A Case of Government Overreach
I have previously blogged about the accomplishments and questionable actions by Donald Trump since assuming the office of President of the U.S. I did not tackle the question of the fairness of cutting federal funding to the elite and other universities because of the way they oversaw student behavior on campus towards Jewish and Muslim students in light of the war between Israel and Hamas. I did not look at threats to cut funding for these institutions because Trump doesn’t like what they are doing. I did not look at restraints on their admission processes. In this blog, I will address these issues in the context of providing federal contracts for research work.
Harvard University
President Trump has cut federal funding to quite a few universities because of the way they oversaw discrimination against Jews on campus during the protests against Israel in its war with Hamas. Many Jewish students reported not feeling safe on campus and even being blocked from going to classes. There is no justification for such behavior and those universities that didn’t react soon enough to rein in discrimination on campus and threatening behavior violated their own ‘safe space’ on campus. Safe spaces on college campuses create an environment where students feel secure and supported, especially for those who identify as marginalized, face discrimination, or are otherwise harassed on campus.
The reports examining the key issues at Harvard included accounts of both Jewish and Muslim students juggling profound grief over the deaths of loved ones in Gaza and Israel, coupled with fear for their safety and deep feelings of alienation and academic censorship on campus. They include several broad recommendations and policy changes for Harvard’s programs, admissions and academic programs. Alan Garber, President of the University, wrote in his letter that accompanies the report: “Some students reported being pushed by their peers to the periphery of campus life because of who they are or what they believe, eroding our shared sense of community in the process.” Time will tell whether these initiatives take hold and become part of the culture on campus.
The reports indicate that 92% of Muslims surveyed at the university said they believed they were likely to face academic or professional repercussions for expressing their opinions on anti-Muslim bias. Meanwhile, 61% of Jewish respondents felt they would face academic or professional repercussions for expressing their opinions. The report recommends an overhaul of how students report antisemitic behavior on campus, faculty training on the issue and curriculum changes.
It’s a bad idea for any president to threaten universities because they don’t like some of their actions. However, perhaps taking away federal contracts is the proper response.
Federal Contracts
Harvard University’s federal contract work with the government primarily focuses on conducting research in fields like medicine, science, and technology. This research is often supported by grants and contracts from the federal government, including agencies like the National Institutes of Health. The work aims to advance scientific knowledge and develop new technologies that benefit society. As such, it is potentially harmful to the interests of the public for the Trump administration to cancel these contracts.
Just a few days ago, the Trump administration asked federal agencies to cancel contracts with Harvard worth about $100 million. Additional funding had been previously restricted, and the government canceled more than $2.6 billion in federal research grants. A letter sent by the General Services Administration, which oversees contracting and real estate for the federal government, directed agencies to review contracts with the university and seek alternate arrangements.
Harvard President Garber has said the withdrawal of funding and removal of tax exempt status would be illegal “unless there is some reasoning that we have not been exposed to that would justify this dramatic move.” He went on to attack what could be an existential threat to Harvard and other universities similarly affected. Harvard filed a lawsuit arguing the government has violated the university’s constitutional rights by freezing billions of dollars in federal grants and contracts.
Comprehensive Admissions Reform
The Trump administration also wants “comprehensive admissions reform” at colleges. It’s unclear what that means or how it would be enforced, but pressure to avoid scrutiny could affect admissions practices, writes Liam Knox for Inside Higher Ed.
Last month the government cut $400 million in federal funding for Columbia University and sent a list of demands the university would have to meet to get it back. Among them: “deliver a plan for comprehensive admission reform.” The administration sent a similar letter last month to Harvard.
And in March the Department of Justice launched investigations into admissions practices at Stanford University and three University of California campuses, accusing them of defying the Supreme Court’s decision banning affirmative action in June 2023’s Students for Fair Admissions (SFFA) v Harvard.
A spokesperson for the U.S. Education Department did not respond to multiple questions from Inside Higher Ed, including a request to clarify what “comprehensive admission reform” means and what evidence the administration has that admissions decisions at Columbia and Harvard are not merit-based, or that they continue to consider race even after the SFFA ruling.
Columbia acquiesced to many of the Trump administration’s demands, but it’s not clear if admissions reform is one of those concessions. When asked, a Columbia spokesperson said that “at this moment” the university had nothing to add beyond the university’s March 21 letter to the administration. In that letter, Columbia officials wrote that they would “review our admissions procedures to ensure they reflect best practices,” adding that they’d “established an advisory group to analyze recent trends in enrollment and report to the President on concerns over discrimination against a particular group. Here again it boggles the mind that Columbia hasn’t been doing this all along.
Tax-Exempt Status
Trump’s comments came amid reports that administration officials have asked the IRS to revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status, which, if carried out, could hit the school with huge tax bills.
“I think Harvard’s a disgrace. I think what they did is a disgrace. They’re obviously antisemitic, and all of a sudden they’re starting to behave,” Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. “But tax-exempt status, I mean, it’s a privilege. It’s really a privilege.”
Tax exemptions reflect the recognition and encouragement of the valuable services that tax-exempt organizations provide to the community, such as education, healthcare, and social welfare. Some argue that denying tax-exempt status to organizations based on their views or activities could infringe upon their First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech and association.
“Such an unprecedented action would endanger our ability to carry out our educational mission,” a Harvard official said. “The unlawful use of this instrument more broadly would have grave consequences for the future of higher education in America.”
To make matters worse, this past week the State Department ordered U.S. embassies to temporarily stop scheduling new foreign student visa appointments, as the Trump administration works to expand social media screenings for applicants, the latest in a series of restrictions on international students.
In a cable dated Tuesday and obtained by CBS News, Secretary of State Marco Rubio instructed diplomatic posts not to add any more appointments for student and foreign exchange visas in preparation for the expanded vetting, and to take any unfilled appointments off their calendars. If students have already scheduled their visa interviews, those can still go forward. The pause will last “until further guidance is issued.”
Trump is shooting himself in the foot by threatening to restrict or eliminate visas for foreign students to attend U.S. universities. Many of these students’ graduate, remain in the U.S., and contribute significantly to the betterment of society.
Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 28, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.