Federal Funding, Comprehensive Admissions Reform, and DEI Programs are on the Chopping Block
I recently blogged about the contentious relationship between President Donald Trump and Harvard University. President Trump has threatened to cut off funding to Harvard, and other universities, ostensibly because of the way they oversaw discrimination against Jews on campus during the recent 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 acted slowly, or not at all, to rein in discrimination on campus and threatening behavior violated their own “safe space” protection 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.
Cutting Federal Funding and Grants for Harvard
In late March, President Trump’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism announced a review of some $9 billion in federal funding to Harvard over what it claimed was a failure to protect Jewish students from antisemitism. The threats go further including interfering with the admissions process at Harvard, and other elite universities, threatening to end Harvard’s tax-exempt status, and even involvement in who should teach at the institution and what they can (should) teach. The latter addresses the administration’s disdain for diversity, equity and inclusion programs (DEI) and initiatives.
The Trump administration said it will cut off all future federal research grant funding to Harvard University, escalating government threats against the Ivy League institution after it rebuffed a sweeping set of federal demands seeking ideological changes to its programs and hiring. In a correspondence with the Trump administration, U.S. Education Secretary Linda McMahon accused Harvard of engaging in a systematic pattern of violating federal law. She said, the institution “should no longer seek GRANTS from the federal government, since none will be provided.”
In a public statement issued on May 6, 2025, a Harvard spokesperson said the university will “continue to defend against illegal government overreach aimed at stifling research and innovation that make Americans safer and more secure.”
Writing for Higher Ed Dive, Ben Unglesbee reports that:
“The Trump administration has called for the elimination of all Harvard’s diversity initiatives, increased scrutiny over student groups, academic program reviews, third-party audits of ‘viewpoint diversity’ of its community and faculty and potentially hiring and admissions changes to alter the ideological balance at the university.”
Harvard President Alan Garber rejected the demands, writing, “No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.”
The Trump administration responded by freezing over $2.2 billion in federal research funding. It also escalated its threats, raising the possibility of blocking Harvard’s ability to enroll international students and pulling the university’s nonprofit tax exemption status.
Harvard has since sued, arguing the funding freeze was unlawful and unconstitutional. In its statement, Harvard said that the administration’s demands of the university would “impose unprecedented and improper control over Harvard University and would have chilling implications for higher education.”
With the university being targeted by the Trump administration, nearly 90 faculty members have offered to take pay cuts to help support Harvard financially amid the funding uncertainty.
Support for Harvard
Writing for the Wall Street Journal, Roland Fryer, a professor of economics at Harvard, expresses support for Harvard in its position, saying that: “A university should defend itself against meddling in its internal affairs.” He rightly objects to the Trump administration’s involvement in the “governance and leadership structure” which can lead to:
- Empowering such factions on campus while disempowering others deemed more committed to activism than scholarship.
- Implementing new screening processes for international students “hostile to American values and institutions.”
- Commissioning an independent audit of the university’s “viewpoint diversity.”
- Admitting a “critical mass” of students with diverse ideologies.
- Abolishing any ideological litmus tests in its admissions and hiring, and
- Auditing programs and departments whose teachings “most fuel antisemitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.”
Harvard President Alan Garber released a statement in which he refused to surrender the university’s independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.
Tax-Exempt Status
President Trump has repeatedly threatened to revoke Harvard University’s tax-exempt status. As reported in The Conversation, Harvard President Garber says this would be “highly illegal.”
The Conversation asked Philip Hackney, a nonprofit law professor who previously worked in the office of the chief counsel of the IRS, and Brian Mittendorf, an expert on nonprofit accounting, to explain what it would take for the federal government to revoke a university’s tax-exempt status.
Before the IRS can do that, tax law requires that it first audit that charity and it’s illegal for U.S. presidents or other officials to force the IRS to conduct an audit or stop one that’s already begun. Even doing either of those things indirectly is a crime. The punishment can include fines and imprisonment.
The government has to find that the nonprofit’s operations have a “substantial nonexempt purpose.” That’s because these tax exemptions are provided only to organizations that are organized and operated primarily for educational purposes, religion or scientific research.
If, after completing that audit, the IRS determines that Harvard violated the rules, the IRS would have to send Harvard a proposed revocation letter. Harvard then would have 30 days to file an appeal with the IRS.
If the IRS Office of Appeals were to uphold the revocation, the IRS would send a revocation letter to Harvard. But Harvard would have the right to challenge that official revocation in court under Section 7428 of the tax code.
Comprehensive Admissions Reform
The Trump administration also wants “comprehensive admissions reform” at colleges and universities, which will affect Harvard University. 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 US$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 to Harvard University after freezing US$9 billion in funding, demanding that the university “adopt and implement merit-based admissions policies” and “cease all preferences based on race, color, ethnicity or national origin in admissions”.
In March 2025, 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.
Does Trump want to set the curriculum for any university receiving federal funds? I think it’s clear that he believes he has the right to do so as President, but this can have a chilling effect on academia.
Governing by Fiat Using Executive Orders
As I have previously blogged, President Trump is using executive orders to mold the very character and function of just about every institution that deals with the federal government in some way—directly or indirectly.
The scope of executive orders has stunned universities. While Trump pledged during his campaign to end DEI, it seems that few, if any, universities thought it would affect research grants and other funding, expecting the orders to deal mainly with discriminatory actions against students on campus. Many universities have spent years incorporating DEI practices, values and personnel into curriculum, hiring and research.
Among the executive orders recently issued, one directs federal agencies to end “equity-related” grants. Another would require universities to certify that they don’t run “programs promoting DEI that violate any applicable Federal antidiscrimination laws” when they get grants.
What Does AI Say?
Many of us refer to AI/ChatGPT in developing writings. I thought it might be instructive to do so for this blog. According to AI,
“In fiscal year 2024, Harvard University received approximately $686 million in federal funding, which accounted for about 68% of its total sponsored research revenue. This federal funding has supported a wide range of research activities, including cutting-edge research, academic excellence, innovation, and scholarship, ultimately contributing to advancements in various fields.
Federal funding is the largest source of support for research at Harvard, making up nearly 70% of its operating budget, according to the university, and supporting a wide range of research areas, including medical research, engineering, and scientific fields, ultimately contributing to groundbreaking discoveries and innovations. Harvard’s research activities supported by federal funding have also had a positive impact on the local economy by providing salaries and wages, purchasing from local businesses, and fostering new companies in the region, according to the Harvard Gazette.
Where Do We Go from Here?
It seems as though many of the issues addressed in my blog will be settled in the courts, a place Trump is quite familiar with. This is unfortunate because our institutions of higher education do good work with respect to research and other activities that rely on federal funding, and any attempt to stifle them could have long-term, unforeseen consequences including on America’s competitiveness in the global economy. [See my blog on tariffs for additional details].
I believe the motivation for Trump’s actions regarding federal funding for Harvard and other educational institutions are similar to those for tariffs and in other areas, where Trump decides first and then considers the consequences of his administration’s actions. From an ethical perspective, he has it backwards. The consequences should be carefully considered from a stakeholder perspective (i.e., institutions, students, faculty, local environment/employment, effect on society, betterments for society, and so on) first and before acting.
Trump seems to want to reorganize virtually every area of our lives. It’s true that there is waste and fraud in many government programs, and he should clean them up. There is, undoubtedly, discrimination in programs whether at institutions of higher learning or elsewhere that should be addressed, and there are other abuses to address. However, let’s not throw out the baby with the bath water as the saying goes.
Trump needs to learn the ethical lesson that the ends do not justify the means. The way Trump should go about deciding on what to do about the issues discussed in this blog are just as important—maybe even more so— than the outcome. This is because the outcome may be tainted if the stakeholders affected by his actions have not been given an opportunity to participate in the process.
It’s time for Congress to step up and fulfill its oversight responsibilities. Congress has the “power of the purse,” meaning it controls federal spending. This power is set forth in the Constitution, specifically in Article I, Section 9, Clause 7, which states that no money can be drawn from the Treasury except by law. This gives Congress the ability to tax, spend, and control how the government uses its funds.
Posted by Steven Mintz, aka Ethics Sage, on May 14, 2025. You can sign up for his newsletter and learn more about his activities at: https://www.stevenmintzethics.com/.