Harvard University is facing escalating political and financial pressure following its refusal to comply with a federal directive issued by the Trump administration. On April 14, Harvard President Alan Garber publicly stated that the university would not adhere to demands to audit faculty and students for “viewpoint diversity.” In response, the federal government froze $2.2 billion in multi-year grants and an additional $60 million in contracts, raising alarm within the academic community.
The conflict intensified when the administration requested that the Internal Revenue Service revoke Harvard’s tax-exempt status. If executed, the move would have far-reaching financial consequences. Harvard currently enjoys nonprofit benefits such as tax-free investment income and tax-deductible donations, which were valued at over $465 million in 2023. Losing this status would significantly impact the university’s ability to sustain financial aid programs, research initiatives, and innovation efforts.
Nonprofits risk losing their exemptions if they are found to be engaging in political activity or generating excessive income unrelated to their mission. Historical precedent for such revocations is rare, with one notable case being Bob Jones University, which lost its exemption in the 1980s due to discriminatory policies.
A spokesperson for Harvard insisted that there is no legal justification for stripping the university of its nonprofit classification. They warned that such an action would severely hinder the university’s capacity to fulfill its educational mission and would jeopardize the broader landscape of higher education in the United States.
Further complicating matters, the Department of Homeland Security has threatened to bar international students from enrolling through its Student and Exchange Visitor Program, administered by Immigration and Customs Enforcement. While international students represent more than 25% of Harvard’s student body, the university’s financial aid policies mitigate some of the economic risks associated with losing full-paying foreign enrollees.
Harvard has retained high-profile legal counsel, including attorneys from King & Spalding and Quinn Emanuel, who argue that the federal government’s actions violate First Amendment protections. Though Harvard possesses considerable resources to mount a legal challenge, its endowment is not a simple funding source that can be freely tapped. The unfolding conflict highlights not only political tensions but also the fragility of institutional autonomy under federal scrutiny.
READ MORE: