
Harvard needs its big donors now more than ever. But some are wary of the school's standoff with Trump.
Harvard's alumni span the political spectrum, and donations have surged since the university said it would stand up to the Trump administration, which has frozen $2.2 billion in federal funding for what it says is egregious campus antisemitism.
Advertisement
But some major donors, including those with buildings
named after them on the hallowed campus, have been frustrated with the university's response, according to interviews with donors and administrators. They feel Harvard should make a deal, not pitch a fight, and worry that the fallout could damage an institution they love — as demonstrated yet again Monday when the White House declared Harvard would
Related
:
Some, too, quietly support some of the changes the White House is pushing regarding antisemitism on campus and viewpoint diversity, even if they feel President Trump's tactics go way too far.
In recent days,
announced
Advertisement
Over the past year, even before Trump's demands, the university has also stiffened
speech, and formed task forces to study antisemitism, Islamophobia, and the environment for open dialogue.
Jewish students and staff members at Harvard who've voiced worry about antisemitism have said the campus
Related
:
The changes seem to be resonating with some of Harvard's biggest patrons.
Len Blavatnik, a Ukrainian-born billionaire who has long been a prominent donor, had paused his donations due to concerns about campus antisemitism amid Israel's war in Gaza. But he recently altered that stance, a spokesperson said, releasing 'a portion of his funding,' to support scholarships at Harvard Business School, the new American Repertory Theatre under construction in Allston, and several research projects.
Contruction in progress of the new American Reperatory Theatre in Harvard property in Allston.
John Tlumacki/Globe Staff
'Although the pace of change is not as fast as many people would have liked, he believes Harvard is moving in the right direction and that the Trump administration should give them more time,' the spokesperson said.
Advertisement
Likewise, Peter Malkin, a real estate investor, former Harvard overseer, and namesake of the Malkin Athletic Center, said that while the federal demands are 'overreaching and excessive,' he viewed Harvard's moves to centralize discipline and to end funding for affinity graduation ceremonies as 'another step forward.'
'Hopefully president [Alan]
Garber with support from the Corporation will continue his program of reforming Harvard, disregarding the federal intervention and doing what is correct and best for Harvard,' Malkin, who has been critical of Harvard and the Corporation,
said in an interview with the Globe. 'Hopefully Harvard will win in court on not permitting that kind of governmental interference in independent colleges and universities, and certainly in reinstituting the grants for scientific and medical research, which really have nothing to do with antisemitism.'
The Malkin Athletic Center on Harvard's Allston campus.
John Tlumacki/Globe Staff
Still, some donors question the school's tactics.
Garber has heard from several high-profile donors worried that Harvard seriously misstepped by choosing to fight instead of negotiating with the Trump administration, said one Harvard administrator who asked for anonymity to speak candidly. Many saw the government's asks as overreaching but believed the correct way to deal with Trump was to find common ground and continue to negotiate.
Now, the university is turning to donors, including those who wanted to see Harvard negotiate with Trump, for help amid the federal funding freeze.
Related
:
Jeff Sklar, a senior finance executive and adviser to many prominent business leaders with Harvard ties, said his phone began to blow up during a Zoom meeting Garber held with alumni last week.
It was text messages from fellow Harvard Business School alums
frustrated that the call centered more on Harvard's finances than on measures to address antisemitism.
Advertisement
He said that many alumni feel as though Garber and the Corporation have a fiduciary obligation to Harvard's
larger community of alumni, donors, and other stakeholders.
'I love the school, particularly the Harvard Business School,' Sklar said. 'But I don't want [Garber] to over-assert himself and burn the school to the ground.'
In a post on X not long after Harvard refused to comply with the Trump administration's demands, hedge fund billionaire and outspoken Harvard critic Bill Ackman put his interpretation of his alma mater's defiance even more bluntly.
'Apparently @Harvard prefers to euthanize research animals and cut scientific research rather than eliminate its enormous bureaucracy, shut down its racist and illegal DEI programs, and cut back funding for gender and Marxist studies,' he wrote.
Bill Ackman, founder and CEO of Pershing Square Capital Management, has been an outspoken critic of Harvard University.
PATRICK T. FALLON/AFP via Getty Images
(A Harvard scientist told the
And some donors still seethe over what they view as festering antisemitism on campus.
Antony Gordon, a graduate of Harvard Law School and donor based in Southern California, said he believes that Harvard would have reacted differently to concerns about discrimination by other groups, and that the problem of campus antisemitism is urgent.
'To get the attention' of Harvard leaders, he said, 'you have to hit them where it hurts on the financial side.'
Related
:
In the wake of Gaza protests last year, business school alum Jeremy Freedman withdrew a planned seven-figure gift to Harvard from his will. Last week, he said he wants the White House to do everything in its power to push Harvard to fight antisemitism.
Advertisement
'I'm delighted that the Trump administration is whacking [Harvard] over the head with a massive 2x4 because nothing else gets Harvard's attention,' Freedman said. 'I hope they lose every nickel of federal funding and the lawsuits against them are massively successful.'
Garber, who is Jewish,
Harvard University president Alan Garber, at last year's Commencement.
Craig F. Walker/Globe Staff
'We have done a lot to improve our ability to address these problems over the past year and a half,'
Related
:
Some prominent donors are in fact delighted by the university's defiance
in the face of Trump's demands. If anything, said Paul Buttenweiser, a prominent donor and former member of the Harvard Board of Overseers, the fight has unified many in the Harvard community.
'I think everybody wanted President Garber to take the stance that he did in his letter,' Buttenweiser said.'I know a lot of people who were critical of Harvard on both sides of its stance last year. That's completely changed, I don't know anybody who's sour on Harvard today.'
And many donors, said former Harvard President Larry Summers, sit somewhere in the middle. They want to see 'substantial change, without capitulation.'
Advertisement
'Most of the big donors think that the Trump administration's ask was a massive overreach,' Summers said. 'You can't have the government applying a review of who's going to be appointed to faculty committees. You can't have litmus tests for hiring.'
Those demands — anathema to a university that's older than the United States — are a big reason the fight got so intense so quickly, observers say. Many Harvard donors understand that, and also recognize that yielding to Trump would have only
invite more demands. But they worry that Harvard's decision to fight could spiral.
Harvard is standing on its ideals, said Larry Ladd, a former budget officer at the school and now a financing expert at the Association of Governing Boards of Universities and Colleges. And even major donors only have so much sway over those.
'These donors are accustomed to a single source of ownership, such as shareholders. They are accustomed to money being the primary driver of decisions,' he said. 'For Harvard, the primary accountability isn't to money but to mission.'
Eliot House at Harvard University.
David L. Ryan/Globe Staff
Hilary Burns can be reached at
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Kharkiv hit with attacks as Ukraine, Russia dispute prisoner swap
The eastern Ukrainian city of Kharkiv was hit by a Russian glide bomb attack on Saturday, after suffering heavy Russian airstrikes earlier in the day. A 30-year-old woman was killed, Kharkiv's military governor, Oleh Syniehubov, wrote on Telegram. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky said more than 40 people were injured in the glide bomb attack. "This makes no military sense. It is pure terrorism," he wrote on Telegram. Russia dropped four glide bombs on the city centre, damaging two buildings belonging to a children's railway, train carriages and two houses, Syniehubov said. He said the area is a popular place for families to spend their free time at the weekend. On Saturday morning, Kharkiv Mayor Ihor Terekhov reported three deaths in Russian airstrikes on the city, which also hit residential buildings. He said the strikes injured 21 people, including a baby and a 14-year-old girl. According to Ukrainian sources, 53 drones, four glide bombs and a missile struck various locations in the earlier attack. Terekhov said the attack was the most severe that the city had experienced since the war began more than three years ago. Kharkiv, Ukraine's second-largest city, is located close to the Russian border and has repeatedly been the target of Russian attacks. A disputed exchange Meanwhile Russia and Ukraine are wrangling over the implementation of the prisoner exchange and return of 6,000 dead soldiers agreed on Monday in Istanbul. Moscow's chief negotiator, Vladimir Medinsky, said on Telegram on Saturday that the Russian side was waiting at the handover point with 1,212 frozen bodies in refrigerators ready to begin the initiative, but the Ukrainian envoys were absent. In addition, he said a list of 640 detainees had been handed over to Ukraine for the latest planned prisoner exchange. The other remains were also said to be on their way. The Defence Ministry released a video showing white bags, allegedly containing the bodies, being transported in lorries. Medinsky accused Ukraine of not honouring the agreement and delaying the prisoner swap. The Ukrainian coordination staff responded that the timing of the handover had not been agreed upon but was unilaterally set by the Russians. In a statement on Telegram, the staff referred to "dirty games" and called on the Russian side to return to constructive work. The implementation of the agreements could take place "in the coming days," the staff in Kiev said. At the same time, Ukraine rejected Russian accusations that the exchange of prisoners and the handover of the bodies were being delayed. Ukraine criticizes flawed prisoner lists The coordination staff said it had handed over its lists for the prisoner exchange to the Russian side, in line with the agreement. According to Russian reports, the exchange is to involve 1,200 prisoners on each side. However, the staff in Kiev complained that Moscow had provided lists that did not comply with the Istanbul agreement. It is now Russia's turn, it said. The prisoner exchange was expected to take place this Saturday and Sunday. Lorries full of bodies In a video released by the Russian Defence Ministry, Lieutenant General Alexander Sorin, a member of Moscow's negotiating team, stated that the Ukrainian side had not confirmed the prisoner exchange on Saturday and had postponed it indefinitely. Russia is ready to implement all agreements reached in Istanbul, the general emphasized. "We are prepared to hand over all the bodies and also carry out the exchange of prisoners of war according to the agreed formula," Sorin said. The talks in Istanbul were the second direct negotiations since 2022, following a first round in May, which led to the largest prisoner exchange to date in the same month. A total of 1,000 soldiers and civilians were freed on each side.
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Army, Trump ready June 14th birthday parade with tanks, rocket launchers
June 7 (UPI) -- The U.S. Army celebrates its 250th birthday on June 14th in the nation's capital, which coincides with President Donald Trump's 79th birthday, and will be marked by a parade that may include tanks, rocket launchers and more than 100 military vehicles. With the two birthdays occurring on the same day, the previously scheduled parade that was intended as a relatively small event at the National Mall in Washington, D.C., has grown in size and cost. Up to 300 soldiers and civilians, the U.S. Army Band and four cannons were initially slated to honor the Army's 250th birthday, with seating available for 120 attendees, The Washington Post reported. U.S. Army leaders last year sought a permit for the event, but Trump's election victory has changed its scope, while doubling as an unofficial celebration of the president's birthday. Axios reported the parade will live up to Trump's request for a showcase the U.S. miliatary's might, with dozens of tanks, rocket launchers, missiles and more than 100 other military aircraft and vehicles participating. About 6,600 Army troops will participate, and the Army is paying to house them in area hotels. The parade route has been moved to the northwest portion of Constitution Avenue and will include a flyover of F-22 fighter jets, World War II planes and Vietnam-era aircraft. The event is scheduled to start at 6:30 p.m. EDT at 23rd Street and continue along Constitution Avenue N.W. to 15th Street. Trump will review the parade on the Ellipse. The event has an estimated cost of nearly $45 million, including more than $10 million for road repairs after the heavy military equipment passes over. The parade's estimated cost has Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman Roger Wicker, R-Miss., skeptical about its benefits. "I would have recommended against the parade," Wicker told an interviewer on Thursday, but the Department of Defense wants to use it as a recruiting tool. "On the other hand, [Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth] feels that it will be a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for thousands of young Americans to see what a great opportunity it is to participate in a great military force," Wicker said. "So, we'll see."


New York Post
20 minutes ago
- New York Post
The ultimate loser of Trump and Musk's bloody battle royale could be the nation
Godzilla vs King Kong. Ali vs Frazier. Yankees vs. Red Sox. Trump vs. Musk is bigger than all of them because — unlike the first match — this one is real. And unlike the other two, it has real-world consequences. The future of the republic — not to mention the future of Tesla, SpaceX and Musk's other cutting-edge tech companies — could be at stake, depending on how bad it all gets. Of course, with this pair, they could make up while this column is at the printer. Musk is known to do 180s in business like most people breathe, and he seems open (at least for now) to rapprochement. That's why, after tanking during early rounds of the fight, Tesla shares spiked on Friday. Trump, meanwhile, can be forgiving when he sees an opportunity. Remember how he mocked 'Little Marco,' who after a MAGA-esque transformation is now Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Trump wanted to ban TikTok but as I was first to report, he's extending its life in the US. He came to believe that even if it is Chinese spyware, it helped him win a second term. But there's a better case that the Trump-Musk feud will linger. These men maintain some of the biggest egos on the planet; Musk actually thinks he's the reason Trump got elected since Elon owns X (formerly Twitter), which became a MAGA megaphone. If you know Trump like I do, someone taking credit for his success is a third rail. Plus, Musk isn't a natural convert to MAGA. These dudes bonded because Musk, a former Democrat, believed his party lost its mind on woke. His EV maker Tesla, a darling of the environmental movement, has a big operation in China, the main target of Trump's trade war. Musk called Peter Navarro, Trump's lead trade warrior, 'Peter Retarrdo' because Elon's no fan of tariffs. For his part, Trump is no budget hawk. It's telling that this fight started with Musk's critique that the president's 'big, beautiful bill' spends too much money. It quickly exposed other fissures lurking beneath the surface, according to my sources, and now it has gotten messy. No way to treat a pal Trump is teeing up killing all of Musk's lucrative government contracting after Musk outrageously — and foolishly — claimed the president is holding back the Jeffrey Epstein files because Trump's in the docs in some nefarious way. Not a way to treat a friend, particularly a powerful one. All of which gets me to laying odds on the winner if this feud keeps going. I say Trump is the heavy favorite. Musk has no political base, even if he splinters and begins spending his billions on Dems. Yes, some lefties are relishing the battle, but Musk will never be acceptable to most Democrats for the unforgivable sin of aiding Trump, then via DOGE cutting all that government lefty spending. Charlie Gasparino has his finger on the pulse of where business, politics and finance meet Sign up to receive On The Money by Charlie Gasparino in your inbox every Thursday. Thanks for signing up! Enter your email address Please provide a valid email address. By clicking above you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Never miss a story. Check out more newsletters Meanwhile, Musk poses little threat to MAGA. He's not a natural politician — he's not even comfortable in his own skin. He controls X and has a huge following, but Trump has his own following and social media platform that attracts as much media attention. And Trump can hit him where it hurts — his pocketbook. Musk is the world's richest man, but mostly on paper. It could diminish fast given how much of it is built on government work. Recall Musk smoking a joint on Joe Rogan, which is a no-no when you do defense contracting as SpaceX does. I reported how it sparked scrutiny by the feds that went nowhere. Maybe now it goes somewhere. Musk's accounting at Tesla has drawn regulatory attention in the past; it now might get some more. The company just had a lousy quarter as its lefty EV-buying base went somewhere else. Shares have recovered somewhat but remain under pressure. They fell as much as 16% when the feud went defcon. Trump could go after other parts of the Musk empire. The president could throttle SpaceX's government contracts, using the weed issue as an excuse to re-examine the relationship. Maybe more of those go by the wayside along with all his other government contracts. Musk is obviously miffed that Trump's tax bill didn't cut enough fat, but what might have really stoked his anger is that it did take aim at various green-tax credits that Tesla has feasted upon. Musk's recklessness in his attacks underscores one of his weaknesses as a CEO; he once said he had a buyer to take it private at a premium but no one emerged. And you wonder why the Epstein barb shouldn't be taken seriously. The smarter move Yes, Trump has a lot of levers to pull to get at what makes Musk so powerful. But here's why he shouldn't: For all of Musk's flaws, he's smart and has his finger on the pulse of the emerging economy. Tesla's tech is first-rate. SpaceX is transformational, and serves a significant national security function. Musk is rich and can continue to elect Republicans to keep Trump from being impeached and derailing what is really working in his second term, such as his war on woke, closing the border and, when this tariff stuff subsidies, tax cuts to grow the economy. And they did make beautiful music together exposing stuff with DOGE. Someone please call a timeout.