The Trump administration on Monday sought to force Harvard University back to the negotiating table by informing the nation’s oldest and wealthiest college that it would not be eligible for any new federal grants.
That decision was relayed in a contentious letter to Alan M. Garber, the president of Harvard, from Linda McMahon, the education secretary, who blasted the school for “disastrous mismanagement.”
“This letter is to inform you that Harvard should no longer seek grants from the federal government, since none will be provided,” Ms. McMahon wrote in the letter.
It was the first significant response from the administration since Harvard sued to challenge the government’s decision to cut billions of dollars in research funding after the university defied demands for intrusive oversight.
An Education Department official who briefed reporters about the letter before it was released said that Harvard’s eligibility for research grants depended on its ability to first address concerns about antisemitism on campus, policies that consider a student’s race, and complaints from the administration that the university has abandoned its pursuit of “academic excellence” while employing relatively few conservative faculty members.
In a statement on Monday night, a Harvard spokesperson said the letter showed the administration “doubling down on demands that would impose unprecedented and improper control over Harvard University and would have chilling implications for higher education.”
The statement suggested it would be illegal to withhold funds in the manner Ms. McMahon described.
“Harvard will continue to comply with the law, promote and encourage respect for viewpoint diversity, and combat antisemitism in our community,” the statement said. “Harvard will also continue to defend against illegal government overreach aimed at stifling research and innovation that make Americans safer and more secure.”
The statement maintained Harvard’s toughened posture toward the administration and came days after the university said there was “no legal basis” behind President Trump’s threat to revoke its tax-exempt status.
Ms. McMahon’s three-page letter, which deployed the use of all-capital letters to emphasize words, overflowed with familiar grievances from Mr. Trump and other conservative critics of Harvard. The missive said the college had “made a mockery of this country’s higher education system.” It accused the university of “ugly racism,” mentioned “humiliating plagiarism scandals” and lashed out at the university’s leadership.
“At its best, a university should fulfill the highest ideals of our nation, and enlighten the thousands of hopeful students who walk through its magnificent gates,” Ms. McMahon wrote. “But Harvard has betrayed its ideal.”
Beyond the tone of Ms. McMahon’s letter, the federal government’s threat on Monday suggested that the government was altering its tactics against elite universities. The administration’s first blows to top schools stripped existing grants from universities — a dramatic step but one that also raised the prospect of court challenges, especially given the haste of the funding cuts.
Harvard built its pending lawsuit against the government around both the First Amendment and the Administrative Procedure Act, which tightly restricts how federal agencies work, after the administration suspended more than $2 billion in funding with little warning.
But university leaders across the country have been privately fearing a more orderly attack on research funding that would be harder, though not necessarily impossible, to contest. A blanket ban on grant funding against Harvard, or any other specific school, could still invite litigation — but a deliberate process, some higher education officials believe, would be more difficult to resist in court.
Since returning to the White House, Mr. Trump has led an assault on the nation’s elite universities, which his administration sees as hostile to conservatives and intent on perpetuating liberalism.
No university in the country, though, is at greater odds with the government than Harvard.
Last month, the Trump administration sent Harvard a list of demands that included auditing professors for plagiarism, reporting to the federal government any international students accused of misconduct, and appointing an outside overseer to make sure that academic departments were “viewpoint diverse.”
The administration has said the letter containing those demands was sent by mistake, but the fight has continued to escalate. Harvard sued the administration, accusing the government of trying to wield “unprecedented and improper control.” Dr. Garber has said the consequences of the government’s actions would be “severe and long lasting.”
Under a system that has been a part of American life since around World War II, Harvard, like other top research institutions, relies on federal money to support many of its projects.
In the 2024 fiscal year, federally sponsored research dollars accounted for about 11 percent of Harvard’s revenues, or roughly $687 million. And although Harvard’s endowment is worth more than $53 billion, much of that money is restricted, limiting how the university may spend it. A lasting freeze on new grants could unleash financial havoc for Harvard, which has already been making contingency plans and looking to raise money through the bond markets.
Ms. McMahon made a point of mentioning Harvard’s wealth in her letter on Monday, describing the university’s endowment as a “head start” for an era without federal grant money.
Much of the endowment, she told Dr. Garber, was “made possible by the fact that you are living within the walls of, and benefiting from, the prosperity secured by the United States of America and its free-market system you teach your students to despise.”
