Harvard's US-funded defence projects totaled $180 million in recent years, study shows
Some of the grants paid for military-specific medical research, studies on countering weapons of mass destruction and research on lasers, among numerous other topics, Reuters found.
The abrupt halt stopped years-long projects and upended programs spread across several universities, not just Harvard. In 2025 alone, an estimated 103 grants totaling about $14 million will grind to a halt, according to an analysis by Govini, a defence software company.
For example, U.S. officials ended Harvard School of Engineering and Applied Sciences Professor Katia Bertoldi's $6 million Pentagon-funded project developing shape-changing structures with military applications two weeks ago, despite being at a critical juncture in its research cycle.
'We've been in year three, so we set up all the tools, and now we're really gaining momentum, and now it stops,' Bertoldi said.
Funded through the Department of defence's Multidisciplinary University Research Initiative, she was developing technology based on origami that would lead to reconfigurable antennas, and deployable shelters like field hospitals.
Since 2020 the Pentagon, defence Advanced Research Projects Agency and every branch of the U.S. military have given Harvard 418 grants valued at $180 million, according to the analysis by Govini.
Secretary of defence Pete Hegseth 'directed the termination of several programs, contracts and grants that were not aligned with the Department's priorities to cut wasteful spending, implement the President's orders, and reallocate savings to mission-critical priorities,' a Pentagon spokesperson told Reuters.
The bulk of those grants went to military medical research, basic scientific research and applied scientific research, Govini found, with the Army providing the most funding.
The administration has frozen approximately $3 billion in federal grants to Harvard, with Trump complaining on Truth Social that Harvard has hired 'Democrats, Radical Left idiots and 'bird brains'' as professors. On Monday, Trump said he is considering redirecting billions of dollars of previously awarded scientific and engineering research grants from Harvard to trade schools.
Harvard has sued to restore the funding, calling the cuts an unconstitutional attack on its free-speech rights.
The research cancellations affect extensive collaborative networks. Bertoldi's project included researchers from the University of Pennsylvania and Georgia Tech.
Scientists warn these cuts may have strategic implications as China has heavily invested in research.
Bertoldi said, 'In China, as far as I know, colleagues that moved back to China, there's a lot of support for this type of research.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
New Straits Times
an hour ago
- New Straits Times
Trump's data war risks creating false calm
POLITICAL pressure on government statisticians and private forecasters risks sending markets down a rabbit hole, which could suppress volatility today but lead to seismic reality checks in the future. United States President Donald Trump has side-swiped both private and public sector economists this month, firing the Bureau of Labour Statistics (BLS) boss for what he described as "rigged" jobs data and then lambasting Goldman Sachs for tariff-related research he didn't agree with. These moves seem alarming, even if there are some mitigating factors. Trump is hardly the first person to criticise BLS payrolls data. It has been under scrutiny for years, not because of fears of bias, but because of low survey response rates and delays, which have often resulted in large changes to past data. The most recent report contained one of the biggest downward revisions in decades. The BLS can argue that it has suffered from years of underfunding, but it's still not a good look. What's more, similar questions about data collection have been lobbed at the BLS regarding its compilation of monthly consumer and producer price reports, which are critical now in assessing the impact of Trump's tariff rises on inflation. These statistics, along with the US employment report, are the most important monthly updates for financial markets, mainly because they play a pivotal role in Federal Reserve thinking, given its dual mandate to maintain maximum employment and stable prices. Trump last week appointed Heritage Foundation economist E.J. Antoni — a contributor to the controversial Project 2025 wishlist of policies for a second Trump term — to run the BLS. Antoni recently suggested suspending the monthly payrolls report until data problems were fixed, which could result in long data gaps at a critical moment for the US economy, monetary policy and markets. Importantly though, the White House and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent have pushed back on that idea. But then came last Tuesday's attack on Goldman boss David Solomon, with calls for him to appoint a new chief economist following the release of a report on Sunday by his colleague Jan Hatzius. The report estimated US consumers had so far borne less than a quarter of the cost of tariffs but could see that rise to two-thirds over time. This may simply be nothing more than Trump complaining about a forecast he doesn't like, but it's still a move that risks tinkering with one of the most basic market tenets: the plurality of views. There's an obvious concern that — intentionally or not — these public attacks could cause economic data, research and forecasts to become more pro-government or lead to self-censorship by those keen to avoid seeing their business or careers damaged by presidential opprobrium. To its credit, Goldman said it would keep doing its job regardless of the political pressure. But it would hardly say otherwise. Perhaps more telling was the lack of public outcry from other economists who might reasonably be concerned that Trump's attacks on unflattering forecasts represent a worrying trend for their profession and market transparency overall. Of course, they or their institutions may simply have thought it best to stay quiet, assuming the issue would blow over soon. Does any of this matter long term? To be sure, economic forecasting can hardly be held up as a sacred cow if accuracy is what matters. A University of California, Berkeley study late last year looked at more than 16,000 forecasts by banks and large firms and concluded that while 53 per cent of forecasters were confident in their predictions, they were correct only 23 per cent of the time. Of course, if there were a consensus that official data was likely to be biased to flatter the government, then the process of forecasting those official numbers may just be to mechanically move in that direction. But that would undoubtedly create confusion. To better capture what's really going on, investors may be more inclined to commission private economic data. If political bias in official data and forecasting were to emerge in the current environment, one might expect to see firmer job creation and softer inflation readouts. That could keep markets calm in the short term. But any weakness in the real economy would emerge eventually, likely resulting in a rude awakening for many, no matter what the official data says.
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
European leaders to hold Ukraine online summit before Trump-Putin meet
European leaders hope to convince Donald Trump to respect Ukraine's interests ahead of his war talks with Russia's Vladimir Putin. (AP pic) BERLIN : European leaders will hold online talks with US President Donald Trump on Wednesday, hoping to convince him to respect Ukraine's interests when he discusses the war with Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz has invited Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelensky as well as the French, British and other European leaders and the heads of the EU and Nato to an afternoon video conference. They are then expected to talk to Trump and vice president JD Vance in a second round of the conference call. The Trump-Putin meeting on Friday – their first since Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine over three years ago – is so far planned to go ahead without Zelensky. This has fuelled fears Kyiv could be forced into painful concessions, including over land. EU leaders stressed on Tuesday 'the inherent right of Ukraine to choose its own destiny', adding that 'international borders must not be changed by force'. Zelensky, speaking to reporters Tuesday, ruled out withdrawing troops from the Donbas region which Moscow claims. Merz's office said the conference call would discuss 'further options to exert pressure on Russia' and 'preparation of possible peace negotiations and related issues of territorial claims and security'. The talks would include leaders from 'Finland, France, the UK, Italy, Poland, Ukraine, the heads of the European Commission and Council, the secretary general of Nato, as well as the US president and his deputy', Berlin said on Monday. British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, French President Emmanuel Macron and Merz are then also set to hold a round of talks of the so-called Coalition of the Willing of Ukraine's military backers. 'Difficult' battles Trump on Monday played down the possibility of a breakthrough in Alaska but said he expected 'constructive conversations' with Putin. 'This is really a feel-out meeting a little bit,' Trump said at the White House, but he also added that eventually 'there'll be some swapping, there'll be some changes in land'. Russia, as a prerequisite to a peace settlement, has demanded Kyiv pull its forces out of several regions claimed by Moscow, commit to being a neutral state, shun US and EU military support and be excluded from joining Nato. Ukraine has said it would never recognise Russian control over its sovereign territory, though it acknowledged that getting land captured by Russia back would have to come through diplomacy, not on the battlefield. Ukraine said Tuesday it was engaged in 'difficult' battles with Russian forces after Moscow had made rapid advances in a narrow but important section of the front line in the country's east. Zelensky said on social media that 'we see that the Russian army is not preparing to end the war. On the contrary, they are making movements that indicate preparations for new offensive operations.'
Free Malaysia Today
2 hours ago
- Free Malaysia Today
China calls for ‘all parties' to agree in Ukraine peace talks in Washington
Volodymyr Zelensky will meet Donald Trump privately before joining wider talks with European leaders. (AFP pic) BEIJING : China called on Monday for 'all parties' involved in peace talks in Washington aimed at ending Russia's war in Ukraine to reach an agreement 'as soon as possible'. President Donald Trump is hosting his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky in the US capital for talks on Monday, and has said reclaiming Crimea or entering Nato were off the table for Ukraine. Zelensky, who has repeatedly rejected territorial concessions, is expected to meet Trump one-on-one before being joined by a cohort of European leaders, including European Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen, according to the White House schedule. 'We hope that all parties and stakeholders will participate in the peace talks in a timely manner and reach a fair, lasting, binding and acceptable peace agreement to all parties as soon as possible,' China's foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning told a regular news conference. Monday's meeting follows a summit between Trump and Russia's Vladimir Putin in Alaska on Friday, which failed to yield a ceasefire breakthrough but produced promises from both leaders to provide 'robust security guarantees' to Ukraine. Asked about those discussions, Mao said: 'China supports all efforts conducive to the peaceful settlement of the crisis and is glad to see Russia and the United States maintain contact, improve their relations and promote a political settlement process of the Ukraine crisis.'
