Harvard faces $2.2 billion freeze amid clash with Trump over antisemitism policy

Harvard University has become the focal point of a major dispute with the Trump administration after federal authorities froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and contracts. The decision, announced by the Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, follows Harvard’s refusal to comply with federal demands related to addressing campus antisemitism.

In its statement, the task force criticized Harvard for a "troubling entitlement mindset" and alleged the university had failed to uphold civil rights obligations expected of federally funded institutions. The group further cited “disruption of learning” and the “harassment of Jewish students,” calling these developments unacceptable within a learning environment.

Former President Barack Obama strongly defended Harvard, denouncing the federal move as an “unlawful and ham-handed attempt to stifle academic freedom.” He praised the university’s commitment to fostering intellectual inquiry and mutual respect and urged other institutions to follow Harvard’s example in resisting political interference in academic affairs.

Senator Bernie Sanders echoed Obama’s sentiments, condemning what he described as the Trump administration’s “authoritarianism.” Sanders criticized law firms supporting the administration, asserting they should instead be defending institutions upholding constitutional values. “Congratulations to Harvard for refusing to relinquish its constitutional rights... Other universities should follow their lead,” Sanders said.

The funding freeze applies to all Ivy League schools except the University of Pennsylvania and Dartmouth College. It stems from an ongoing federal investigation into anti-Israel protests across various campuses. While Harvard receives close to $9 billion in federal support, critics argue the funding cut could have a damaging impact on students, innovation, and the U.S. higher education system’s global leadership.

Harvard President Alan M. Garber voiced firm opposition to the administration’s demands, describing them as a veiled attempt to regulate the university’s intellectual environment. He confirmed that the university had declined the agreement through legal channels, reinforcing Harvard’s stance on academic autonomy and constitutional protections. Garber emphasized that preserving academic freedom is essential to democratic society and must not be compromised by political agendas.