Wednesday Reads: Trump’s War on Harvard University

Good Morning!!

Memorial Hall, Harvard University

Today I’m going to focus on the Trump administration’s attacks on Harvard University. Obviously, Trump’s war on Harvard isn’t just about Harvard. It’s a war on higher education. If he succeeds in destroying Harvard, he will move on to other universities. Thank goodness Alan Garber, Harvard’s president is standing strong against the blatant attacks on academic research, international students, and freedom of speech.

Here’s the latest news in the Trump-Harvard battle:

The New York Times: Trump Intends to Cancel All Federal Funds Directed at Harvard.

The Trump administration is set to cancel the federal government’s remaining federal contracts with Harvard University — worth an estimated $100 million, according to a letter sent to federal agencies on Tuesday. The letter also instructs agencies to “find alternative vendors” for future services.

The additional planned cuts, outlined in a draft of the letter obtained by The New York Times, represented what an administration official called a complete severance of the government’s longstanding business relationship with Harvard.

The letter is the latest example of the Trump administration’s determination to bring Harvard — arguably the country’s most elite and culturally dominant university — to its knees, by undermining its financial health and global influence. Since last month, the administration has frozen about $3.2 billion in grants and contracts with Harvard. And it has tried to halt the university’s ability to enroll international students.

The latest letter, dated May 27 from the U.S. General Services Administration, was delivered Tuesday morning to federal agencies, according to an administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the official had not been authorized to discuss internal communications.

The letter instructs agencies to respond by June 6 with a list of contract cancellations. Any contracts for services deemed critical would not be immediately canceled but would be transitioned to other vendors, according to the letter, signed by Josh Gruenbaum, commissioner of the G.S.A.’s federal acquisition service, which is responsible for procuring government goods and services.

Contracts with about nine agencies would be affected, according to the administration official.

Examples of contracts that would be affected, according to a federal database, include a $49,858 National Institutes of Health contract to investigate the effects of coffee drinking and a $25,800 Homeland Security Department contract for senior executive training. Some of the Harvard contracts under review may have already been subject to “stop work” orders.

“Going forward, we also encourage your agency to seek alternative vendors for future services where you had previously considered Harvard,” the letter said.

It’s not just Harvard, of course.

Politico: Trump team pauses new student visa interviews as it weighs expanding social media vetting.

The Trump administration is weighing requiring all foreign students applying to study in the United States to undergo social media vetting — a significant expansion of previous such efforts, according to a cable obtained by POLITICO.

In preparation for such required vetting, the administration is ordering U.S. Embassies and consular sections to pause scheduling new interviews for such student visa applicants, according to the cable, dated Tuesday and signed by Secretary of State Marco Rubio.

If the administration carries out the plan, it could severely slow down student visa processing. It also could hurt many universities who rely heavily on foreign students to boost their financial coffers.

“Effective immediately, in preparation for an expansion of required social media screening and vetting, consular sections should not add any additional student or exchange visitor (F, M, and J) visa appointment capacity until further guidance is issued septel, which we anticipate in the coming days,” the cable states. (“Septel” is State Department shorthand for “separate telegram.”)

The administration had earlier imposed some social media screening requirements, but those were largely aimed at returning students who may have participated in protests against Israel’s actions in Gaza.

The cable doesn’t directly spell out what the future social media vetting would screen for, but it alludes to executive orders that are aimed at keeping out terrorists and battling antisemitism.

Many State Department officials have complained privately for months that past guidance — for, say, vetting students who may have participated in campus protests — has been vague. It’s unclear, for example, whether posting photos of a Palestinian flag on an X account could force a student to undergo additional scrutiny.

The administration has used a variety of rules to target universities, especially elite ones such as Harvard, that it sees as too liberal and accuses of allowing antisemitism to flourish on their campuses. At the same time, it is carrying out immigration crackdowns that have swept up a number of students….

The news was met with frustration in much of the higher education community.

NAFSA: Association of International Educators, a group that advocates for foreign students, decried the decision. The group’s CEO, Fanta Aw, said it unfairly cast aspersions on hardworking students.

“The idea that the embassies have the time, the capacity and taxpayer dollars are being spent this way is very problematic,” Aw said. “International students are not a threat to this country. If anything, they’re an incredible asset to this country.”

What is Trump’s supposed rationale for his attack on Harvard and high education?

The Boston Globe: Trump administration says Harvard funding cuts are punishment for ‘race discrimination.’

After a weekend of threats and criticism from President Trump, the federal government on Tuesday severed the last of its remaining business ties to Harvard University.

Josh Gruenbaum, a top official at the US General Services Administration, instructed all federal agencies to terminate any contracts with Harvard or transfer them to other vendors. He also said in a letter sent to federal procurement officials Tuesday that government agencies should refrain from awarding any new contracts to Harvard in the future….

Although the Trump administration’s original rationale for targeting Harvard was campus antisemitism, Gruenbaum’s letter Tuesday focused more on the government’s allegations that Harvard’s admissions and hiring practices violate antidiscrimination laws. For that reason, he said, Harvard should not be allowed to receive federal funding….

Gruenbaum’s letter laid out the government’s expanded justification for targeting Harvard. The university,the federal government alleges, systematically discriminates against white people, men, straight people, and, in some cases, Asian Americans.

“As fiduciaries to the taxpayer, the government has a duty to ensure that procurement dollars are directed to vendors and contractors who promote and champion principles of nondiscrimination and the national interest,” Gruenbaum wrote.

Harvard has denied the government’s allegations and sued the Trump administration. In two cases in federal court in Boston, Harvard’s lawyers argued the administration’s tactics violate federal laws and the Constitution and amount to illegal retaliation. Many lawyers, including some conservatives who share Trump’s critiques of universities, have agreed some of the Trump administration’s tactics appear to be illegal.

The administration’s letter on Tuesday accuses Harvard of discrimination in its admissions and hiring practices, as well as at the Harvard Law Review. Federal agencies have launched investigations on all of those subjects.

The Department of Justice is investigating whether Harvard’s admissions practices run afoul of a Supreme Court ban on affirmative action in college admissions. And the Department of Education and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission have launched an inquiry into alleged discrimination by Harvard against white people, Asian Americans, men, and heterosexuals in hiring and promotions.

The Trump administration is even suggesting there could be criminal investigations of university officials.

Greg Sargent at The New Republic: Trump’s Fury at Harvard Gets More Deranged—and Exposes a Big MAGA Scam.

President Donald Trump has mostly justified his lawless attempt to restrict international students from attending Harvard University by pretending it’s designed to root out the antisemites, woke radicals, and dangerous terrorists supposedly nesting in their ranks. Now, however, Trump has a new rationale: It’s all about helping young, aspiring Americans, particularly those in the working class.

“We have Americans who want to go there and to other places,” Trump told reporters over the weekend, adding angrily that many of Harvard’s international students are “bad” and are taking Americans’ slots: “They can’t go there because you have 31 percent foreign.”

Trump then tweeted:

I am considering taking Three Billion Dollars of Grant Money away from a very antisemitic Harvard, and giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!

Yeah, OK. If Trump really wants to facilitate the upward mobility of America’s working-class youth, here’s a better way to do it: Persuade his fellow Republicans in the House to drop their new budget’s changes to financial aid for higher education, which will restrict access to it for large numbers of working-class students, probably including many who want to attend—yup—trade schools.

With Trump’s fury at Harvard getting worse, this turn in the saga suggests another grotesque subtext to all of it: Telling working-class families that the real obstacle their kids face is zero-sum competition from foreign students makes it easier to take away resources previously appropriated to boost working-class kids to fund tax cuts for the rich.

What’s going on here?

Trump’s assault is a wildly unhinged abuse of power in every way. Last week, Trump revoked Harvard’s ability to host international students, due to Harvard’s alleged failure to share sufficient “information” about foreign students in response to an administration demand. That demand was itself absurdly intrusive, and seemed designed not to be met, creating a pretext for Trump to broaden his attack. The revocation appears wholly lawless, and after Harvard sued, a court blocked it within hours.

At this point, there’s no need to pretend there’s a genuine public-interest rationale at work here. Everyone knows it’s all about getting universities to surrender to flatter Trump, or about executing a broader hostile MAGA takeover of liberal institutions. For instance, in an article reporting that Trump is now nixing Harvard’s federal contracts on top of canceling billions in grants, The New York Times notes almost in passing that Trump wants to bring Harvard “to its knees,” as if this is unremarkable, when it should be depicted as the power-crazed ravings of a Mad King.

But there’s something particularly ghoulish about Trump’s suggestion that his blockade on international students is about helping American kids who are unfairly displaced by them.

That’s because the “big, beautiful bill” that House Republicans passed last week—which Trump has urged Senate Republicans to adopt—could make attending college harder for countless such kids. For a detailed summary of its changes, see this piece by The New Republic’s Monica Potts: They would make it harder for full-time students to qualify for Pell Grants, bump off large numbers of part-time students, and restrict access to the program and other financial assistance for higher education in numerous other ways.

Indeed, a coalition of education advocacy organizations estimates that the bill’s changes to Pell Grants alone could deprive as many as 700,000 people of eligibility entirely and hit many more with higher costs. As Potts summarizes, all this “takes an ax to one of the few reliable ladders for working-class people seeking higher education” as an “engine for social mobility.” These are mostly poorer and working-class students by definition, many with jobs or young kids of their own.

Trump’s attack on Harvard and higher education hurts Massachusetts, which is home to 114 colleges and universities.

Karen Miller at Boston Globe Magazine: Trump vs. Massachusetts: How one state represents everything the president despises.

In her State of the City address in March, Mayor Michelle Wu spoke about her then-2-month-old daughter. The world she entered was “not the world I expected or hoped for her,” Wu said. “I want her to grow up in the America that Paul Revere rode for, that Dr. King marched for, that my parents left home for.”

A few weeks later, as Paul Revere’s ride was reenacted and scores of redcoats lined up with muskets on the Lexington Battle Green, you didn’t have to look far to see signs that Massachusetts’ centuries-long revolutionary spirit was being threatened. Sprinkled through the crowd, posters read “No King! No Tyranny! Support the Rule of Law” and “In America, the Law is King.” [….]

Widener Library, Harvard University

Massachusetts may be uniquely positioned to suffer in President Trump’s second term. And not just because the president has slashed disaster aid, school funding, and health support for the Commonwealth. Or because he plans to withdraw clean energy support and undercut states with robust environmental laws.

Our economy is deeply reliant on elite colleges, elite hospitals, and the elite minds who come here from around the world. In Massachusetts — like it or not — we have built an economy on expertise, excellence, and education.

In the early 2000s, after graduating from high school outside of Chicago, Wu was drawn — like so many others — to the educational opportunities here. Her parents “didn’t know too much about America” when they arrived in the 1980s from Taiwan. She says that they, “like so many, held such a reverence for the institutions that in some ways symbolized the American dream for them. Harvard was one of them.”

Now, the magnets that have attracted talent to Massachusetts have become liabilities. “ Boston is at the center of many of the most targeted industries and communities,” Wu says. “And so we’re feeling it very much — very urgently.”

The mayor notes that the city is “trying to plan for unpredictability. And so our city budget this year includes preparations for worst-case scenarios.” Although Boston’s financial foundation is “quite strong,” Wu says, “we need to be prepared for immediate, significant impacts to federal funding or larger macroeconomic impacts.”

We’re living, she says, under “a cloud of chaos.”

The Boston Globe: ‘This is about more than Harvard’: Healey tells alumni as university faces down Trump.

If Trump succeeds in damaging Massachusetts, will other blue states be next?

NPR: As Trump targets elite schools, Harvard’s president says they should ‘stand firm.’

With elite U.S. universities in President Trump’s crosshairs, the leader of Harvard University says institutions need to double down on their “commitment to the good of the nation” and be firm in what they stand for.

The Trump administration, acting on its claims that Harvard has failed to stamp out antisemitism on campus, froze more than $2 billion in research grants and contracts in April and attempted to revoke the school’s ability to enroll international students last week. The university is suing the federal government for both actions.

Harvard President Alan Garber told Morning Edition that he finds the measures taken by Trump to be “perplexing.” While he acknowledges there is work to be done on campus, he said he struggles to see a link between funding freezes and fighting antisemitism.

“Why cut off research funding? Sure, it hurts Harvard, but it hurts the country because after all, the research funding is not a gift,” Garber said, adding that these dollars are awarded to efforts deemed “high-priority work” by the federal government….

As evidence of how his university’s work directly benefits the U.S. public, Garber points to recent honors awarded to Harvard faculty by the Breakthrough Prize, known as “The Oscars of Science,” for their work on obesity and diabetes drugs and gene editing, used to correct disease-causing genetic variations.

The Trump administration’s multi-billion dollar funding freeze came after Harvard refused demands to change policies around hiring and admissions, eliminate DEI programs, or screen international students who are “supportive of terrorism or anti-Semitism,” as the administration put it.

Read the entire interview at the NPR link.

Commentary on Trump’s attacks on Harvard:

Daniel Drezner at Drezner’s World: The Trump Administration Is Trying to Kill American Higher Education.

Recent readers may recall that I was in a bit of a funk last week because among other things “The [Trump] administration further escalated its war on Harvard in myriad ways. This is part and parcel of a wider war on higher education that will destroy American soft power, one of the country’s leading export sectors, and American economic productivity.”

Harvard Art Museum

Impressively, the situation on this front has gotten even worse in the last 24 hours….

…consider the complete set of federal actions taken against Harvard that the New York Times’ Michael C. Bender has compiled. It’s an extraordinary list of punitive actions given that the Trump administration has been in office for just a little over a third of a year.

Now, as a professor at the Fletcher School, a direct competitor of Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government, readers might wonder if I think there might be some competitive advantage that might be gained from Harvard’s misfortune. And the answer to this is “not really, no,” for two reasons.

The first is raw politics: Harvard is the most prestigious university in the United States. It has the deepest pockets. If the Trump administration can force Harvard to acquiesce to its demands, that capitulation will make it that much harder for other universities to protect academic freedom.

The second is that while Harvard might be receiving the brunt of the administration’s malignant attention, Trump’s team is taking other actions that will harm most U.S. universities.

Examples: Threats to investigate foreign students’ social media and ordering embassies to stop vetting visas for international students applicants.

This administration seems bound and determined to force U.S. students to pay higher tuition, because it keeps stripping away alternative sources of revenue. Between slashing federal research funding to record-low levels, raising the transaction costs of accepting foreign grants, and this freezing the visa processing of foreign students, the Trump administration is disincentivizing scientific research and forcing universities to rely increasingly on the tuition payments of domestic college students.

The end result will be a poorer, less dynamic economy and a less vibrant society. I wish the Atlantic’s Adam Serwer was being hyperbolic in this paragraph – but he isn’t:

“These various initiatives and policy changes are often regarded as discrete problems, but they comprise a unified assault. The Trump administration has launched a comprehensive attack on knowledge itself, a war against culture, history, and science. If this assault is successful, it will undermine Americans’ ability to comprehend the world around us. Like the inquisitors of old, who persecuted Galileo for daring to notice that the sun did not, in fact, revolve around the Earth, they believe that truth-seeking imperils their hold on power.”

Why are they doing it? Serwer attributes it to politics: “by destroying knowledge, Trumpists seek to make the country more amenable to their political domination, and to prevent meaningful democratic checks on their behavior.” I could proffer a variety of other ideological or political responses. As of now, however, such rationales are besides the point. The only thing I know for sure is that it’s not for the reasons proffered by the administration.

Read the rest at the Substack link.

Paul Krugman on his Substack: America Turns Its Back on the World.

My wife and I are co-authors of a widely used textbook on the principles of economics, which is revised on a three-year cycle. When a new edition comes out, I normally visit a number of schools that might adopt it, usually giving a big public talk, a smaller technical seminar, and spending some time with students and faculty. I enjoy it, by the way; there are a lot of good, interesting people in U.S. education, and not just in the high-prestige schools.

So it was that at one point I found myself visiting Texas Tech in Lubbock. Yes, it seemed pretty remote to someone who has spent almost his whole life in the Northeast Corridor, but as usual the overall experience was very positive. And it was also surprisingly cosmopolitan: there were students from many nations. I just checked the numbers, and currently 30 percent of Texas Tech’s graduate students are international.

So it is all across America. Our nation’s ability to attract foreigners to study here is one of our great strengths. Or maybe I should say was one of our strengths.

According to Politico, a cable from Marco Rubio, the secretary of state, has directed U.S. embassies and consulates to halt all processing of visa applications from foreigners hoping to study in the United States. This is reportedly a temporary measure in preparation for a new system in which would-be students will be screened on the basis of their social media history. And you can be sure that the criteria for denying entry will go far beyond, you know, advocating terrorism. Probably asking “Why was Trump talking to West Point grads about trophy wives?” will be grounds for rejection.

This completely insane policy move is presumably a temper tantrum in response to a court’s rejection of the administration’s attempt to prevent Harvard from admitting foreign students, which was in turn a temper tantrum in response to Harvard’s rejection of demands from Trumpists that they be allowed to dictate the university’s hiring and curriculum.

The courts will probably reject this policy move, too, but I worry that Rubio and co. can put enough sand in the gears of the visa process to bring the entry of international students to a near halt. And even if they can’t, the clear message to students that they aren’t welcome (and may be arrested once here) will have an immensely chilling effect.

It’s hard to overstate the self-destructiveness of this move, and the war on higher education in general. This is madness even in purely economic terms.

Read the rest at the link.

One more by Liz Dye at Public Notice: Trump’s attack on Harvard hampered by his inability to STFU.

The Trump administration would be getting slapped down in court even if the president and his minions didn’t constantly announce their intent to violate the law. But their incessant chest thumping does make things go a lot faster.

Case in point: the temporary restraining order barring the government from canceling student visas at Harvard University. The order was issued just hours after Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem revoked Harvard’s visa “privilege” for foreign students. The administration teed up the ruling by declaring that it intended to flagrantly violate the First Amendment. But they telegraphed their punch so thoroughly that Harvard’s lawyers had a 72-page complaint with 28 exhibits ready to be filed the second Noem announced the plan.

Trump Hates Harvard

Just hours after being sworn in, Trump signed an executive order instructing federal agencies to “identify up to nine potential civil compliance investigations” of civic, corporate, and academic institutions, including “institutions of higher education with endowments over 1 billion dollars” for their supposed “illegal discrimination.”

Lowell House, Harvard University

The EO was clearly an attack on the Ivy League, long targeted by conservatives as a bastion of “wokeness” that should be brought to heel. And Project 2025, with its “big idea” to seize control of the budget from Congress, provided Trump with a blueprint to wield federal tax dollars as a weapon against state governments and institutions.

Part of the plan was for Trump to unilaterally announce new “laws” via executive order, and, instead of asking courts to enforce them, leverage federal funds to punish anyone who resists.

And so the president simply declared DEI “illegal,” and used the widespread adoption of anti-discrimination policies by corporations and academia as a pretext to go after anyone he doesn’t like. But, as a federal judge noted last week when he blocked an attack on the law firm Jenner & Block, “the defendants point to no case holding such diversity initiatives illegal.” This is simply the executive branch inventing a new legal theory and demanding that everyone treat it as settled law.

Dye describes how Harvard fought back successfully in court.

On April 11, Harvard sued in federal court in Massachusetts, alleging that the funding cuts were an arbitrary and capricious agency action in violation the First Amendment, the Fifth Amendment’s due process clause, and the Constitution’s separation of powers. That case landed on Judge Allison Burroughs’s docket, and when the school sued again 10 days later over a further round of funding cuts, it designated the cases as “related,” ensuring that it, too, would be assigned to the Obama appointee.

Harvard docketed voluminous correspondence demonstrating that the Trump administration is using federal funds to both coerce the school into changing its speech, and retaliating against it for speech conservatives don’t like. For instance, a letter signed by representatives of the General Services Administration and the Departments of Education and Health and Human Services presented an “agreement in principle” demanding sweeping changes to all aspects of the university’s hiring, admissions, disciplinary, and curricular programs as a precondition of preserving the school’s federal funds.

“The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” the university wrote in response. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.”

That response was signed by longtime Republican lawyer Bill Burck, of the law firm Quinn Emanuel, and Robert Hur, the former special counsel tapped by Attorney General Bill Barr to investigate Joe Biden. (Burck was immediately fired by the Trump Organization as an ethics advisor.)

But Trump kept on making public threats and posting nonsense on social media.

Trump’s constant public screeds serve as potent evidence that the funding cuts are retaliatory, and any supposed DEI “crimes” are mere pretext.

On April 15, he suggested that Harvard “should lose its Tax Exempt Status and be Taxed as a Political Entity if it keeps pushing political, ideological, and terrorist inspired/supporting ‘Sickness?’” [….]

That’s an explicit attack on Harvard’s academic freedom, which is protected by the First Amendment. And he followed it up the next day by screeching that “Harvard is a JOKE, teaches Hate and Stupidity, and should no longer receive Federal Funds.” [….]

Secretary of Education Linda McMahon admitted in an interview with CNBC on May 7 that the administration is 100 percent targeting Harvard for disfavored speech.

“Are they vetting students who are coming in from outside of the country to make sure they’re not activists? Are they vetting professors that they’re hiring to make sure that they’re not teaching ideologies?” she said. “They’ve taken a very hard line, so we took a hard line back.”

All these comments — and so many more! — featured in Harvard’s lawsuits.

Please read the rest at Public Notice. It’s an excellent summary of what Trump has been doing and why it’s unlawful.

That’s all I have for you today. What’s on your mind?