Trump says he's 'taking away' Harvard's tax exempt status

ABC News - May 2nd, 2025

President Donald Trump announced on Friday that he is 'taking away' Harvard University's tax-exempt status, declaring it 'what they deserve' on his Truth Social platform. This decision, prompted by Harvard's refusal to comply with the administration's demands regarding antisemitism and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies, is expected to encounter legal challenges. Harvard's president has expressed that such a move would be unlawful and detrimental to the university's educational mission. Along with this action, the administration has also frozen over $2.2 billion in federal funding to Harvard, escalating tensions between the institution and the government.

The revocation of Harvard's tax-exempt status could have significant implications for the university's financial health and its ability to fulfill its educational objectives. Such a measure may set a precedent for how educational institutions are treated under political pressure, particularly concerning their adherence to federal demands. The situation highlights ongoing conflicts between the Trump administration and higher education institutions over policy and governance, potentially affecting university operations nationwide. As this is a developing story, further updates are anticipated as legal proceedings unfold and both sides navigate the ramifications of this decision.

Donald Trump Legal Challenges Harvard University Antisemitism Diversity, Equity, And Inclusion (Dei) Federal Funding Freeze Higher Education Policy Tax Exempt Status

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

6.0

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article effectively covers a significant and timely issue involving President Trump's announcement about Harvard's tax-exempt status. It provides a basic overview of the situation, including both Trump's actions and Harvard's initial response. However, the article could benefit from more detailed sourcing, particularly direct quotes and expert opinions, to enhance accuracy and reliability. While the story is clear and engaging, it lacks depth in exploring the broader implications and potential legal challenges. Overall, the article is informative but would be strengthened by more comprehensive coverage of the key issues involved.

Accuracy

The story accurately reports President Trump's statement about revoking Harvard's tax-exempt status, which is corroborated by multiple sources. However, the claim about Harvard's president's response lacks direct quotes, making it less verifiable. The mention of legal challenges is speculative but reasonable given the context. The $2.2 billion funding freeze is supported by other reports, but the story doesn't detail the mechanism for revoking tax-exempt status, leaving some aspects unverified.

Balance

The story presents Trump's actions and Harvard's response, giving a basic view of both sides. However, it lacks depth in exploring Harvard's perspective or potential legal arguments. The article could benefit from more insights into the broader implications of such a decision, including potential impacts on other universities or educational policies.

Clarity

The article is generally clear and concise, presenting the main facts without unnecessary jargon. However, it could benefit from clearer explanations of complex issues, such as the implications of revoking tax-exempt status and the legal processes involved. The structure is logical, but additional context would enhance understanding.

Source quality

The article relies on Trump's Truth Social post and a statement attributed to Harvard's president. However, it lacks a variety of sources, such as legal experts or independent analysts, which would enhance the article's credibility. The absence of direct quotes from Harvard or legal experts weakens the reliability of the claims.

Transparency

The article does not clearly disclose its sources or the basis for some claims, such as the legal challenges or Harvard's specific arguments. It lacks transparency in explaining how the decision to revoke tax-exempt status would be implemented. More context about the legal and administrative processes involved would improve transparency.