Last month, a key adviser to Donald Trump proposed a strategy targeting America’s elite universities, which the former president has since been rigorously implementing. Leo Terrell, head of the newly established federal task force on combatting antisemitism, stated on Fox News the administration’s intention to “bankrupt these universities” by withdrawing federal funding if they did not comply. He cautioned that institutions should prepare for legal challenges, as the federal government would be pursuing action against them.
This aggressive stance marks a significant departure from previous federal interactions with higher education since Trump assumed office. On Wednesday evening, reports emerged that the Internal Revenue Service was directed to review Harvard University’s tax-exempt status, following Trump’s earlier threats. This move further escalates a conflict with the prestigious university.
Questions regarding Harvard’s tax status were routed through the White House to the IRS, which did not provide immediate comments. Trump’s primary contention is based on allegations that institutions such as Harvard inadequately protected Jewish students during campus protests following events in Gaza, triggered by a Hamas attack on October 7, 2023. The administration seeks to influence university policies on antisemitism, hiring, admissions, and promote “viewpoint diversity,” interpreted by some as a push toward conservative political alignment.
Education lawyer Scott Schneider, based in Austin, Texas, commented that the administration’s recent actions represent an unprecedented exertion of power over universities, describing the measures as “remarkably coercive.”
For Trump, a graduate of the University of Pennsylvania, this endeavor is part of his broader political agenda to challenge liberal institutions across the U.S. The campaign is reportedly influenced by Stephen Miller, Trump’s deputy chief of staff for policy, who aims to reshape the ideological landscape of universities, which he perceives as biased to the left.
Conservative students have expressed concerns about perceived liberal biases in university environments, a sentiment Miller has publicly shared since his own university days. In 2021, Miller established America First Legal, launching legal actions against what he considers “woke” entities, including educational institutions, on grounds of discriminatory policies.
U.S. Vice President JD Vance, a Yale Law School alumnus, similarly criticizes universities for promoting misleading ideologies, like critical race theory. This perspective is gaining traction within the Republican party, with figures like Elise Stefanik, a Harvard graduate and Republican congresswoman, advocating for the cessation of federal funding to such institutions.
The administration’s first major action involved New York’s Columbia University which, following the suspension of $400 million in federal funds, agreed to governance and disciplinary changes. Despite compliance, funding has not been reinstated, which some, like Michael Thaddeus of Columbia’s AAUP chapter, interpret as a punitive political maneuver rather than legitimate enforcement.
Harvard has resisted federal pressures to alter its admissions and hiring practices. The university’s defiance resulted in more than $2.2 billion in federal funds being frozen, alongside threats to revoke its tax-exempt status. Faculty members, such as Ryan Enos, a political scientist at Harvard, argue that the government’s demands starkly contrast American traditions of institutional independence.
The Trump administration’s invocation of antisemitism is seen by some as a strategy to bolster Republican support among Jewish communities, potentially reinforcing alignments with the party. Michael Hirschorn, a Harvard alumni, suggests this approach exploits a collective trauma for political gain.
If the issue progresses to court, legal experts believe Harvard may have a solid case, suggesting that demands for “viewpoint diversity” could conflict with First Amendment free speech rights. Education expert Adam Kissel notes the challenges in regulating classroom discourse without infringing on constitutional protections.
Regardless of judicial outcomes, the administration’s efforts may have already achieved a broader objective: challenging the perceived hegemony of Ivy League institutions over American societal attitudes. Beth Akers of the American Enterprise Institute reflects on a gradual decline in public confidence in universities, suggesting that the political climate could facilitate a shift in public sentiment.
