In early April 2025, the Trump Administration sent a letter to Harvard University’s President, Dr. Alan Garber. Trump’s letter demanded numerous institutional changes, threatening to revoke Harvard’s $2.3 billion in federal funding if they did not comply [1]. The letter touches on numerous hot-button issues—ranging from Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) to recent bouts of antisemitism on college campuses—and it proposes reforms that would drastically alter the administration and mission of the university. The nature of said reforms, however, prioritizes enforcing Trump’s political agenda over upholding constitutional principles in higher education. Such demands, if fulfilled, would reduce academic freedom on campuses. 

DEI

Among the first of Trump’s demands for the institution was identity-blind admissions practice. In early 2022, the Supreme Court ruled against Harvard in a case that effectively banned affirmative action in college admissions [2]. In a statement from then-Harvard President Lawrence Bacow, the university promised to comply with the ruling, but noted that it would continue to promote diversity by asking how identity has impacted an applicant’s life [3]. Other colleges and universities followed suit, replacing the spot where applicants would mark their race with what has become known as the “diversity essay carveout.” University of Chicago Law professor Sonja Starr reports that this essay is still a bid for colleges to understand an applicant’s race and maintain racial diversity [4]. Trump’s demands are based on this perceived defiance of the Supreme Court’s decision; even though the identity-blind admissions he asks for are already in place, he seems to oppose any mention of diversity within the admissions process altogether.

Secondly, Trump demands identity-blind hiring practices under the impression that DEI lowers the standards of performance of new hires. However, in practice, DEI hiring actually focuses on outreach for job postings and recruiters; organizations target a wider background of applicants, specifically reaching out to groups that are traditionally underrepresented in a given field. There is no reported lowering of standards to accommodate applicants from underrepresented backgrounds [6]. Even without the misrepresentation of DEI diluting the quality of hires, the issue is moot as Harvard has already eliminated diversity statements in hiring processes [7]. Trump’s demands for Harvard rely more heavily on enforcing abstract anti-DEI rhetoric than evaluation of the present state of Harvard’s hiring processes. 

Most critically, the last of Trump’s DEI demands contradict his previous statements. The letter sent to Harvard reads that “every department or field found to lack viewpoint diversity must be reformed by hiring a critical mass of new faculty within that department or field who will provide viewpoint diversity” [8]. By promoting inclusion of a variety of viewpoints, and specifically hiring individuals to maintain diversity among these categories, Trump himself advocates for DEI.

Antisemitism and International Students

A number of Trump’s policies center on recent pro-Palestinian demonstrations, the state of antisemitism on college campuses, and broader ties to international students. Firstly, Trump addresses international admission reforms, stating that the university must modify its admissions to make sure that students are not “hostile to … American values” [9]. The Common Application, which Harvard uses for admissions, already asks about criminal charges or any sort of federal conviction [10]. Trump’s demands, which are nebulous at best, are already addressed in the admissions process. Further, Trump demands that Harvard report any conduct violation to the Department of Homeland Security, a policy that is not in practice for any domestic student. Trump advocates higher scrutiny for international students, creating an unfair legal divide between peers.

In a specific address of antisemitism, Trump advocates for the hiring of an external party to oversee campus and shut down sources of Jewish hate. He states that the university must commission this party on its own, and that the federal government must deem the members competent. It is undoubtedly true that antisemitism is on the rise on college campuses. There were 1,854 incidents of antisemitism during the 2023-2024 school year alone [11]. Trump is correct in stating that Jewish students face a less-than-ideal political climate on current college campuses. However, imposing government oversight on private university operations is an overstep of power, violating Harvard’s First Amendment-protected academic independence.

Other Hot-Button Issues

Trump’s remaining demands center on hot-button issues, mostly addressing popular news stories and controversial liberal policies. For example, Former Harvard President Claudine Gay became notorious for her failure to overtly reject calls for violence against Jewish students in front of Congress [12]. During this discourse, concerns resurfaced over Gay’s previous incidents of plagiarism, as she allegedly copied other academic work verbatim without a citation. Though Harvard found that Gay did not actually engage in research misconduct, her failure to properly cite certain sources caused widespread indignation that contributed to her resignation [13].

In his administration’s letter to Harvard, Trump demanded that all employees be screened for plagiarism. Such a demand is an example of government overstep and violation of university policy. With Gay ousted, Trump fails to mention any grounds for such a wide-scale investigation in his letter [14].

In a similar vein, Trump stated that Harvard must enforce a mask ban with the risk of suspension. Trump failed to elaborate further on this claim or its basis. Some have worn masks at campus protests to conceal their identity or evade punishment [15]. However, masks are also critical for immunocompromised individuals to prevent contracting dangerous illnesses [16]. By rejecting masks as a whole without consideration for their non-political uses, Trump could endanger students’ well-being. 

Why Harvard?

Trump’s criticism of DEI in particular builds on a lengthy debate surrounding the role of identity in higher education, and particularly admissions practices. 

Universities have played a role in exacerbating this discourse, as concerns over “essay carveouts” and continued DEI practices anger the Trump Administration. Circumventing the Supreme Court’s decision may be technically legally justified, but it is emblematic of the growing ideological gap between the government and educational institutions. Columbia University, for example, has faced similar backlash, especially as they were the center of encampment-based protests for Palestine in 2024 [17]. Columbia, in a bid to save $400 million in federal funding, agreed to Trump’s proposed measures, including banning masks at protests and creating a new position for oversight of Middle Eastern Studies. The administration’s interim president conceded to many of Trump’s demands [18]. The numerous other universities that wish to maintain policies of diversity and inclusion find themselves at a crossroads, debating between giving in to Trump’s demands to prevent monetary loss or fighting to preserve academic freedom. 

Harvard’s decision to go to court with the Trump administration is not just personal, but cultural. The outcome of the case directly impacts academic freedom on campuses nationwide, and the precedent will make or break future restrictions on higher education by the Trump Administration.

The long debate on the role of government in higher education is blurry, especially as loopholes and “carveouts” arise with each new restriction, but it is becoming apparent that this debate may finally come to a head. Should Trump win the case against Harvard, the government and executive branch would have the power to shape how universities operate in an unprecedented way. As Harvard wrote in its response to the Trump Administration’s demands, such government intervention violates the First Amendment by restricting legal speech and action [19]. Allowing Trump to violate the Constitution would be a holistic failure of democracy and threaten other facets of American life. 

Trump’s demands for Harvard University stand on a shaky legal foundation, toeing the line of constitutional violation in more than one instance. Most strikingly, his demands threaten the state of academic freedom on Harvard’s campus as he infringes on the university’s First Amendment Rights. Curbing such violations of power and overstep is critical to stopping the tide of academic repression that plagues governance and universities today.