In a tightly-worded Thursday letter to University President Alan M. Garber ’76, the Trump administration gave Harvard an ultimatum: eliminate diversity, equity, and inclusion programming, ban masks at protests, and accept a slew of other demands — or lose more than $8 billion in federal funding.

Harvard had seen the writing on the wall for months.

Even before Trump took office, Garber made six visits to Washington, D.C., meeting with roughly 40 members of Congress to navigate a hostile political environment. Days before Trump’s inauguration, Harvard retained a lobbying firm with deep ties to Trump’s inner circle.

But when Trump issued his ultimatum Thursday, three days after announcing roughly $9 billion in Harvard’s federal funding was under review, the University was roiled by internal unrest as faculty and administrators continued to debate its course of action.

Harvard had spent the past week taking steps seemingly designed to convince Washington it was reining in academic programs accused of spreading antisemitism. The University severed ties with a prominent Palestinian university, dismissed the directors of its Center for Middle Eastern Studies, and halted a Harvard Divinity School program focused on religion and conflict.

Even as some critics cheered, the backlash within Harvard’s gates was swift and fierce.

Less than two weeks after Columbia University bowed to demands from Trump in an attempt to win back $400 million in federal dollars, many Harvard affiliates saw the shakeups as a capitulation — and the University’s next move as a bellwether for the rest of higher education.

“It seems like Harvard is doing exactly what is demanded by our critics,” Government professor Ryan D. Enos said at a faculty meeting.

“Can Veritas be bought?” asked a sign held by demonstrators in Harvard Yard.

And former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers, typically no ally of student protesters, wrote an op-ed in the New York Times asking, “If Powerful Places Like Harvard Don’t Stand Up to Trump, Who Can?”

No Half Measures

So far, Harvard officials have tried to say they can protect the University’s independence while attempting to address the Trump administration’s concerns.

“The government has informed us that they are considering this action because they are concerned that the University has not fulfilled its obligations to curb and combat antisemitic harassment,” Garber wrote to University affiliates on Monday. “We fully embrace the important goal of combating antisemitism, one of the most insidious forms of bigotry.”

And in a Tuesday meeting, Faculty of Arts and Sciences Dean Hopi E. Hoekstra told the FAS that protecting academic freedom was a “red line” for her — but defended the decision to push out the CMES’ leaders, saying it was in the center’s own best interests.

Though the White House signaled in a Monday press release that it welcomed Harvard’s intervention at the CMES and decision to cut ties with Birzeit University, its Thursday letter introduced an entirely new set of demands.

As Harvard’s leaders decide their next steps, they may find it impossible to make their case to both the White House and an increasingly restive contingent of students and faculty.

Roughly 300 protesters gathered outside University Hall on Tuesday to protest what they called Harvard’s compliance with Trump. And a group of faculty told Hoekstra that the CMES dismissals were incompatible with Harvard’s commitment to academic freedom.

If Harvard were to dismantle its DEI offices or lay off staff en masse, the move would represent a clear about-face for Garber, who described diversity as a “critical enabler of learning” as recently as February.

A ban on the use of masks would draw challenges from student protesters, who have often concealed their faces, and could force the University to escalate its punishments.

Those steps would not go unnoticed by faculty, some of whom are suing Trump administration officials over attempts to deport pro-Palestine activists and cuts to diversity-related grants.

Even if Trump were to accept more limited concessions, the appearance of defeat would open Harvard up to harsh criticism from those who want it to oppose his agenda at every turn.

But attempts to stem campus outrage could jeopardize Harvard’s chances at preserving its access to federal funds.

When then-interim Columbia President Katrina A. Armstrong privately informed faculty that the university would only partially enforce a mask ban demanded by Trump, the White House quickly indicated that her words could mean a deal was off the table. Within days, Armstrong was out — and Columbia still did not have its funding back.

The Path Forward

Harvard may find itself walking a tightrope to keep the money flowing. But some prominent voices are calling on the University to reject the balancing act altogether — and emerge instead as academia’s anti-Trump standard-bearer.

More than 600 Harvard faculty members also expressed support for entering a legal battle against the White House, asking the University to “legally contest and refuse to comply with unlawful demands that threaten academic freedom and university self-governance” in a letter to Harvard’s governing boards.

Last month, Provost John Manning ’82 and Hoekstra privately told alumni donors that Harvard would be open to leading legal challenges against directives from Washington under certain circumstances. However, it remains unclear whether Manning, Hoekstra, and Garber believe the latest demands are significant enough to go to court. (A University spokesperson declined to comment Thursday night on whether Harvard planned to take legal action.)

A legal battle would likely prompt immediate retaliation from Trump — and potentially catastrophic funding cuts. But some who see Trump’s actions as a threat to academic freedom say that Harvard is well-positioned to take up the fight.

Summers urged Harvard to use its “financial resources, access to media, and great prestige” to mount a legal challenge against the White House’s funding directives.

“I hope it will avail itself of every legal remedy and challenge overbroad and excessively rapid applications of federal power so the right to regulate is not the right to extort,” said Summers, who added that he thought legal opposition should be accompanied by more robust efforts to fight antisemitism.

Judith R. Hope — a former member of the Harvard Corporation, the University’s highest governing body — said Harvard could spark a broader movement against Trump.

“There are others that are equally good, but there’s nothing with such a reputation as Harvard,” said Hope, who left the Corporation in 2000. “If Harvard stands tall, other people will say ‘Oh, okay, I could do that too.’”

“​​If Harvard won’t do it, who will do it?” she asked.

—Staff writer Dhruv T. Patel can be reached at dhruv.patel@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @dhruvtkpatel.

—Staff writer Grace E. Yoon can be reached at grace.yoon@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @graceunkyoon.