
Trump Administration Live Updates: President Meets Scottish Leader on Last Day of Visit
Harvard University has signaled a willingness to meet the Trump administration's demand to spend as much as $500 million to end its dispute with the White House as talks between the two sides intensify, four people familiar with the negotiations said.
According to one of the people, Harvard is reluctant to directly pay the federal government, but negotiators are still discussing the exact financial terms.
The sum sought by the government, which recently accused Harvard of civil rights violations, is more than twice as much as the $200 million fine that Columbia University said it would pay when it settled antisemitism claims with the White House last week. Neither Harvard nor the government has publicly detailed potential terms for a settlement and what allegations the money would be intended to resolve.
President Trump has privately demanded that Harvard pay far more than Columbia. The people who described the talks and the dynamics surrounding them spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss confidential negotiations.
Although the two sides have made progress toward a deal, Harvard is also skeptical of Columbia's agreement to allow an outside monitor to oversee its sweeping arrangement with the government. Harvard officials have signaled that such a requirement for their own settlement could be a redline as a potential infringement on the university's academic freedom.
University officials, though, concluded months ago that even if they prevailed in their court fight against the government, a deal could help Harvard to avoid more troubles over the course of Mr. Trump's term.
The timing was unclear for when the administration and Harvard might reach an accord, but the university is expected to demand that any deal be tied to the federal lawsuit it brought against the government in April.
Mr. Trump said in June that his administration might strike an agreement with Harvard 'over the next week or so.' Although that time frame has lapsed, the president has privately told aides that he will not green-light a deal unless the nation's oldest and wealthiest university agrees to spend many millions of dollars.
The president's focus on financial terms reflects a shift in strategy for the administration, which spent the first months of its assault on higher education highlighting the prospects of reorienting the industry's perceived ideological tilt. Although the White House has tied federal research funds to its quest for negotiations with top schools since the winter, Mr. Trump's focus on the financial conditions of any settlements emerged more recently.
Harvard declined to comment on Monday.
A White House spokesman, Harrison W. Fields, said on Monday that the administration's 'proposition is simple and common sense: Don't allow antisemitism and D.E.I. to run your campus, don't break the law, and protect the civil liberties of all students.'
Mr. Fields added that the White House was 'confident that Harvard will eventually come around and support the president's vision, and through good-faith conversations and negotiations, a good deal is more than possible.'
The Trump administration publicly depicted last week's settlement with Columbia as a template for bargaining with Harvard and other universities it has targeted. And, indeed, higher education executives have spent days dissecting the fine print of Columbia's agreement, a wide-ranging deal that goes far beyond addressing antisemitism. Many have focused on a provision that said no part of the settlement 'shall be construed as giving the United States authority to dictate faculty hiring, university hiring, admissions decisions or the content of academic speech.'
Although some people assailed Columbia for agreeing to the deal, others saw the arrangement as a necessity and a model for others to consider.
'They didn't admit wrongdoing — it's a classic settlement,' said Donna E. Shalala, who was the health secretary under President Bill Clinton and led four schools, including the University of Miami and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 'You don't admit wrongdoing, and you preserve your right to continue as an institution.'
Mr. Trump, Dr. Shalala said, had a long record of 'transactional' bargaining with powerful institutions.
'The details are less important than getting the deal and getting the win,' she said. 'So if you know that when you go into a negotiation that it's less ideological than it is getting a win, then you can get a win on both sides.'
Harvard is now weighing its own calculations. But it faces a different range of considerations than Columbia, including its outsize standing in American life, its legal battle with the government and its insistence that it will not surrender its independence to any government.
'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,' Harvard's president, Alan M. Garber, wrote in April, an early signal that the university might resist oversight like what the Trump administration has envisioned.
Harvard sued soon after Dr. Garber released his statement and after the Trump administration began to strip the university of billions of dollars in federal research money.
Just last Monday, a federal judge in Boston appeared deeply skeptical in a hearing about the government's tactics against Harvard.
Although the judge, Allison D. Burroughs, did not immediately issue a decision in the case, her barrage of questions suggested serious doubts about the government's efforts to tie research funding to accusations of antisemitism.
Mr. Trump repeatedly criticized Judge Burroughs after the hearing, where the university's negotiations with the White House were not substantively discussed.
'Harvard wants to settle, but I think Columbia handled it better,' Mr. Trump said to reporters on the South Lawn of the White House on Friday.
His administration has not always insisted on payments from elite universities to settle disputes with the government.
When the administration cut a deal this summer with the University of Pennsylvania over accusations that the Ivy League school had violated civil rights laws by allowing a transgender person onto its women's swim team, Penn agreed to apologies and policy changes but no financial penalties.
But the administration has been eyeing Harvard's wealth for months, and Trump aides believe that the university is able to pay much more than Columbia did. Columbia's $200 million fine will go to the Treasury, a White House official said last week, until Congress decides how to spend it.
In April, when a government lawyer sent Harvard's legal team an array of potential actions by the university, one was the possibility of Harvard agreeing to a lien on its assets so the government could recoup federal dollars 'in event of noncompliance in the future.'
The idea, included in a document that became public in connection with Harvard's lawsuit against the government, gained little traction. When the administration sent Harvard a list of demands later that month, the notion of a lien was not mentioned.
Harvard has an endowment valued at about $53 billion. But most of the endowment is restricted, meaning that university leaders are limited in how they can tap a war chest that has long animated Mr. Trump and his aides. In a memorandum this month, Harvard's leaders wrote that a series of actions from Washington — including an increase in the excise tax on endowments and the administration's quest to eliminate grant funding to Harvard — could affect the university's budget by close to $1 billion a year.
'We hope that our legal challenges will reverse some of these federal actions and that our efforts to raise alternative sources of funding will be successful,' the Harvard officials wrote. 'As that work proceeds, we also need to prepare for the possibility that the lost revenues will not be restored anytime soon.'
Columbia's agreement with the federal government was intended to restart the flow of federal grant money, which is essential to top research universities. About 11 percent of Harvard's revenue comes through federally sponsored research.
Maggie Haberman contributed reporting.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
7 minutes ago
- Yahoo
This Reddit Post Breaking Down A MAGA Dad's "Awakening" From Two-Time Trump Voter To Trump Critic Is Going Viral
A Reddit post by a user who claims their father voted for Donald Trump twice has recently gone viral for revealing what finally turned their MAGA dad into a Trump critic. At the start of the post, the redditor explained what initially attracted their father to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. "What got him into Trump was the first primary debate he participated in, in which he brutally attacked Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and the others..." Related: They went on to explain that their father, a business owner, personally benefited from Trump's tax cuts, which made his view of Trump's first presidency a "success," despite events like January 6. According to the redditor, things started to change for their father when Trump's tariff war threw his business into "disarray." Related: The negative financial impact of Trump's tariff war made their father seek out more "accurate reporting" of Trump, and the new information "awakened" him. Related: "He wishes Trump would stop being such an idiotic fuckup." And finally, the post ended with the redditor's realization about changing the minds of "casual Trump voters." "You can bring all that stuff up, and they'll just wave it off. But as soon as he does do something harmful that affects them, they can be turned." After reading the post, people in the comments shared their perspective on "uniformed voters" who supported Trump. "I just think so many people drank the 'John Wayne' kool aid in the Reaganite '80s, the idea that, like the lone gunslinger, Americans are singular, self sufficient individuals, not members of a society. So many in the U.S. bought that BS wholesale, like this guy's Dad," one user wrote. "He thinks he only need care about his business, his family and his bikes, but he forgets that for businesses to flourish he needs society at large to be healthy, he needs trade rules to be enforced, and he needs stability in trade hates paying taxes, but never thinks about why the roads are maintained, why water comes out of the tap or electricity out of the socket. He's been trained and rewarded to see himself as a lone entity, independent of all social bonds. Now he's been uncomfortably reminded he is part of an interdependent society, but I'm sure he'll forget the reminder soon enough. Individualism is too deeply ingrained in his psyche for him to abandon it now." Related: "Everyone keeps saying 'they voted for this.' But in reality, some didn't. There are lots of uninformed voters out there. I'm not excusing it, but it's true. My dad is the same way," another user admitted. "He liked the sound bites he saw about draining the swamp and liked the idea of a businessman instead of a career politician. My dad is woefully misinformed and wouldn't listen to me either. But he's not an evil monster. Just complacent and kinda ignorant. He's also 83, so there's that." "They're not going to figure out Trump sucks until they get burned by the hot stove," this user wrote. "I think there is a large portion of classic Republicans, not the MAGA people, who probably just didn't give a shit about most of Trump's agenda harming other people." And finally, "I feel like the real takeaway from this is that the dad is against something Trump did, but still doesn't regret his vote." "The popular Reddit sentiment is that conservatives are feeling regret now that his policies are hurting them, but the actual sad truth is that given the opportunity at a revote, they'd probably vote for Trump again because they're convinced Harris would've still been worse or as bad as Trump anyway," another user wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below. Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds: Also in Internet Finds:


Buzz Feed
9 minutes ago
- Buzz Feed
MAGA Dad's Viral Journey Away From Trump
A Reddit post by a user who claims their father voted for Donald Trump twice has recently gone viral for revealing what finally turned their MAGA dad into a Trump critic. At the start of the post, the redditor explained what initially attracted their father to Donald Trump during the 2016 campaign. "What got him into Trump was the first primary debate he participated in, in which he brutally attacked Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Jeb Bush, and the others..." They went on to explain that their father, a business owner, personally benefited from Trump's tax cuts, which made his view of Trump's first presidency a "success," despite events like January 6. According to the redditor, things started to change for their father when Trump's tariff war threw his business into "disarray." The negative financial impact of Trump's tariff war made their father seek out more "accurate reporting" of Trump, and the new information "awakened" him. "He wishes Trump would stop being such an idiotic fuckup." And finally, the post ended with the redditor's realization about changing the minds of "casual Trump voters." "You can bring all that stuff up, and they'll just wave it off. But as soon as he does do something harmful that affects them, they can be turned." After reading the post, people in the comments shared their perspective on "uniformed voters" who supported Trump. "I just think so many people drank the 'John Wayne' kool aid in the Reaganite '80s, the idea that, like the lone gunslinger, Americans are singular, self sufficient individuals, not members of a society. So many in the U.S. bought that BS wholesale, like this guy's Dad," one user wrote. "He thinks he only need care about his business, his family and his bikes, but he forgets that for businesses to flourish he needs society at large to be healthy, he needs trade rules to be enforced, and he needs stability in trade hates paying taxes, but never thinks about why the roads are maintained, why water comes out of the tap or electricity out of the socket. He's been trained and rewarded to see himself as a lone entity, independent of all social bonds. Now he's been uncomfortably reminded he is part of an interdependent society, but I'm sure he'll forget the reminder soon enough. Individualism is too deeply ingrained in his psyche for him to abandon it now." "Everyone keeps saying 'they voted for this.' But in reality, some didn't. There are lots of uninformed voters out there. I'm not excusing it, but it's true. My dad is the same way," another user admitted. "He liked the sound bites he saw about draining the swamp and liked the idea of a businessman instead of a career politician. My dad is woefully misinformed and wouldn't listen to me either. But he's not an evil monster. Just complacent and kinda ignorant. He's also 83, so there's that." "They're not going to figure out Trump sucks until they get burned by the hot stove," this user wrote. And finally, "I feel like the real takeaway from this is that the dad is against something Trump did, but still doesn't regret his vote." "The popular Reddit sentiment is that conservatives are feeling regret now that his policies are hurting them, but the actual sad truth is that given the opportunity at a revote, they'd probably vote for Trump again because they're convinced Harris would've still been worse or as bad as Trump anyway," another user wrote. What are your thoughts? Let us know in the comments below.


NBC News
10 minutes ago
- NBC News
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett defends Trump's firing of labor statistics head
White House economic adviser Kevin Hassett on Sunday defended President Donald Trump's decision to fire the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics, as well as the president's claim that weaker-than-expected jobs reports were 'rigged,' but failed to produce any evidence to support Trump's claim. 'What we need is a fresh set of eyes over the BLS,' Hassett, the director of the National Economic Council, told NBC News' 'Meet the Press.' On Friday, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released a monthly jobs report that included weaker-than-expected numbers for July, plus major downward revisions of May and June's numbers. In a post on Truth Social on Friday, the president said the jobs numbers were 'rigged' and that he'd asked his team to fire BLS Commissioner Erika McEntarfer. 'We need accurate Jobs Numbers. I have directed my Team to fire this Biden Political Appointee, IMMEDIATELY. She will be replaced with someone much more competent and qualified. Important numbers like this must be fair and accurate,' Trump wrote. In another Truth Social post, the president added, 'In my opinion, today's Jobs Numbers were RIGGED in order to make the Republicans, and ME, look bad.' On Sunday, Hassett cast similar doubt on the accuracy of the jobs numbers, pointing to past revisions that were made to jobs reports after then-President Joe Biden stopped running for re-election last year. 'There have been a bunch of patterns that could make people wonder. And I think the most important thing for people to know is that it's the president's highest priority that the data be trusted and that people get to the bottom of why these revisions are so unreliable,' Hassett told 'Meet the Press' moderator Kristen Welker. He added later in the interview that the Trump administration's goal was to understand why there was such a sizable revision to past months' jobs numbers. 'The bottom line is that there were people involved in creating these numbers. And if I were running the BLS and I had a number that was a huge, politically important revision, the biggest since 1968 actually ... then I would have a really long report explaining exactly what happened. And we didn't get that,' Hassett said. It's not uncommon for jobs reports to be revised in the months following their release, but Hassett on Sunday emphasized that July's revision was one of the largest he's seen in decades. Trump faced criticism from Democrats and Republicans in Congress on Friday when he decided to fire McEntarfer, with several Republican senators questioning whether the firing would actually help the Trump administration improve future jobs numbers. 'We have to look somewhere for objective statistics. When the people providing the statistics are fired, it makes it much harder to make judgments that, you know, the statistics won't be politicized,' Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., told NBC News on Friday. 'I'm going to look into it, but first impression is that you can't really make the numbers different or better by firing the people doing the counting,' he added. On Sunday, Hassett said that installing Trump's 'own people' will help achieve more 'transparent and reliable' jobs reports in the future. 'The president wants his own people there so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable. And if there are big changes and big revisions — we expect more big revisions for the jobs data in September, for example — then we want to know why, we want people to explain it to us,' he said.