Obama Praises Harvard for Resisting Trump

Former President Barack Obama voiced strong support for Harvard University on Monday, following the school's decision to reject a sweeping set of demands from the Trump administration.

In a post on X (formerly known as Twitter), Obama commended Harvard for standing firm against federal overreach, saying its stance should serve as an example for other institutions facing political pressure.

Obama’s remarks came in response to a statement from Harvard accusing the government of attempting to control the university’s core values, academic research, and the speech of students and faculty.

The dispute escalated late Friday when the Trump administration warned Harvard that it must accept a federal agreement or risk losing $2.3 billion in long-standing financial support.

This ultimatum followed weeks of political scrutiny over how universities are addressing antisemitism.

In its public response, Harvard confirmed that it, along with other campuses, had been threatened—but said the administration’s revised demands went far beyond antisemitism.

According to the university, the terms sought to override legal boundaries by seizing influence over internal speech policies, academic hiring, and governance.

Harvard Blasts Federal Interference in Campus Policy

The statement, signed by interim president Alan Garber, firmly rejected the Trump administration’s demands, calling them a violation of the First Amendment, an overreach of federal authority, and a direct threat to academic independence.

Garber wrote:

“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.”

Garber warned that conceding to such terms could jeopardise millions of lives, citing Harvard’s decades-long partnership with the federal government in scientific research.

For more than 75 years, universities like Harvard have received federal grants and contracts to support critical advancements in medicine, technology, and national security—efforts that have led to breakthroughs in Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s, diabetes, artificial intelligence, and quantum engineering.

Garber argued the administration’s approach was less about addressing antisemitism and more about coercively shaping the intellectual climate on campus.

The government, he claimed, was attempting to dictate the conditions under which students and faculty could think, speak, and conduct research—an effort he characterised as forceful and beyond the bounds of the law.

The university emphasized that the new federal terms exceed the government’s legal authority under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on race, color, or national origin.

Garber stated that Harvard is already in full compliance with that law, including the Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard decision, which ended race-conscious admissions practices.

He also rejected claims that Harvard has been passive on antisemitism, pointing to over a year of ongoing efforts and plans for continued action.

However, he stressed that legitimate concerns should not be used as a pretext for political interference.

Trump Administration Cuts Off $2.3B to Harvard Over Campus Policy Clash

Harvard University on Monday firmly rejected a sweeping set of demands from the Trump administration, arguing they would effectively cede institutional control to a federal government intent on reshaping higher education along partisan lines.

The demands included eliminating diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programmes, banning masks at protests, mandating merit-based hiring and admissions practices, and reducing faculty and administrative authority—measures the administration framed as part of a broader campaign to combat what it alleges is ideological extremism on campus.

Within hours of Harvard’s public stance, the Trump administration announced it would freeze $2.3 billion in federal funding to the university.

The move follows a broader review of $9 billion in federal grants and contracts at Harvard, launched last month amid allegations of antisemitism on college campuses following pro-Palestinian demonstrations over the past 18 months.

Yet, in its announcement, the administration did not provide specific examples of civil rights violations or harassment targeting Jewish students.

The Health and Human Services Department’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism said:

“It is time for elite universities to take the problem seriously and commit to meaningful change if they wish to continue receiving taxpayer support.”

Garber penned:

“The University will not surrender its independence or its constitutional rights.”

President Trump escalated the pressure further on Tuesday, threatening to strip Harvard of its tax-exempt status by designating it a political entity. h

Additionally, the administration has moved to revoke the visas of more than 525 students, faculty, and researchers across over 80 American universities, citing reasons ranging from suspected ties to terror organisations to minor historical infractions.

Former Treasury Secretary and Harvard President Larry Summers called the funding freeze a “frontal,” “punitive,” and “unlawful” attack on academic independence, suggesting the matter will likely end up in the courts:

“One should not comply with a government that is being extra-lawful. Universities are in need of a great deal of reform, and it’s come too slowly, but that’s not a reason why the government can entirely suspend the law and make up self-serving political demands and impose them on universities.”

The fallout has already begun. Dr. Donald E. Ingber, founding director of the Wyss Institute for Biologically Inspired Engineering, has received two stop-work orders on federal research contracts, one of which is reportedly worth over $15 million.

Meanwhile, Professor Sarah Fortune at Harvard’s School of Public Health has also had her tuberculosis research halted under a $60 million NIH contract that spans multiple institutions.

According to internal sources, these disruptions are directly tied to the funding freeze—an early indication of the widespread implications for research, innovation, and public health.