Resistance in the Ivy League is Only Beginning
The emerging resistance, highlighted by Harvard's choice to decline multiple proposals from Trump this week, marks a significant shift from the situation a year prior.
TroibNews 
Leaders of the country’s most prestigious universities are focusing on a crucial message for their successors: resist, defend, and litigate.
They believe that approach is the only viable means to endure an administration intent on extracting significant concessions from educational institutions, which exceeds mere concerns about antisemitism. Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has made demands on these private colleges, including calls to end diversity programs, alter admissions standards, enhance student discipline measures, and audit specific academic departments.
The relentless scrutiny and public criticism directed at institutions like Columbia University and Harvard University have led many schools to recognize that the dynamics between academia and Washington have shifted fundamentally — and that change will come with costs.
This emerging resistance was evident in Harvard's recent rejection of several of Trump’s proposals, marking a distinct change from a year ago when universities seemed hesitant in their reactions to pro-Palestinian protests on campuses. Nonetheless, there are concerns about how long even the most affluent universities can withstand a White House and conservative movement fiercely intent on clashing with institutions easily labeled as elite, exclusive, and wealthy.
“Issues of antisemitism and other kinds of discrimination absolutely should be dealt with. But the way in which the government is using that… is really an abridgment of academic autonomy and that needs to be defended,” said former Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. “And I think the way you do that is to go to court.”
During Trump’s second term, his administration has penalized elite universities, claiming they have not sufficiently addressed campus antisemitism and have weaponized diversity initiatives. This has included cutting over $2 billion in federal funding to Harvard and at least $400 million to Columbia. In a bid to restore their funding, Columbia has agreed to put certain departments under the authority of a newly appointed senior vice provost, among other concessions. The administration is also reviewing or halting federal funding to other Ivy League and prominent institutions.
Bollinger has suggested that universities consider unified action and strengthen their positions in court. However, with significant turnover in Ivy League leadership, newer presidents may find it challenging to rally support from within their institutions to combat the federal government.
Following high-profile public pressure campaigns stemming from a congressional hearing on antisemitism, Harvard President Claudine Gay and Penn President Liz Magill stepped down, while Columbia has seen the resignations of Minouche Shafik and Katrina Armstrong in recent months. Michael Kotlikoff officially became Cornell’s president in March after serving as interim since July, and Yale President Peter Salovey stepped down in June, succeeded by Maurie McInnis in July.
Harvard has firmly resisted Trump’s demands, setting the stage for a potential clash over its funding. Meanwhile, Columbia opted to comply with the administration's demands, although their funds remain unreinstated. Former leaders from Harvard, Dartmouth College, and Columbia believe this approach will not be successful.
Some leaders are urging their institutions to assert themselves, while others advocate for a collective resistance. Although they agree on the necessity of addressing discrimination concerns in higher education, they emphasize the importance of upholding core values against external demands.
Faculty unions have taken a stand against the administration in court, and now university leaders may face their own legal challenges to safeguard their claims of academic freedom.
This week, Harvard President Alan Garber reiterated his commitment to resist Trump’s demands despite the potential loss of $9 billion in federal funding. Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber has similarly expressed his intent not to yield to the administration. Columbia’s interim president has hinted at reluctance to comply with any demands believed to infringe on university autonomy.
“The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Harvard’s lawyers conveyed to the Trump administration on Monday. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.”
Harvard's prompt response led the Trump administration to pull approximately $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts. Trump provocatively suggested in a social media post that the university should lose its tax-exempt status. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem subsequently canceled $2.7 million in grants to Harvard, demanding records related to "foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities" by April 30, or the university would risk losing the ability to enroll international students.
A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described institutions as not being as “respected as they used to be.” They added, “The president is trying to make higher education great again and bring it back to its core focus and mission, which is to be the leaders not just in America but in the world when it comes to academics, research, science, and developing the future.”
In a lengthy social media post after Harvard rebuffed his demands, Trump criticized the university, claiming it has been hiring “woke, Radical Left, idiots and ‘birdbrains’ who are only capable of teaching FAILURE to students and so-called ‘future leaders.’” He labeled Harvard a “JOKE,” stating it teaches “Hate and Stupidity,” and asserted that it should no longer receive federal funds.
A former president of Harvard believes the institution is well-prepared to confront Trump. With its approximately $53 billion endowment and influential alumni network, Harvard has the resources to stand firm against the administration to uphold its values, Larry Summers told a gathering of students and alumni last week.
“When you see systematic attacks on Congress's power of the purse through interference with funds,” Summers asserted, “and when you see demands to use entirely extralegal processes to micromanage under threat, unrelated to the process contained in law, what happens in great universities, I think it is the place of institutions like Harvard to respond vigorously and strongly.”
While he acknowledged that Harvard shouldn’t engage in national politics, Summers argued that the university's policy of neutrality should not obstruct its vigorous defense of its principles.
“Harvard shouldn't be endorsing a candidate for president. It shouldn't have an opinion on the budget deficit. It shouldn't have an opinion on the Ukraine war,” he elaborated. “It's not our place to be commenting on the political controversies of the day. It is our place to occupy a central role with respect to broad values issues that are central to our values as a university.”
Former Dartmouth College President Phil Hanlon indicated that past university leaders are vocal because they recognize the difficult position current presidents find themselves in. They are also committed to defending the longstanding partnership between higher education and the federal government, which has been vital to the nation’s competitive edge over decades.
“We understand that to break that partnership would be devastating to U.S. competitiveness,” he expressed. “Any kind of collective action to support that partnership or to make the case for its value is something I would certainly back.”
Jon Fansmith of the American Council on Education advised that schools should collaborate with the federal government if it is “using legal authorities to investigate legitimate cases of discrimination or other concerns,” as has been standard practice with previous administrations.
However, he argued that the administration's demands extend far beyond “anything related to preventing antisemitism.” The administration is targeting substantial funding for research initiatives addressing health issues like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease.
“Unfortunately for Columbia, their good faith efforts were not reciprocated by the Trump administration in equal good faith,” Fansmith said. “If you are at another campus and observe what happened, Columbia attempted to negotiate and funding was still not restored — just more demands piled on. You get to see…what's really at the heart of what the administration is doing.”
Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, confirmed that the university has yet to finalize an agreement with the Trump administration, but emphasized ongoing “good faith discussions” with the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. She asserted that the university will resist any “heavy-handed orchestration from the government” that dictates “what we teach, research, or who we hire.”
Mitchell Stevens, a professor at Stanford University, highlighted an “academic social contract” between universities and the federal government. In exchange for funding and support, universities are expected to contribute to the public good through research, education, and innovation.
Over the past 25 years, that relationship has evolved as skepticism has grown regarding whether elite universities are meeting the expectations of those who may never attend them. Institutions like Stanford, while not Ivy League, find themselves competing with other entities in the research arena, such as Microsoft and Amazon, which do not share the same tax benefits.
The Trump administration’s suggestion that these subsidies could vanish resonates strongly with voters who lack four-year degrees, Stevens noted.
“What universities are coming to terms with is the possibility that the federal government might be their foe, not their friend — that’s new,” he observed.
A significant challenge university leaders face is the potential impact of a diminished federal funding stream on their institutions.
“Harvard and Stanford and Columbia without federal subsidy is like metropolitan Phoenix without water from the Colorado River — it might survive, but it certainly wouldn’t be the same,” Stevens pointed out.
University leaders find themselves in uncharted territory and will need to navigate a new chapter in their relationship with the federal government.
“Sitting presidents are in a really difficult spot,” Hanlon remarked. “On one hand, they want to protect the core values of their institution. On the other, they witness peers being singled out for substantial funding reductions … I think those who understand the value of higher education in this country should speak out.”
James del Carmen for TROIB News
They believe that approach is the only viable means to endure an administration intent on extracting significant concessions from educational institutions, which exceeds mere concerns about antisemitism. Since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has made demands on these private colleges, including calls to end diversity programs, alter admissions standards, enhance student discipline measures, and audit specific academic departments.
The relentless scrutiny and public criticism directed at institutions like Columbia University and Harvard University have led many schools to recognize that the dynamics between academia and Washington have shifted fundamentally — and that change will come with costs.
This emerging resistance was evident in Harvard's recent rejection of several of Trump’s proposals, marking a distinct change from a year ago when universities seemed hesitant in their reactions to pro-Palestinian protests on campuses. Nonetheless, there are concerns about how long even the most affluent universities can withstand a White House and conservative movement fiercely intent on clashing with institutions easily labeled as elite, exclusive, and wealthy.
“Issues of antisemitism and other kinds of discrimination absolutely should be dealt with. But the way in which the government is using that… is really an abridgment of academic autonomy and that needs to be defended,” said former Columbia University President Lee Bollinger. “And I think the way you do that is to go to court.”
During Trump’s second term, his administration has penalized elite universities, claiming they have not sufficiently addressed campus antisemitism and have weaponized diversity initiatives. This has included cutting over $2 billion in federal funding to Harvard and at least $400 million to Columbia. In a bid to restore their funding, Columbia has agreed to put certain departments under the authority of a newly appointed senior vice provost, among other concessions. The administration is also reviewing or halting federal funding to other Ivy League and prominent institutions.
Bollinger has suggested that universities consider unified action and strengthen their positions in court. However, with significant turnover in Ivy League leadership, newer presidents may find it challenging to rally support from within their institutions to combat the federal government.
Following high-profile public pressure campaigns stemming from a congressional hearing on antisemitism, Harvard President Claudine Gay and Penn President Liz Magill stepped down, while Columbia has seen the resignations of Minouche Shafik and Katrina Armstrong in recent months. Michael Kotlikoff officially became Cornell’s president in March after serving as interim since July, and Yale President Peter Salovey stepped down in June, succeeded by Maurie McInnis in July.
Harvard has firmly resisted Trump’s demands, setting the stage for a potential clash over its funding. Meanwhile, Columbia opted to comply with the administration's demands, although their funds remain unreinstated. Former leaders from Harvard, Dartmouth College, and Columbia believe this approach will not be successful.
Some leaders are urging their institutions to assert themselves, while others advocate for a collective resistance. Although they agree on the necessity of addressing discrimination concerns in higher education, they emphasize the importance of upholding core values against external demands.
Faculty unions have taken a stand against the administration in court, and now university leaders may face their own legal challenges to safeguard their claims of academic freedom.
This week, Harvard President Alan Garber reiterated his commitment to resist Trump’s demands despite the potential loss of $9 billion in federal funding. Princeton President Christopher Eisgruber has similarly expressed his intent not to yield to the administration. Columbia’s interim president has hinted at reluctance to comply with any demands believed to infringe on university autonomy.
“The university will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights,” Harvard’s lawyers conveyed to the Trump administration on Monday. “Neither Harvard nor any other private university can allow itself to be taken over by the federal government.”
Harvard's prompt response led the Trump administration to pull approximately $2.2 billion in federal grants and $60 million in contracts. Trump provocatively suggested in a social media post that the university should lose its tax-exempt status. Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem subsequently canceled $2.7 million in grants to Harvard, demanding records related to "foreign student visa holders’ illegal and violent activities" by April 30, or the university would risk losing the ability to enroll international students.
A senior White House official, speaking on condition of anonymity, described institutions as not being as “respected as they used to be.” They added, “The president is trying to make higher education great again and bring it back to its core focus and mission, which is to be the leaders not just in America but in the world when it comes to academics, research, science, and developing the future.”
In a lengthy social media post after Harvard rebuffed his demands, Trump criticized the university, claiming it has been hiring “woke, Radical Left, idiots and ‘birdbrains’ who are only capable of teaching FAILURE to students and so-called ‘future leaders.’” He labeled Harvard a “JOKE,” stating it teaches “Hate and Stupidity,” and asserted that it should no longer receive federal funds.
A former president of Harvard believes the institution is well-prepared to confront Trump. With its approximately $53 billion endowment and influential alumni network, Harvard has the resources to stand firm against the administration to uphold its values, Larry Summers told a gathering of students and alumni last week.
“When you see systematic attacks on Congress's power of the purse through interference with funds,” Summers asserted, “and when you see demands to use entirely extralegal processes to micromanage under threat, unrelated to the process contained in law, what happens in great universities, I think it is the place of institutions like Harvard to respond vigorously and strongly.”
While he acknowledged that Harvard shouldn’t engage in national politics, Summers argued that the university's policy of neutrality should not obstruct its vigorous defense of its principles.
“Harvard shouldn't be endorsing a candidate for president. It shouldn't have an opinion on the budget deficit. It shouldn't have an opinion on the Ukraine war,” he elaborated. “It's not our place to be commenting on the political controversies of the day. It is our place to occupy a central role with respect to broad values issues that are central to our values as a university.”
Former Dartmouth College President Phil Hanlon indicated that past university leaders are vocal because they recognize the difficult position current presidents find themselves in. They are also committed to defending the longstanding partnership between higher education and the federal government, which has been vital to the nation’s competitive edge over decades.
“We understand that to break that partnership would be devastating to U.S. competitiveness,” he expressed. “Any kind of collective action to support that partnership or to make the case for its value is something I would certainly back.”
Jon Fansmith of the American Council on Education advised that schools should collaborate with the federal government if it is “using legal authorities to investigate legitimate cases of discrimination or other concerns,” as has been standard practice with previous administrations.
However, he argued that the administration's demands extend far beyond “anything related to preventing antisemitism.” The administration is targeting substantial funding for research initiatives addressing health issues like cancer, diabetes, and Alzheimer’s disease.
“Unfortunately for Columbia, their good faith efforts were not reciprocated by the Trump administration in equal good faith,” Fansmith said. “If you are at another campus and observe what happened, Columbia attempted to negotiate and funding was still not restored — just more demands piled on. You get to see…what's really at the heart of what the administration is doing.”
Columbia’s acting president, Claire Shipman, confirmed that the university has yet to finalize an agreement with the Trump administration, but emphasized ongoing “good faith discussions” with the Federal Task Force to Combat Antisemitism. She asserted that the university will resist any “heavy-handed orchestration from the government” that dictates “what we teach, research, or who we hire.”
Mitchell Stevens, a professor at Stanford University, highlighted an “academic social contract” between universities and the federal government. In exchange for funding and support, universities are expected to contribute to the public good through research, education, and innovation.
Over the past 25 years, that relationship has evolved as skepticism has grown regarding whether elite universities are meeting the expectations of those who may never attend them. Institutions like Stanford, while not Ivy League, find themselves competing with other entities in the research arena, such as Microsoft and Amazon, which do not share the same tax benefits.
The Trump administration’s suggestion that these subsidies could vanish resonates strongly with voters who lack four-year degrees, Stevens noted.
“What universities are coming to terms with is the possibility that the federal government might be their foe, not their friend — that’s new,” he observed.
A significant challenge university leaders face is the potential impact of a diminished federal funding stream on their institutions.
“Harvard and Stanford and Columbia without federal subsidy is like metropolitan Phoenix without water from the Colorado River — it might survive, but it certainly wouldn’t be the same,” Stevens pointed out.
University leaders find themselves in uncharted territory and will need to navigate a new chapter in their relationship with the federal government.
“Sitting presidents are in a really difficult spot,” Hanlon remarked. “On one hand, they want to protect the core values of their institution. On the other, they witness peers being singled out for substantial funding reductions … I think those who understand the value of higher education in this country should speak out.”
James del Carmen for TROIB News
