each consequence so that American institutions do not continue to fall into the trap of accepting public funding.
Public Funding Makes Institutions Public
First, Harvard has forgotten that public funding makes institutions public. In his public letter to Harvard, Garber mistakenly labels the university as a private institution saying that the Department of Education’s letter “threatens our values as a private institution devoted to the pursuit, production, and dissemination of knowledge.”
By definition, a private institution is one that is funded exclusively by private benefactors and run by independent members. Because Harvard has accepted billions in tax-payer funds for “three-quarters of a century,” it has definitionally and functionally been converted into a public institution.
So, if Harvard truly believes that “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,” then it is incumbent upon it, or any institution that values autonomy, to wean itself off of the state’s dime.
Public Institutions Require Public Control
Second, Harvard has forgotten that public institutions require public control. The current ideological battle between government and institution has been waging for decades in America; now Harvard finds itself on the front lines of this fight. Many Americans reacted to this situation by arguing that the federal government should not ban certain speech in American universities. This, in principle, is of course correct. Afterall, we are the nation of the First Amendment. However, we, like Harvard, forget too quickly that public money makes institutions public, and public institutions require public control.
By accepting public funding, Harvard made the government a major stakeholder who they are accountable to for what they teach, who they hire and enroll, and how their students behave. If an institution engages in an activity that violates the government's mandate, values, or agenda, federal agencies have the authority, through funding, to demand compliance.
Is this situation right? Hardly. But it should not come as a surprise. We have seen the same game played in our military, hospitals, and public school system. This is why, before institutions accept public funding, they must ask, “Are we willing to lose our integrity?”
Public Control Corrupts Institutional Integrity
Third, Harvard reminds us that public control corrupts institutional integrity. What is the consequence of public control? As Harvard knows all too well, it is the loss of institutional autonomy. In his public letter, Garber stated clearly that “The University will not surrender its independence.” Sadly, this statement is nothing more than the desperate cry of a prisoner yelling “I’m free! I’m free!” to his jailer's face. The simple truth is that the university surrendered its independence “three quarters of a century” ago.
Because the government has jurisdiction over Harvard, it has the power to inject its agenda and ideology. Many on the Right are praising Trump for strong-arming the university and are celebrating the supposed end of DEI. However, as Robert Bortins, CEO of Classical Conversations put it on X, “If Trump can freeze federal funds to schools with DEI programs, then the next democrat president can freeze federal funds to schools without DEI programs. This is why we need government out of redistributing wealth for education.”
By forcefully uprooting DEI and “antisemitism” from Harvard, Trump is setting a dangerous precedent of government infiltration and oppression. And if Trump can force institutions to give up DEI, certainly another president could force them to re-implement it.
The truth is that public funding has reduced Harvard to an empty vessel that is at the mercy of the state to be filled up and hollowed out, filled up and hollowed out. It cannot truly stand for anything because in a moment, a letter could arrive with a list of demands. Such a situation is not sustainable for a university that claims to seek Veritas and tolerate dissent.
The Better Choice
However, there is yet a glimmer of hope for Harvard. It may be captured, controlled, and corrupted, but the Trump administration has given it, along with 60 universities across the nation, the unique opportunity to reclaim independence by rejecting the government check.
Then, and only then, can we achieve the promise of American higher education and “proceed now, as always, with the conviction that the fearless and unfettered pursuit of truth liberates humanity—and with faith in the enduring promise that America’s colleges and universities hold for our country and our world.”