Harvard is about to get its clock cleaned by no-nonsense Trump & Co.

New York Post - Apr 26th, 2025

Harvard University is embroiled in a significant conflict with Donald Trump and his administration, following the freezing of $2.2 billion in federal aid. This drastic measure comes in response to Harvard's controversial policies on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), as well as its perceived insufficient efforts to combat antisemitism. Spurred by the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre of Israelis by Hamas and subsequent protests, Trump's administration, supported by a Republican Congress, is leveraging federal funds and threatening the university's tax-exempt status to enforce compliance. Harvard's president, Alan Garber, has initiated a lawsuit against the White House, garnering support from prominent figures like Barack Obama and Larry Summers, who frame the lawsuit as a stand for academic freedom against government overreach.

The implications of this standoff are significant, as Harvard's financial health is at stake. Despite a robust $53 billion endowment, much of it is tied up in illiquid investments such as private equity, making the $2 billion federal aid freeze a substantial financial challenge. The potential loss of tax-exempt status and increased taxation on endowment returns could exacerbate the university's financial strain. The controversy highlights the ongoing tensions between elite academic institutions and government authorities, reflecting broader cultural and political divides in the U.S. As Harvard navigates these challenges, its actions and outcomes will likely influence other universities facing similar pressures, thereby impacting the landscape of higher education in the country.

Donald Trump Barack Obama Harvard University Antisemitism Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion (Dei) Alan Garber Larry Summers Federal Aid Freeze

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a timely and engaging narrative about the conflict between Harvard University and the Trump administration over funding and policy issues. It touches on important topics such as academic freedom and antisemitism, which are of significant public interest. However, the article lacks balance and transparency, with a notable absence of diverse perspectives and clear sourcing. The narrative is somewhat sensational, which may detract from its clarity and accuracy. While the article has the potential to influence public opinion and provoke debate, its impact is limited by the lack of verifiable sources and balanced analysis. Overall, the article effectively captures attention and engages with current issues, but it falls short in providing a comprehensive and balanced examination of the situation.

Accuracy

The article makes several claims about Harvard's legal and financial challenges in response to the Trump administration's actions. The claim that Harvard is suing over a $2.2 billion funding freeze is accurate, as confirmed by sources. However, the article's assertion that Harvard will have to capitulate due to financial pressures lacks direct evidence and relies on speculative financial analysis. The claim about Columbia University's actions is not substantiated within the text, requiring additional verification. Overall, while the article contains accurate elements, it mixes verified facts with speculative assertions, impacting its overall accuracy score.

Balance

The article predominantly presents a perspective critical of Harvard and in support of the Trump administration's actions. It discusses the administration's motivations and potential impacts on Harvard but does not equally explore Harvard's perspective or the broader implications of such government actions on academic freedom. The inclusion of figures like Barack Obama and Larry Summers is mentioned, but their viewpoints are not deeply explored, leading to an imbalance in the representation of perspectives.

Clarity

The article is written in a direct and engaging style, but its structure could be improved for clarity. The narrative jumps between different topics, such as Harvard's finances, legal actions, and political implications, without clear transitions. The tone is somewhat sensational, which may detract from the clarity of the information being conveyed. However, the language used is generally accessible to a broad audience.

Source quality

The article does not cite specific sources or provide direct quotes from involved parties, which diminishes its source quality. The lack of attribution to official statements or documents, such as court filings or government announcements, weakens the credibility of the narrative. The absence of diverse sources or expert opinions further limits the reliability of the information presented.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its sourcing and methodology. It does not disclose the basis for its financial analysis of Harvard's endowment or the specific sources of its information about the Trump administration's plans. The article does not clarify whether the author has any potential conflicts of interest, nor does it provide sufficient context for understanding the broader implications of the claims made.