Latest news with #AlanGarber
The Hill
an hour ago
- Politics
- The Hill
Harvard's $500 million surrender to Trump heralds an end to US academic freedoms
I was never fortunate enough to attend Harvard. Yet after the school's stunning surrender to President Trump's $500 million shakedown on Monday, I'm not sure the nation's most venerated university has much to teach anyone. Back in April, Harvard President Alan Garber drew praise from civil society groups for urging the university to ' stand firm ' against Trump's brazen extortion scheme. Harvard's resolve didn't even last the summer. Harvard's elite administrators may think it's easier to simply pay off the strongman at their gates, but giving the bully your lunch money only invites him to demand more. Harvard's full-on retreat is the latest in a string of high-profile payments the White House has extracted from institutions it views as left-leaning, and its half-billion-dollar protection payment won't be the biggest or the last. With a $53 billion endowment and towering cultural standing, Harvard had plenty of resources to challenge Trump's lawless demands in court and in the press. Instead, university leaders kept the cash and sold out the students, teachers and administrators who counted on them to take a stand. Americans across the political spectrum are realizing that for-profit universities and media outlets are anything but 'independent,' despite what they might claim in press releases. That's driving a historic collapse in public trust for the media and higher education — and making it easier for Trump to divide and conquer what were once the nation's most-trusted safeguards of free expression and critical thought. It's hard to blame the 56 percent of Americans who have lost confidence in higher education as a positive force in our culture. After all, if the best-funded independent university in the world can't or won't defend itself against blatant Republican authoritarianism, what good is its alleged independence? From the beginning it's been clear that Harvard didn't actually violate any laws, but institutions seen as left-leaning by the MAGA movement don't need to do anything wrong to be targeted. Just ask Columbia University, which sent Trump a $221 million payoff after he threatened to cut off their federal funding, or Paramount, whose browbeaten executives gave Trump $16 million for airing news that offended him. But the size of Harvard's payment boggles the mind. Half a billion dollars. For what? Trump has deployed his claims of antisemitism on college campuses against any university that criticizes him, regardless of truth. If pressed in court, there was a strong chance Harvard would have emerged victorious and provided a framework for future university resistance to government extortion. Instead, they chose to pay up and avoid the headache. That those hefty payments were voluntary only strengthens Trump's bogus claim that those institutions knew they were doing something wrong. The American experiment is grounded in the founding myth that we can and should trust strong institutions to protect us from the turmoil of political passions and extremism. The Constitution was a triumph not because it was a compromise, but because that compromise favored a strong government of laws and institutions that were meant to outlast any single administration and any single lifetime. Our founders praised the free press and free academic inquiry as on par with free elections in safeguarding the republic. Some, including Pennsylvania's Dr. Benjamin Rush, Virginia's George Wythe and New Jersey's John Witherspoon, were themselves respected academics and classroom professors. They spoke with passion about protecting universities from federal pressure because they understood that the first act of an autocrat is to exert state control over the production of ideas. What's unfolding at Harvard represents perhaps their worst nightmare — an American president trampling the intellectual freedom of his own people. As Trump's pressure campaign against higher education shows, that threat is just as real today as it was when Rush used his academic post at the University of Pennsylvania to promote controversial ideas like the emerging science of vaccination. Prominent academics today are right to wonder whether their universities will stand behind them if their research angers the White House. The result will be a chilling effect that makes our country less intellectually dynamic and more susceptible to Trump's dangerous illiberalism. In the 160 years since the end of the Civil War, American institutions have largely fulfilled their job of protecting our republic by serving as vibrant, free spaces of intellectual thought, cultural criticism and political accountability. Harvard's massive concession to Trump is a sign that the long era of American academic independence is drawing to a close. The cost of freedom — academic or otherwise — is constant vigilance. Harvard gave up the perception of its independence without a fight. More serious universities should resist the urge to follow their humiliating lead.
New York Times
23-07-2025
- Politics
- New York Times
State Dept. Opens Investigation Into Harvard's Use of International Visas
The Trump administration has opened a new investigation into Harvard University's compliance with a government-run visa program for international students and professors, targeting the elite college with the third aggressive action since the two sides restarted talks to end their acrimonious dispute. Secretary of State Marco Rubio notified Dr. Alan M. Garber, the president of Harvard, of the investigation in a letter on Wednesday, according to a copy of the correspondence reviewed by The New York Times. Mr. Rubio did not refer to any specific allegation of wrongdoing and instead said the inquiry was necessary 'to assist the department in meeting its policy objectives.' The investigation targets the university's participation in the Exchange Visitor Program, which is designed to promote cultural and educational programs with visas for a variety of applicants, including students and professors as well as researchers, interns and au pairs. Mr. Rubio gave Harvard a one-week deadline to produce a lengthy list of university records related to the student visa program. He said the department plans to interview university staff associated with the program and also may want to speak with visa holders. A Harvard spokesman did not immediately comment. A State Department spokeswoman declined to comment. Officials from Harvard and the Trump administration have exchanged multiple offers since last month as they have explored a potential deal over the government's role in admissions, hiring and curriculum. The details of the negotiations remain unclear as talks continue. Since those talks started, the Education and Health and Human Services Departments opened a challenge to the university's accreditation, which could someday jeopardize the ability of Harvard students to receive federal student aid. And U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has served subpoenas to Harvard with sprawling demands that included payroll records, years of disciplinary files and any videos Harvard had of international students protesting on campus since 2020. Mr. Rubio has also become increasingly involved in President Trump's pressure campaign on Harvard and with the administration's campaign around higher education more broadly. Mr. Rubio has privately pressed for his counterparts at the Treasury Department to open an investigation into whether Harvard violated federal sanctions by collaborating on a health insurance conference in China that may have included officials blacklisted by the U.S. government. The State Department has started screening social media accounts of student visa applicants. Mr. Rubio has also stated that the State Department would target visas held by Chinese students, an initiative complicated by Mr. Trump's announcement that Chinese students are welcome to study in America as part of his trade deal with Beijing.
ABC News
22-07-2025
- Politics
- ABC News
Why Harvard University has taken the Trump administration to court over funding cuts
A battle between one of the world's most celebrated universities and the US government has been playing out in the public sphere. Now, Harvard University's fight to keep billions of dollars in government funding has made its way to court. So, why was Harvard's funding cut in the first place, and how did the tussle get to this? In March, the US Education Department formed a task force to look into antisemitism at public universities, as pro-Palestine protests about the war in Gaza popped up on campuses across the nation. The task force sent warnings to numerous universities, including Harvard, that they needed to do more to protect Jewish and Israeli students or they would face government punishment. Harvard rejected that warning and numerous follow-up demands from the department. "The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights," Harvard president Alan Garber said in April. The Trump administration responded by freezing $US2.6 billion ($3.98 billion) of federal grant funding to Harvard, a major hit to the university's medical and science research programs. The university sued the Trump administration over the freeze, calling it illegal. It claimed the government had overstepped in violation of America's right to free speech and that the research funding grants could not be reasonably connected to antisemitism. Title VI is the section under the Civil Rights Act (1964) that "prohibits discrimination based on race, colour, or national origin in programs or activities that receive federal financial assistance." The Act applies to various sectors that receive federal funding, such as hospitals, social services, and education. The Trump administration said Harvard and other universities have violated this act by failing to protect Jewish students from harassment. Harvard Magazine reports the university received $US686 million in federal research funding in 2024, about 11 per cent of its annual budget. Since the funding freeze, thousands of grants and contracts across multiple years have been cancelled. The grants supported a variety of different studies, including DNA research, sudden infant death, and dementia. Harvard has warned that the funding freeze could lead to the loss of research, the closing of labs, and damage to careers. Three Harvard researchers who lost their federal funding spoke about disruptions to the long-term impact of funding on cancer, cardiovascular diseases, and other health conditions. They said the cuts could force researchers to go overseas to work. "Unfortunately, the termination of this research work would mean the end of this progress and the implications are serious for the well-being of Americans and our children into the future," said Walter Willett, a Harvard professor of epidemiology and nutrition who lost grants that funded long-term studies of men's and women's health. "This is just one example of the arbitrary and capricious weaponisation of taxpayer money that is undermining the health of Americans." While Harvard was a big target for the Trump administration, the US Education Department has warned 60 universities that it could bring similar enforcement actions against them over antisemitism allegations. Some major universities already facing cuts include: According to the latest data from the National Center for Education Statistics, federal grant funding accounted for $US41 billion out of $500 billion in university revenue in 2023. Judge Allison Burroughs is overseeing this case. On the first day of the hearing, she questioned how the government could make "ad-hoc" decisions to cancel grants and do so without offering evidence that any of the research was antisemitic. At one point, she called the government's assertions "mind-boggling." She also argued the government had provided "no documentation, no procedure" to "suss out" whether Harvard administrators "have taken enough steps or haven't" to combat antisemitism. "I don't think you can justify a contract action based on impermissible suppression of speech. Where do I have that wrong?" Judge Burroughs is also overseeing another case involving Harvard and the Trump administration, where she has temporarily blocked Homeland's decision to revoke Harvard's Student and Exchange Visitor Program. In 2018, she presided over Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard University, which argued the school's admissions program was discriminatory against Asian Americans, ultimately finding in favour of Harvard. Steven Lehostky represented Harvard on day one of the hearing. He argued the case was about the government trying to control the "inner workings" of Harvard. "It's not about Harvard's conduct," he said. "It's about the government's conduct toward Harvard." Michael Velchik, himself a Harvard alumnus, represented the Trump administration on Monday. He said the Trump administration has the authority to cancel the grants after concluding the funding did not align with its priorities, namely Trump's executive order combating antisemitism. He argued Harvard allowed antisemitism to flourish at the university following the October 7, 2023, Hamas-led attacks on Israel, including protesters camped out on campus chanting antisemitic slogans as well as attacks on Jewish students. "Harvard claims the government is anti-Harvard. I reject that," Mr Velchik said. "The government is pro-Jewish students at Harvard. The government is pro-Jewish faculty at Harvard." Donald Trump pre-emptively posted on Truth Social, criticising Judge Burroughs and announcing plans to appeal. "The Harvard case was just tried in Massachusetts before an Obama appointed Judge," he wrote. "She is a TOTAL DISASTER, which I say even before hearing her Ruling. She has systematically taken over the various Harvard cases, and is an automatic "loss" for the People of our Country! "Harvard has $52 Billion Dollars sitting in the Bank, and yet they are anti-Semitic, anti-Christian, and anti-America." He questioned how "this Trump-hating Judge" was assigned to the case. "When she rules against us, we will IMMEDIATELY appeal, and WIN. Also, the Government will stop the practice of giving many Billions of Dollars to Harvard, much of which had been given without explanation." It is possible. Australia's special envoy to combat antisemitism, Jillian Segal, has recommended government withhold funding from universities that fail to reduce hatred against Jewish students. She plans to assess universities with a "report card" on their implementation of practices to combat antisemitism. Australian universities that fail to act and are found to engage in discriminatory or hateful speech risk having government funding withheld and grants terminated. Prime Minister Anthony Albanese welcomed the July 10 report, which is currently under review. ABC/Wires
Straits Times
15-07-2025
- Business
- Straits Times
Harvard clash with Trump, new tax may cost $1.28b a year
Find out what's new on ST website and app. The university said it will continue to cut expenditures, while a hiring freeze remains in place. WASHINGTON - Harvard University warned that the combined cost of federal actions against the school, including a recently passed tax increase on its endowment, could approach US$1 billion (S$1.28 billion) annually. The university said its leadership in each school and unit will continue to cut expenditures and a hiring freeze for faculty and staff remains in place, according to a letter sent out by president Alan Garber and other leaders on July 14. 'The unprecedented challenges we face have led to disruptive changes, painful layoffs, and ongoing uncertainty about the future,' Mr Garber and the officers wrote. The Trump administration has made Harvard its primary target in its efforts to reshape higher education, freezing more than US$2.6 billion in research funding , threatening its tax-exempt status and trying to stop international students from enrolling. The government initially accused the school of failing to tackle antisemitism , but the attack has broadened to include accusations of political bias and for promoting diversity initiatives in hiring and admissions. Harvard has sued the government twice, for cutting off federal funding including from the National Institutes of Health and National Science Foundation, and to prevent a ban on international students, who have been a large source of revenue. '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 officials wrote. Top stories Swipe. Select. Stay informed. Business 'Some cannot source outside China': S'pore firms' challenges and support needed amid US tariffs Multimedia From local to global: What made top news in Singapore over the last 180 years? World Trump arms Ukraine and threatens sanctions on countries that buy Russian oil Singapore Turning tragedy into advocacy: Woman finds new purpose after paralysis Opinion Sumiko at 61: Everything goes south when you age, changing your face from a triangle to a rectangle Sport World Aquatics C'ship women's 10km open water swimming event delayed by a day due to water quality Singapore HSA intensifies crackdown on vapes; young suspected Kpod peddlers nabbed in Bishan, Yishun Singapore Ex-cop charged after he allegedly went on MHA portal, unlawfully shared info with man 'As that work proceeds, we also need to prepare for the possibility that the lost revenues will not be restored anytime soon.' The school, the richest and oldest in the US, has a US$53 billion endowment which provides almost 40 per cent of its annual operating budget. In 2024, Harvard's operating revenue base was US$6.5 billion, according to its annual report. Operating expenses were US$6.4 billion after increasing 9 per cent. Harvard explained in the letter that the reconciliation bill passed in July could raise the federal tax on income from its endowment to as high as 8 per cent from 1.4 per cent. BLOOMBERG
Forbes
14-07-2025
- Business
- Forbes
Federal Actions Could Cost Harvard University $1 Billion Annually
Harvard University officials brace for more budget cuts as they announce that federal actions could ... More cost the university up to $1 billion annually. Harvard University officials warned the campus community on Monday that the combined impact of various federal policies and cutbacks could cost the institution as much as $1 billion annually. A 'Financial Stewardship Update' letter from Harvard President Alan M. Garber, Provost John F. Manning, Executive Vice President Meredith Weenick and Chief Financial Officer Ritu indicated that an updated budget plan for Fiscal Year 2026 would be released later this week and would 'build on steps initially announced in March." As part of those plans, Harvard will continue its university-wide hiring freeze for faculty and staff, 'with accommodations for extraordinary cases such as positions essential to fulfilling the terms of gift- or grant-funded projects.' In addition, each individual school and unit within the university will be expected to 'continue to reduce expenditures, streamline and simplify administrative processes, and make strategic, structural, and sustainable decisions that create greater financial capacity while accounting for distinctive priorities and needs.' The administrators cited four specific actions by the Trump administration that were contributing to its overall financial difficulties. While the letter indicated that Harvard officials hoped that the institution's ongoing 'legal challenges will reverse some of these federal actions and that our efforts to raise alternative sources of funding will be successful," it acknowledged at the same time that 'we also need to prepare for the possibility that the lost revenues will not be restored anytime soon." As an example of its attempt to maintain core aspects of its mission, the letter pointed to Harvard's allocation of 'substantial bridge funding, including the allocation of more than $250 million to a research continuity fund for FY25 and FY26.' However, in a signal that such contingency funding had its limits, the administrators wrote that 'additional steps are needed to address long-lasting declines in important sources of funding and increases in the costs of research and teaching.' Harvard has been locked into a highly publicized and protracted dispute with President Trump over various allegations and demands that federal officials have leveled against the university, including claims of antisemitism, complaints about its admissions practices and challenges to its institutional governance. While President Trump recently hinted that settlement talks with Harvard would probably soon lead to 'a deal' with the government, those negotiations appear to have hit some snags according to media accounts. In fact, pressure by the Trump administration on the university appears to be intensifying, with the governement threatening Harvard's accreditation and subpoenaing its records for 'relevant information' about international students. Harvard officials acknowledged that the university was facing 'disruptive changes, painful layoffs, and ongoing uncertainty about the future," while concluding that 'as we meet these challenges together, we will continue to benefit from our commitment to one another and the commitment of Harvard and every research university to serving the nation and the world through our core mission of teaching, learning, and research.'
