Harvard vs Trump administration: Top 10 US universities with largest endowments
Harvard University has filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration, challenging the legality of a freeze on federal grants worth billions of dollars. The move comes after the university declined to comply with a set of demands that the administration said were aimed at limiting diversity initiatives and combating antisemitism on campus.
The White House responded to the lawsuit by stating that the 'gravy train of federal assistance' to elite institutions was ending.
Despite the freeze, Harvard remains one of the wealthiest academic institutions in the world, sustained by its massive endowment.
How university endowments work
Endowments consist of financial assets donated to academic institutions, structured to sustain funding indefinitely. Rather than drawing down the entire balance, universities invest the funds and spend a portion of the returns each year.
Donations form the backbone of most endowments, which are used to support teaching, research, and public service. In many cases, donors stipulate how their contributions are used, whether for scholarships, research grants, or endowed professorships.
The practice of endowed academic positions dates back to 176 A.D., when Roman emperor Marcus Aurelius created chairs for each major philosophical school in Athens. England adopted a similar model in the early 16th century.
Today, many endowment funds are governed by investment policy statements that outline restrictions on spending. These can include merit-based scholarships, faculty salaries, or research support.
Colleges with the largest endowments
According to the 2025 US News and World Report, the top 20 college endowments average nearly USD 18.6 billion. While most are private institutions, three public universities—Texas A&M, Michigan, and Virginia—also rank on the list.
As of 2023, the schools with the highest endowments include:
Harvard University – USD 50.7 billion
Yale University – USD 40.7 billion
Stanford University – USD 36.5 billion
Princeton University – USD 33.4 billion
MIT – USD 23.5 billion
University of Pennsylvania – USD 21.0 billion
Texas A&M University – USD 17.2 billion
University of Michigan—Ann Arbor – USD 17.1 billion
University of Notre Dame – USD 17.0 billion
Columbia University – USD 13.6 billion
Possible tax hikes
During Trump's second term, the administration has prioritized funding cuts to higher education. Proposals under consideration by Republican lawmakers include forcing universities to pay new federal levies, such as steep increases to the endowment tax.
A tax on endowments was first introduced in 2017, targeting colleges with more than 500 tuition-paying students and at least USD 500,000 in endowment assets per student. The 1.4 per cent excise tax currently affects only a limited number of institutions.
A leaked list of House Republican policy goals from January proposed raising the endowment tax to 14 per cent, a move projected to generate USD 10 billion over the next decade. The National Association of College and University Business Officers (NACUBO) continues to oppose any such tax, calling it a threat to the tax-exempt status of educational institutions.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
40 minutes ago
- Time of India
Anti-ICE protests: Appeal court blocks earlier ruling; allows Trump to command California Guard
The appeals court on Thursday approved the Trump administration's petition to maintain California National Guard Troops' deployment amidst LA protests (AP image) The appeals court on Thursday evening approved the Trump administration's petition to maintain California National Guard Troops' deployment amidst Los Angeles protests, provisionally suspending a federal judge's directive issued earlier that day. The initial ruling had instructed President Donald Trump to relinquish control of the troops back to California Governor Gavin Newsom. US District Judge Charles R. Breyer ruled that Trump illegally dispatched the troops, stating that the president had overstepped his statutory authority and violated the Tenth Amendment to the US Constitution. Breyer ordered the federal government to give up control to the governor but stayed his order until noon Friday. This led the government to quickly appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, which granted a stay. A hearing is scheduled for Tuesday. Asked to comment, the governor's office referred to Newsom's previous remarks that he is 'confident in the rule of law.' This legal dispute arose from a lawsuit California filed earlier this week against Trump, defence secretary Pete Hegseth, and the defence department. The state seeks to limit the role of the National Guard and Marines in Los Angeles, allowing them only to protect federal facilities and personnel. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Fastest Selling Plots of Mysore from 40L | 40+ Amenities PurpleBrick Learn More Undo It asked for a temporary order limiting military actions and questioned the president's rights to deploy troops in California without the governor's input or consent. The Trump administration has deployed 4,100 National Guard members and Marines to respond to protests, with 2,100 Guard members stationed in the LA area. According to US Northern Command, the forces are part of Task Force 51, tasked with protecting federal property and functions. Newsom, a Democrat and frequent critic of Trump, emphasised that his request was not to stop the military's mission but to obtain 'narrow relief tailored to avoid irreparable harm to our communities and the rule of law that is likely to result if defendants are allowed to proceed with their plans to use Marines and federalised National Guard to enforce immigration laws and other civil laws on the streets of our cities. ' In court, the Trump administration labeled California's request 'legally meritless,' arguing it would compromise the safety of Department of Homeland Security personnel and disrupt federal operations. In his 36-page ruling, Breyer criticised the administration's approach, stating that 'the continued unlawful militarisation' of Los Angeles risked escalating tensions and violence. He acknowledged that courts generally defer to presidents on national security and foreign policy but affirmed that domestic military deployments are subject to judicial oversight. Breyer rejected the administration's characterisation of the demonstrations as a rebellion, noting that while some protesters were violent, the events did not amount to 'a violent, armed, organised, open and avowed uprising against the government as a whole.' The judge also criticised the administration's claim that local and state leaders had lost control, asserting that the federal government could not override a state's police power due to dissatisfaction with enforcement speed or strategy. In a post-ruling news conference, Newsom reverberated Breyer's sentiment, stating, 'There's no invasion. There's no rebellion. It's absurd.' He framed the issue as a 'test of democracy,' saying the ruling confirmed Trump is not above constitutional limits. During the hearing, Judge Breyer, a former Watergate prosecutor and brother of retired Supreme Court Justice Stephen G. Breyer, read from Article II of the US Constitution, underscoring executive limits. 'That's the difference between a constitutional government and King George,' he said. 'It's not that a leader can simply say something and it becomes it.' Some protests in Los Angeles following recent immigration raids have seen clashes, looting, and arson, though much of the city has remained unaffected. The administration depicted the city as overwhelmed, while state and local officials maintained they were capable of managing the situation and accused the federal government of exacerbating unrest. Judge Breyer scheduled another hearing for June 20 and ordered the federal government to present arguments against a preliminary injunction.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
44 minutes ago
- First Post
'Nearing the point of no return': Israel on Iran's nuclear weapons programme
After attacking nuclear and military sites across Iran, Israel has said that Iran has enough enriched uranium to make 15 bombs and is near the point of no return in its nuclear weapons programme. read more After conducting widespread strikes inside Iran, Israel has said that the Ayatollah Khamenei's regime was 'nearing the point of no return' in the development of a nuclear weapon. Israel targeted Iran's nuclear programme , military sites, and top military leaders in strikes across Iran in the early hours of Friday. It dubbed it 'Operation Rising Lion'. In a post on X, the Israeli military said that recent intelligence has shown that Iran has been producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium and currently has enough uranium for 15 bombs. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In October 2023, Iran had 4,130.7 kg of enriched uranium that was enough for nine bombs but it now has 7,264 that is enough for 15 bombs. 'The regime is producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium, alongside decentralized and fortified enrichment compounds, in underground, fortified sites. This program has accelerated significantly in recent months, bringing the regime significantly closer to obtaining a nuclear weapon,' the statement read. 𝗗𝗘𝗖𝗟𝗔𝗦𝗦𝗜𝗙𝗜𝗘𝗗: 𝗜𝗿𝗮𝗻'𝘀 𝗡𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗣𝗹𝗮𝗻𝘀 Recent intelligence shows Iran is nearing the point of no return in its race toward a nuclear weapon. The regime is producing thousands of kilograms of enriched uranium, alongside decentralized and fortified… — Israel Defense Forces (@IDF) June 13, 2025 The Israeli military said that it was not left with any option other than attacking Iran's nuclear programme. In addition to nuclear sites, including Natanz, Israel killed top Iranian officials , such as IRGC chief Major General Hossein Salami, Iranian military chief Brigadier General Mohammad Bagheri, and deputy military chief Gholamali Rashid, and scientists Mohammad Mehdi Tehranji Fereydoun Abbasi. With strikes on the Iranian nuclear programme, Israeli Prime Minister Benjmain Netanyahu defied US President Donald Trump, who had asked him not to attack Iran's Iranian nuclear sites — as recently as yesterday. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Iran is widely expected to retaliate but the scope of any retaliation will depend on the support that Trump offers to Iran. So far, the Trump administration has maintained that it was a unilateral Israeli attack. Moreover, efforts so far have been publicised to withdraw non-essential US personnel from the region and secure US assets instead of bolstering the defence of Israel. As Iran has apparently conducted the operation without Trump's go-ahead, it is left to be seen if Trump would come to Israel's defence like former President Joe Biden did. In two rounds of Israel-Iran aerial battles last year, the Israel was able to fend off the Iranian barrage because of the defensive coalition put together by Biden that comprised US, British, French, and Arab forces.
Economic Times
an hour ago
- Economic Times
Gold is ‘flavour of the month', says Richard Harris amid crisis hedging
Agencies So, they will come off, but in the very short term they may be seen as a gold substitute, but gold to my mind seems to be the key factor there that people will be looking at. "We have got the closing deadline of July the 9th for the tariffs to come back in line. So, we have got a lot of things coming up here and we are in danger of maybe some event, maybe it is this Israeli event, I do not think so, but maybe it is this event where the markets really say okay, that is enough. We have had enough. Markets," says Richard Harris, Port Shelter Investment. Between Iran and Israel right now. US for the moment has opted to stay out of this war. But what are you making of the development between Iran and Israel? How bad could it get for global markets also in terms of crude? Richard Harris: Well, first of all, the Israeli thing, the Israelis have been for this for quite a long time. It is well known that Trump has tried to persuade them not to. They have clearly gone against his advice and the Americans now are obviously up to prevent any attacks against US areas, but they have made it quite clear that they have not really been involved. So, Iran then if they are looking at retaliation, they are really looking at Israel. Now, this may come explicitly in terms of the kind of drone strikes that they tried to do earlier, but Israel's defences are quite strong there or implicitly, in terms of maybe terrorist attacks in other places, but it clearly does not help the situation. It adds to global uncertainty. It adds to the uncertainty in the market and actually Trump is probably feeling a little bit miffed that perhaps the Israelis have not quite followed his advice. What do you think could be the impact on markets other than crude because what you are seeing today, of course, is a knee-jerk reaction. Most global markets were already scaling at an all-time peak, perhaps looking for a reason to profit take, but do you sense that we could spiral down further? Richard Harris: Yes, I mean we have seen a very good recovery in markets generally. I mean, Europe because it is a diversifier to the US, the US because actually we have had the Trump taco trade which is where there have been small pieces of good news that has led a recovery in US share prices. We are now at a stage where markets pretty well are back to where Trump started, that is actually an important sign. But we are also much more fragile. Unemployment is looking less good than it was. Growth is looking less good than it was. We have got the closing deadline of July the 9th for the tariffs to come back in line. So, we have got a lot of things coming up here and we are in danger of maybe some event, maybe it is this Israeli event, I do not think so, but maybe it is this event where the markets really say okay, that is enough. We have had enough. Markets are very fragile and it is just waiting for that unknown unknown event in order to unwind. What happens to money flow in a case like this? I mean, this is not the first time that we have had two countries battle it out. We have seen that since Russia-Ukraine, then it was Israel and Gaza and now Iran again. We have seen that here in India as well with our own neighbour. But does it really impact money flows at all or do you think that is clearly restricted to tariffs and what comes of it? Richard Harris: We have seen a lot of these issues over the last few years and markets react. It takes a day or so to react and then they come back. At the moment, we do not really know what is happening. But the markets are quite immune if you like to a number of these factors. They survived two major wars. They survived all sorts of issues with Trump and tariffs and still they are trading at a reasonably high level. Bull markets die hard. I would expect that this will end up being another skirmish that will disappear in next two to three weeks. Maybe wrong, but I think the probabilities are like that. I think one escalation could be if the Iranians do decide to see if they can choke off oil deliveries out of the Arabian Gulf, then the Americans will step in because it is important for the world and the Americans do see it as part of their holy mission to keep that gulf open. So, I think that if you are looking at oil prices, they are likely to be quite volatile because you have got these different factors involved. But at the end of the day, the US will look to keep it open, whether that will then cause a secondary dispute between the US and in Iran, well, that is probably going to happen anyway, but I think that will burn at a lower level. Is the most obvious trade right now is maybe go ahead and buy gold because at the morning today gold is already at near to its all-time high, holding on to the gains of over 1.5%. Richard Harris: Well, gold is flavour of the month, is not it, and the dollar it normally takes that view, but because we have had the whole issue with Trump and weakness in the dollar, I think it is being less successful. Of course, the other thing for those who actually believe it is Bitcoin, which the cryptos will probably do quite well in this environment. Crypto is actually quite focused on the equity market. So, they will come off, but in the very short term they may be seen as a gold substitute, but gold to my mind seems to be the key factor there that people will be looking at.
