Why is Trump targeting Harvard and other universities and what's at stake?

Harvard, Columbia, and over 60 other institutions are facing funding cuts, audits, and federal demands from the Trump administration in the name of combating antisemitism and ideological bias

The Trump administration has frozen more than $2.3 billion in federal funding to Harvard University, escalating a broader campaign against elite American universities — a move many regard as an attack on academic freedom. The decision, made by a Justice Department-backed antisemitism task force, marks the most aggressive action yet in a months-long effort to enforce ideological reforms across higher education.

Harvard is not alone. More than 60 institutions — from Columbia to Cornell, Princeton to the University of Pennsylvania — are facing federal investigations, funding suspensions, or intense scrutiny. The stated goal: crack down on antisemitism, restore “intellectual rigour,” and root out what the administration calls “ideological capture.”

 

 

The backlash has been swift. University leaders, civil liberties groups, and legal scholars argue the government is overreaching and weaponising civil rights law to impose political control on academia.

 

What triggered the funding freeze at Harvard? 

On April 14, 2025, the Education Department’s antisemitism task force — operating under the Justice Department’s civil rights division — announced it was suspending $2.2 billion in grants and $60 million in contracts to Harvard. The move followed the university’s refusal to comply with a series of sweeping federal demands.

 

Trump’s demands: Protest mask bans and merit-based admissions 

The demands, outlined in a five-page letter to Harvard President Alan Garber, included:

 

• Eliminating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) programmes

• Banning face coverings during campus protests
• Implementing merit-based hiring and admissions
• Cooperating fully with immigration enforcement
• Denying recognition to student groups accused of illegal activity or harassment
• Submitting to an external audit of departments suspected of ideological bias

 

A senior federal official told The New York Times: “The United States has invested in Harvard University’s operations because of the value to the country of scholarly discovery and academic excellence. But an investment is not an entitlement.”

 

President Garber responded sharply, calling the demands politically motivated and “an infringement on academic freedom.” Harvard’s legal team echoed the concern, stating that the federal action was unlawful and posed a serious threat to institutional autonomy.

 

Is this about antisemitism — or something bigger? 

While the administration insists the crackdown is based on civil rights enforcement, its scope has extended far beyond antisemitism. In practice, universities are being asked to overhaul hiring practices, protest policies, curriculum oversight, and immigration cooperation.

 

Administration officials have privately described the campaign as an effort to “topple” a major university and “recalibrate” the ideological balance in American academia, according to CNN.

 

Many targeted institutions are located in traditionally liberal states or Democratic strongholds. The list of federal demands frequently mirrors broader Republican policy goals: eliminating DEI programmes, limiting student protests, and promoting merit-based systems over affirmative action-style admissions.

 

Harvard has contended that while some demands address antisemitism, the majority constitute federal overreach into campus governance — including academic content and staffing. In a formal reply supported by two prominent law firms, the university framed the conflict as part of a wider effort to reshape higher education through executive authority.

 

The clash is rapidly becoming a rallying point against what critics describe as Trump’s heavy-handed approach to governance. Former President Barack Obama backed Harvard’s stance, calling it a model for defending academic independence. However, others warn the university may be exposing itself to considerable risk.

 

Trump’s war against ‘wokeism’ and DEI programmes 

Trump has launched what he describes as a ‘war’ on wokeism. In a speech delivered at the House of Representatives in March, the former President asserted that the United States would “no longer be woke”. He argued that professions such as doctors, accountants, lawyers, and air traffic controllers should see hiring and promotion decisions based on skills and competence, rather than on race or gender. 

He further remarked that wokeness had caused problems and was harmful, claiming that its removal had left the country feeling “so much better”. 

Throughout both his campaign trail and the initial weeks of his presidency, Trump held firm in his opposition to so-called woke ideology. He swiftly moved to dismantle a series of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives that had been embedded across educational institutions and various industries. 

The term 'woke' traces its origins to African American Vernacular English, noting its rise during the Black Lives Matter movement. By the end of 2024, however, it had also evolved into a term of derision used by some to criticise individuals viewed as left-leaning or overly politically correct.

 

Shortly after taking office, Trump signed an executive order aimed at reversing DEI policies introduced by his predecessor, Joe Biden. Since 2016, he has consistently supported campaigns opposing such frameworks in schools, businesses, and the military — many of which have been labelled by sections of the conservative public as discriminatory against white Americans. 

Among the most prominent DEI policies repealed during his second term is one titled “Ending Radical And Wasteful Government DEI Programs And Preferencing.” Another key order, “Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity,” is designed to discourage federal agencies from awarding contracts to companies that incorporate DEI principles.

 

Which universities are under the lens — and why? 

Various universities have come under scrutiny, with billions in federal funding at stake:

 

Harvard University

 

> Funding at stake: $9 billion

 

> Already cut: $2.3 billion

 

> Demands: External audits, faculty oversight, international student monitoring

 

> Response: Rejected demands; issued a $750 million bond to enhance financial flexibility

 

Columbia University

 

> Funding loss: $400 million

 

> Response: Complied with federal directives

 

> Changes made: Oversight of Middle Eastern studies, stricter protest rules, enhanced campus security

 

> Impact: Interim President Katrina Armstrong resigned in April

 

Brown University

 

> At risk: $510 million

 

> Reason: Alleged failure to address antisemitism

 

> Response: Not publicly disclosed

 

Cornell University

 

> At risk: $1 billion

 

> Response: No official comment; discussions ongoing with federal agencies

 

Northwestern University

 

> At risk: $790 million

 

> Response: University claims existing antisemitism measures were in place; officials expressed confusion at being targeted

 

University of Pennsylvania

 

> Funding suspended: $175 million

 

> Reason: A 2022 controversy involving a transgender athlete, not antisemitism

 

> Impact: Disruption to research in seven departments, including drug testing and quantum computing

 

Princeton University

 

> At risk: $210 million

 

> Response: “Dozens” of grants suspended; details emerging

 

Other universities under investigation:

 

Cornell and Johns Hopkins: Funding cuts or freezes reported

 

UC Berkeley, UCLA, NYU, USC, George Washington University: Currently under investigation

 

Over 60 institutions: Received warnings or are being probed for DEI initiatives or antisemitism-related complaints

 

What are the broader legal and political implications? 

Legal experts argue the administration is testing the limits of federal control over universities. Civil liberties organisations and academic bodies have filed lawsuits, asserting that Title VI of the Civil Rights Act — meant to prevent discrimination in federally funded institutions — is being used to advance political objectives.

 

One suit, filed by the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), calls the demands “an overt effort to punish disfavoured speech.” Other suits argue the administration is coercing institutions to make policy changes unrelated to antisemitism through funding threats.

 

What happens next? 

Despite growing legal challenges, the Trump administration shows no signs of slowing down. More than 60 universities remain under active review, and officials say they will continue using federal funding as leverage to push ideological reforms.

 

With billions of dollars at stake, institutions now face a stark choice: comply or risk severe financial strain. But behind the legal and financial battles lies a deeper ideological conflict — over whether American higher education should remain a space for open inquiry, or be reshaped by federal mandate.