by Jesse M. Fried
I’m happy to share my personal assessment of the Harvard vs. Trump standoff, and what it may mean for making progress on antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias at Harvard.
The Harvard administration has been deeply concerned about antisemitism and anti-Israeli bias on campus—in part because of what it learned reading the soon-to-be-released report of the Antisemitism Task Force (of which I am a member). The Harvard administration has been working diligently to address these problems since last summer and has taken several significant steps over the past month. Of course, much more remains to be done, and I believe the Harvard administration will continue to work on these issues, as well as seek to increase ideological balance on campus.
Enter the Trump administration. On April 3, the Trump administration sent Harvard a brief letter outlining its demands in very general terms. These demands included changing programs that “fuel antisemitic harassment” and adopting of merit-based admissions and hiring. The contents of that letter were leaked to Fox News and thus became public. Apparently, Harvard then privately requested additional details, which the Trump administration provided in a more extensive letter dated April 11. This second letter— which the Trump administration kept private—included over-reaching demands that Harvard could not reasonably accept, such as ceding indirect control of faculty hiring and firing to the federal government to increase intellectual diversity.
It appears the Trump administration never expected Harvard to agree to every demand (or even most demands) in the private April 11 letter. Rather, the letter seems to have been intended as a “term sheet,” a basis for behind-the-scenes negotiations toward a final settlement. However, Harvard chose to release the April 11 letter and publicly reject it. This move appeared to embarrass and anger the Trump administration, which responded by freezing federal funding to Harvard and taking additional punitive measures.
In dealing with Harvard, the Trump administration appears to have multiple and potentially conflicting objectives. There appears to be a “fix Harvard” faction that aims to combat antisemitism, dismantle DEI initiatives, and promote greater political viewpoint diversity—in short, to “make Harvard great again” from their perspective. There also appears to be a “trash Harvard” faction that sees elite universities as harmful and seeks to diminish their influence. The goals of the “fix Harvard” faction partially align with those of the Harvard administration.
On April 21, Harvard filed a lawsuit against the Trump administration seeking to halt the funding freeze. While I believe Harvard’s legal challenge is likely to succeed (eventually), the Trump administration has numerous ways to exert pressure on Harvard, including by obstructing student visas and future grants. As a result, I don’t see how Harvard can litigate its way to a lasting peace. So Harvard will likely end up negotiating some kind of deal with the federal government.
How will Harvard’s rebuke of the Trump administration, followed by the lawsuit, affect any such deal? It could help Harvard secure a better deal than would otherwise have been available. Or it could strengthen the “trash Harvard” faction in the Trump administration, potentially prolonging the conflict in ways that significantly damage the university in the long run.
Meanwhile, Harvard will continue working on its own reforms. President Garber’s decision to sue the Trump administration has made him a hero to almost all Harvard faculty—including faculty who had previously been critical of his leadership. This could provide him with the political capital needed to implement measures that some faculty might have otherwise tried to block. Thus, even if Harvard were to completely prevail over the Trump administration, Trump’s intervention may well increase the pace of change at Harvard.
About Jesse M. Fried
Jesse M. Fried is the William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law at Harvard Law School. From 2014-2024, he was the Dane Professor of Law. Before joining the Harvard faculty in 2009, Fried was a Professor of Law and Faculty Co-Director of the Berkeley Center for Law, Business and the Economy (BCLBE) at the University of California Berkeley. Fried has also been a visiting professor at Columbia University Law School, Duisenberg School of Finance, Hebrew University, Tel Aviv University, and Reichman University. He holds an A.B. and A.M in Economics from Harvard University, and a J.D. magna cum laude from Harvard Law School. His well-known book Pay without Performance: the Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation, co-authored with Lucian Bebchuk, has been widely acclaimed by both academics and practitioners and translated into Arabic, Chinese, Japanese, and Italian. Fried has served as a consultant and expert witness in litigation involving executive compensation and corporate governance issues. He also serves on the Research Advisory Council of proxy advisor Glass, Lewis & Co.