President Donald Trump is doubling down on his efforts to bring Harvard University to heel. The Wall Street Journal reported on Sunday that the Trump administration plans to slash another $1 billion in federal grants and contracts for health research to Harvard, on top of an existing $2.2 billion cut.
Trump’s actions may be seen as a response to Harvard’s unwillingness to yield to his influence. Citing two anonymous sources, the WSJ reported that the Trump administration saw the release as a breach of a confidential negotiation process.
In April, Trump threatened to freeze an additional $1 billion in federal health research funding to Harvard University. This follows a prior freeze of $2.2 billion in grants and contracts after Harvard resisted federal demands, including dismantling diversity programs and reporting foreign student activity. The actions are part of a broader campaign targeting elite universities, which the Trump administration accuses of promoting left-wing ideologies and tolerating antisemitism amid ongoing campus protests.
READ: Full list: Colleges and universities hit by Trump’s federal funding cuts (April 8, 2025)
Harvard President Alan Garber has stood firm, defending academic freedom and the university’s independence. Critics, including Massachusetts Governor Maura Healey, warn that these policies could severely impact scientific research and drive top talent overseas. Legal challenges are being prepared to contest the administration’s authority to enforce such measures. The funding freeze reflects growing political pressure on higher education institutions and could reshape the relationship between the federal government and major research universities in the U.S.
The new cut comes after Garber decided to publicly reject the revised — and more aggressive — set of demands that the White House issued to Harvard on April 15 as part of his message to Harvard affiliates on Monday. Garber’s rejection sparked the federal government’s first funding freeze.
The freeze on Harvard’s federal funding, along with the threat of further freezes, could have significant consequences for the university. Losing substantial research grants could hamper scientific progress and innovation, especially in fields reliant on government funding. The financial strain may also affect faculty recruitment and academic programs. Harvard’s resistance to these political pressures highlights its commitment to academic freedom, but ongoing conflicts may lead to long-term challenges. If these actions are sustained or expanded, they could set a precedent for future political interventions in higher education, reshaping the relationship between universities and the federal government.