Harvard tries to avoid Columbia’s fate as Trump targets elite campuses over antisemitism

Last week, Harvard’s Divinity School restructured its programmes after internal departures and criticism.

Harvard President Alan Garber has taken swift steps in recent weeks to shield his university from the Trump administration’s aggressive crackdown on elite campuses accused of fostering antisemitism and suppressing intellectual diversity. But despite dismissing controversial leaders, revamping programs, and distancing the school from a West Bank university, Harvard is now under a sweeping federal funding review - part of what critics call a politicized assault on academia, the Wall Street Journal has reported.

Harvard’s pre-emptive moves fail to ward off scrutiny

Garber’s administration attempted to get ahead of mounting scrutiny after Columbia University became the first elite campus to face the consequences of President Trump’s new federal oversight initiative. As Columbia agreed to sweeping changes after losing $400 million in grants, Garber made visible changes at Harvard - removing DEI requirements, forming antisemitism task forces, and restructuring sensitive programmes like its Center for Middle Eastern Studies.

Nonetheless, Harvard was formally named Monday in a White House-initiated review of nearly $9 billion in federal contracts and grants. The review could affect research funds spanning the university and Boston-area hospitals. Princeton University was also caught in the dragnet this week, with “several dozen” of its grants abruptly paused.

Trump’s campaign against ‘left-wing ideology’ in higher ed

The reviews are part of US President Donald Trump’s broader push to “defund” what his administration considers left-leaning, ideologically rigid campuses. The campaign has focused heavily on antisemitism allegations following student protests over the Gaza war, and also reflects a deeper suspicion of elite institutions’ influence and values.

The White House's task force on antisemitism, established in March, is now investigating at least 60 colleges and universities. Critics of the administration say the campaign conflates legitimate political speech and anti-Zionism with antisemitism in order to justify federal crackdowns.

US Vice President JD Vance had previously laid out this strategy in a 2021 speech, saying conservatives needed to “aggressively attack the universities in this country.”

Garber walks a fine line as pressure grows

Garber, who took office after Claudine Gay’s controversial departure, has worked to respond to both the Trump administration and internal critics. He has launched parallel initiatives to combat antisemitism and Islamophobia, dropped DEI mandates from hiring, and sought to broaden the range of perspectives on campus.

Last week, Harvard’s Divinity School restructured its programmes after internal departures and criticism. Its School of Public Health also cut ties with Birzeit University in the West Bank, a move cheered by conservative lawmakers but seen by some faculty as caving to political pressure.

Garber’s response has been cautious. In a letter to the campus after Monday’s announcement, he defended the school’s commitment to academic freedom and warned that funding cuts would threaten “lifesaving research and imperil important scientific research and innovation.”

Backlash from faculty: ‘Garber is caving’

Some faculty members view Garber’s actions as capitulation. In a letter to Harvard’s governing board, professors argued that free speech and academic independence are under threat. Political scientist Ryan Enos, who helped draft the letter, said Garber was yielding to an administration “that doesn’t care about antisemitism” but wants to undermine universities’ autonomy.

Still, Garber struck a personal tone in defending his commitment to fighting hate. “I have experienced antisemitism directly, even while serving as president,” he wrote, appealing to the need for inclusivity without compromising core institutional values.

The future of elite academia under Trump

The Harvard-Princeton developments suggest that Columbia was only the beginning. As Trump moves to reshape higher education through federal funding levers, elite campuses are being forced into a balancing act between compliance and resistance. Meanwhile, critics say the result could be a chilling effect on free speech and a narrowing of permissible discourse at American universities.

Whether Garber’s strategy will spare Harvard the full force of a federal crackdown remains unclear. What is certain is that the political battle over American higher education has entered a new and volatile phase.